Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jeff Kibble

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-04-23

103 words · 8 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to James Bezan (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his service to Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy and his great work in standing up for victims. I first met the member’s wife, Angel, who has also been a strong advocate of fighting for the survivors of military sexual trauma, when I was doing town halls across this country on military injuries, including military sexual trauma. Ever since then, she has been fighting for justice. After all of the committee hearings, the member and I and many others here have talked to veterans and current serving members across the country, and, particularly, the brave witnesses who stepped up at the national defence committee to look at Bill C-11 and lay out all their experiences. By the Liberals rejecting their testimony today in this debate, will that revictimize them knowing that the Liberals are brushing everything off?”

Statement grade

D+

Average 54 / 100

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

Greeting 16%Claims 33%Anecdote 12%Positioning 40%

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

Mr. Speaker, Greeting · 16 wordsI thank my colleague for all the amazing work he has done over the many years.Greeting Claims · 7 wordsSimply put, yes, it will retraumatize them.Unearned certainty Anecdote · 12 wordsI started receiving numerous phone calls last night. They came flooding in.Anecdote Claims · 27 wordsIt will retraumatize victims now and in the future. Simply put, the amendments that we have put forward would make this work.Vague promise The victims want the choice, Positioning · 41 wordsand we are supporting them based on fact, emotion and support. Clearly, a bill that would not address the majority of sexual assault cases and let them go unresolved would be a partisan decision that no sane human would vote for.PositioningUnearned certainty

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.
VagueMuch of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 30

5 of 8 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.

Greetings and pleasantries.What the tags mean “I thank my colleague for all the amazing work he has done over the many years.”A greeting: no claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “I started receiving numerous phone calls last night.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “They came flooding in.”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 “and we are supporting them based on fact, emotion and support.”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 “Clearly, a bill that would not address the majority of sexual assault cases and let them go unresolved would be a partisan decision that no sane human would vote for.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 8 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 · 31

3 of 8 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 “Simply put, yes”Asserts the outcome as settled with a formula instead of a source or evidence.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “would make this work”No actor, measure, date or success condition is given for how the amendments would work.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “Clearly”Uses a certainty marker in place of any source for the claim about the bill’s effect.

Claims · 0

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

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-09-16