Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Scott Anderson

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-04-23

111 words · 5 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Jean-Denis Garon (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the first allegations against General Vance came out in 2015. The Harper government gave him a promotion. This has been going on for over 10 years. It is now 2026. We got the reports from justices Arbour and Fish, and Justice Deschamps examined suggestions for legislative changes. However, in the bill before us today, the government has decided to ignore a major recommendation made by Justice Arbour, namely that a victim be given a choice between the military and civilian justice systems. When we asked the Liberals earlier why they ignored this amendment, which was not only discussed in good faith but also adopted by the committee, they simply replied that it is all well and good to work in good faith, but we cannot always get what we want. What does that say about what the government thinks of victims’ rights?”

Statement grade

C+

68 / 100, held down by Signal

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

Claims 39%Anecdote 31%Positioning 27%Reasoning 4%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 27 wordsthe Liberals have put to us that we should remove choice because victims are going to be too traumatized after an assault to actually make a choice. Anecdote · 34 wordsThis reminds me of the 19th-century idea that women became hysterical and really had to be directed and taught by men, because when they became hysterical, they were not capable of making good choices.Anecdote Positioning · 30 wordsI find that this is paternalistic and insulting to the women who are victims. Frankly, the Liberals are simply throwing out the Arbour report as if it concretizes their point, PositioningReasoning · 4 wordsbut it does not. Claims · 16 wordsIt tends to push people toward the civilian system, ¹but it does not make it mandatory.²

At a glance

Lost points for
Little substanceMuch of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 38

4 of 4 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.

A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “This reminds me of the 19th-century idea that women became hysterical and really had to be directed and taught by men,”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “because when they became hysterical, they were not capable of making good choices.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I find that this is paternalistic and insulting to the women who are victims.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Frankly, the Liberals are simply throwing out the Arbour report as if it concretizes their point,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 4 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.

Nothing lost points.

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

0 of 4 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.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 2

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“tends to push people toward the civilian system”The Arbour report on the military justice system recommends steering victims toward the civilian justice system.search
2“it does not make it mandatory”The Arbour report does not make the civilian justice system mandatory for victims of military offences.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16