Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Gary Anandasangaree

Liberal on Correctional Service of Canada 2026-10-07

100 words · 4 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Pierre Paul-Hus (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, federal corrections officers face assaults, makeshift weapons and drug overdoses on a daily basis, yet since October 1, patrol posts and other essential resources have been cut, endangering the safety and even the lives of penitentiary staff. The Minister of Public Safety visited Donnacona Institution and, rather than meeting with officers who are risking their lives, he chose to ask inmates if they were comfortable. Will this Liberal minister understand that his responsibility is also to protect the people who work in our prisons before coddling violent criminals?”

Statement grade

B–

Average 72 / 100

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

Positioning 11%Procedure 6%Claims 24%Thanks 29%Promise 30%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 11 wordsI am not sure where this member is contriving these allegations, Motive imputedProcedure · 6 wordsbut let me be very clear.Procedure Claims · 24 wordsAt every single correctional facility I visit, and I have visited a number of them, we have the union as part of our tours. Thanks · 29 wordsI very much engage with, and I am very grateful for, the frontline staff who put their lives on the front lines each and every day to protect Canadians.Thanks Promise · 30 wordsI will continue to work with the union as well as those who are serving on the front lines in order to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.Vague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
Personal attackThis statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “where this member is contriving these allegations”.
AnsweredOf this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 58

3 of 5 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “but let me be very clear.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I very much engage with,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “and I am very grateful for, the frontline staff who put their lives on the front lines each and every day to protect Canadians.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 5 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 question asked.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 79

1 of 5 deductions are Respect

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.

Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.What the tags mean “where this member is contriving these allegations”It attributes to the member the bad-faith act of inventing the allegations rather than addressing the substance.

Clarity · 50

1 of 5 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “I will continue to work with the union”A forward commitment with no measure, date, or success condition named.

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 2026-10-19