Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-04-23

123 words · 5 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to James Bezan (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, who has been a long-time member of the defence committee. She has heard from more veterans, I am sure, than Justice Arbour did in her hearings several years ago. There is a base in the member’s riding, and she is always advocating on behalf of members who serve, including the victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. The member has fought long and hard for victims and for the rights of women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard from many victims. Christine Wood said she “opposed the transfer of all cases to civilian court, and that was for three reasons: number one, it’s broken; number two, it offers victims no choice; and number three, I believe the CAF has to maintain control over its jurisdiction and demonstrate it can be responsible for fixing its own harms.” A veteran who served, who experienced sexual misconduct and deals with military sexual trauma, is saying she needs choice. Other victims have said the exact same thing. Why will the Liberals not listen?”

Statement grade

Average 94 / 100

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

Thanks 13%Claims 65%Reasoning 22%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 16 wordsI thank my hon. colleague, who does yeoman’s duty with different cases serving the armed forces.Thanks Claims · 5 wordsWe heard from many people, Reasoning · 20 wordsbut we need to listen to what the victims said that did not align with what is in the recommendations. Claims · 63 wordsIt is not fair to them, and it is not fair to accuse people who are named in a snitch line and then have to face a court. When a case is taken out of the military system, there is no support for the accused, and there is no guarantee that there is going to be any sense of justice for the victim, Reasoning · 7 wordsbecause their case may never be heard. Claims · 12 wordsThe Jordan framework may require that the case be put aside altogether.¹

At a glance

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

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 83

1 of 1 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I thank my hon. colleague, who does yeoman’s duty with different cases serving the armed forces.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 1 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 1 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 · 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“The Jordan framework may require that the case be put aside altogether.”Under the Supreme Court of Canada’s Jordan framework, criminal cases that exceed the prescribed delay ceilings may be stayed.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16