Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Tim Watchorn

Liberal on Government Orders 2026-04-23

130 words · 7 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. It is important to take an interest in what we are debating here in the House. While my colleague may take an interest in the debates here in the House, he is not, to my knowledge, a member of the committee that studied this bill. He can correct me if I am wrong. The committee members worked very hard on this. Bloc Québécois and Conservative members proposed amendments that came back to the House. It was not the first time that happened. I think we have seen that with other bills in the past. The government says it wants to collaborate, but it just dismisses the committee’s constructive work once the bill comes back to the House. This does not bode well for the future when the governing party has a majority in committees. Is this how it is going to be from now on, or will there be genuine collaboration? I have my doubts.”

Statement grade

A+

Average 100 / 100

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

Claims 92%Reasoning 8%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 120 wordsI am happy to correct my colleague. I have sat on the Standing Committee on National Defence since I was elected, ¹and I am happy to do so. I sat in on all the testimony that was given in connection with the study of Bill C‑11. Some witnesses did say that they would rather have a choice, but the vast majority of witnesses said that they did not trust the military justice system, that they were not convinced that investigations would be carried out properly within the military system and that they chose the civilian system. This has been in place since 2022.² All the criminal cases of sexual abuse are already before the civilian courts.³ It works very well, Reasoning · 10 wordsand we do not see the point of going backwards.

At a glance

AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Relevance · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

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 · 100

Nothing lost points on Clarity.

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

Claims · 3

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“I have sat on the Standing Committee on National Defence since I was elected”Tim Watchorn has been a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence since he was elected as an MP.search
2“This has been in place since 2022.”The policy of having criminal cases of sexual abuse in the Canadian Armed Forces handled by civilian courts has been in place since 2022.search
3“All the criminal cases of sexual abuse are already before the civilian courts.”All criminal sexual offence cases involving the Canadian Armed Forces are currently being heard in civilian courts rather than the military justice system.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16