Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Tim Watchorn

Liberal on Government Orders 2026-04-23

75 words · 6 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Cathay Wagantall (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, having listened to and read a lot of the testimony, that what the member just mentioned about the concerns of one of those witnesses is absolutely true. At the same time, Donna Van Leusden said, “For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none.” She goes on to indicate that it should not be an either-or but a both-and. We know that victims come with different perspectives. What the government has done is chosen what is best, most applicable and appreciated by itself and the Canadian Armed Forces. It removes it from the very place where the issues are being done. They—”

Statement grade

C+

66 / 100, held down by Relevance

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Claims 100%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 75 wordsto answer my colleague, Justice Arbour interviewed 14,000 people and most of them did not want these cases to remain in the military system.¹ The trust is not there. A change in culture is happening slowly. We hear that things are improving at the Department of National Defence, Unearned certaintybut they have not yet improved enough. Victims still fear retaliation. They fear being reprimanded, and they fear that their case will not be dealt with appropriately.Off point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 7 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 36

6 of 7 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the point put to the member, and the bill under debate.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “A change in culture is happening slowly.”Comment on the slow pace of cultural change does not address why survivors’ options were removed.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We hear that things are improving at the Department of National Defence,”General remarks about improvement at National Defence answer a different point than the one raised.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “but they have not yet improved enough.”A statement that improvements are insufficient is not a response to the question about survivors’ options.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Victims still fear retaliation.”Victims’ fear of retaliation is related but not the question asked about the bill removing options.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “They fear being reprimanded,”Fears about reprimand do not address the question or the bill’s provision at issue.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and they fear that their case will not be dealt with appropriately.”Fears about case handling speak to the system generally, not the question about removal of options.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Clarity · 81

1 of 7 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “We hear that things are improving”Improvement is asserted through hearsay with no named source or measure a reader could check.

Claims · 1

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“Justice Arbour interviewed 14,000 people”In her external review, former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour interviewed 14,000 people.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16