Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Costas Menegakis

Conservative on Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act 2026-10-30

128 words · 4 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Yves Perron (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that medical assistance in dying must be properly regulated. Everyone agrees on that. It must not be administered haphazardly, regardless of the circumstances. However, most of the conditions that this federal legislation seeks to establish are related to health care, and health care falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. Does my colleague agree that the federal framework should allow for the provision of medical assistance in dying under the Criminal Code and leave it to the provinces and Quebec to then define the details?”

Statement grade

B–

71 / 100, held down by Relevance

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

Reasoning 70%Claims 22%Positioning 8%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 49 wordsit is a slippery slope when we start passing on our responsibility as federal legislators and including more and more legislative bodies across the country to have the provinces to weigh in and have jurisdiction over something as important as this, especially the specific details of this particular legislation. Claims · 28 wordsWe have seen other matters of jurisdiction across the country that have been disseminated down to the provinces, and we have seen how that has not worked effectively.Partly on point Positioning · 10 wordsThis is something of profound moral interest to all Canadians, PositioningOff pointUnearned certaintyReasoning · 41 wordsand I do not believe in including provinces, giving them additional responsibilities and having them weigh in on this without clear federal oversight. The things that need to be addressed in this particular legislation should be passed on to the provinces.Partly on pointNo reason given

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 89

1 of 9 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “This is something of profound moral interest to all Canadians,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 41

6 of 9 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.

Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “it is a slippery slope when we start passing on our responsibility as federal legislators and including more and more legislative bodies across the country to have the provinces to weigh in and have jurisdiction over something as important as this, especially the specific details of this particular legislation.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “We have seen other matters of jurisdiction across the country that have been disseminated down to the provinces,”This clause provides general context about the decentralization of jurisdiction without focusing on the MAID Act.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “and we have seen how that has not worked effectively.”The clause offers a general observation about the effectiveness of delegating jurisdiction to the provinces.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “This is something of profound moral interest to all Canadians,”This clause addresses the moral significance of the issue generally rather than the question of jurisdiction.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “and I do not believe in including provinces, giving them additional responsibilities and having them weigh in on this without clear federal oversight.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “The things that need to be addressed in this particular legislation should be passed on to the provinces.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.

Reasoning · 53

1 of 9 deductions are Reasoning

Reasoning checks for sound logic and solid support for any conclusion. A low score means the speaker made unsupported leaps or used weak arguments.

A conclusion stated with no reason given for it.What the tags mean “The things that need to be addressed in this particular legislation should be passed on to the provinces.”The speaker asserts that the legislative matters should become provincial responsibilities but gives no grounds to support this claim.

Conclusions found · 1

Conclusion“The things that need to be addressed in this particular legislation should be passed on to the provinces.”

BecauseNo reason given

No reason givenThe speaker asserts that the legislative matters should become provincial responsibilities but gives no grounds to support this claim.

Respect · 100

0 of 9 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.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 89

1 of 9 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 “This is something of profound moral interest to all Canadians”The speaker asserts a shared moral consensus without providing evidence or a source for that universal belief.

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 2026-10-31