Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois on Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act 2026-10-30

188 words · 12 sentences · 15 clauses

Replying to Michael Cooper (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, on the question of mental illness and MAID, I sat on all of the special joint committees in this Parliament and in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament, 17 chairs of psychiatry wrote to the Minister of Justice calling on the minister to delay implementation of MAID where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. Today, if there is a consensus among experts, among psychiatrists, it is to not move ahead with this. On a question of life and death involving some of the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society, I would put it to the hon. member that moving ahead with this, lacking consensus among leading psychiatrists and other experts, would be reckless.”

Statement grade

30 / 100, held down by Reasoning

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

Positioning 22%Procedure 21%Claims 31%Reasoning 11%The ask 9%The question 6%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 30 wordsI could not disagree more. It would be reckless to not take care of these vulnerable people.No reason given We do agree on one thing, and that is on this very point.Positioning Procedure · 20 wordsI will quote a paragraph from one of the reports of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying: ProcedureClaims · 51 wordsWhile most of the details relating to advance requests fall to the provinces and territories since they are primarily responsible for healthcare, the Criminal Code would still need to be amended to allow advance requests, ¹and the committee supports amending the Criminal Code in that manner. The committee seemed to agree.Partly on point Positioning · 11 wordsI do not think that is what my colleague meant earlier.Positioning Procedure · 19 wordsI know these are sensitive issues. I would like to go back to my previous comments about political courage.Procedure Reasoning · 20 wordsWhat I mean by that is that we need to be proactive so that people are not forced to sue.No reason given The ask · 17 wordsWhy should we not collectively decide that the government should seek an opinion from the Supreme Court? The question · 12 wordsIf the bill passes in its current form, will it be constitutional?Off point Claims · 8 wordsWe in the Bloc do not think so.No reason given

At a glance

Lost points for
UnsupportedThis statement drew 3 conclusions but offered no reasons to support them.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 49

8 of 17 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 “I could not disagree more.”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 “It would be reckless to not take care of these vulnerable people.”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 “We do agree on one thing,”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 “and that is on this very point.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I will quote a paragraph from one of the reports of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying:”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I do not think that is what my colleague meant earlier.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I know these are sensitive issues.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I would like to go back to my previous comments about political courage.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 44

6 of 17 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 “While most of the details relating to advance requests fall to the provinces and territories since they are primarily responsible for healthcare, the Criminal Code would still need to be amended to allow advance requests,”The clause addresses the legislative need for amendment and provincial roles, which is tangential to the lack of medical consensus.
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 the committee supports amending the Criminal Code in that manner.”It reports on the committee’s support for the legislative framework rather than addressing the expert disagreement.
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 committee seemed to agree.”This is a summary statement about committee findings and does not engage with the point of expert consensus.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “What I mean by that is that we need to be proactive so that people are not forced to sue.”The clause speaks to the political need to avoid lawsuits, which is a procedural point unrelated to the medical consensus questioned.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Why should we not collectively decide that the government should seek an opinion from the Supreme Court?”The speaker proposes seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court, a procedural step distinct from the ethical consensus issue raised.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “If the bill passes in its current form, will it be constitutional?”The clause raises a question about the bill’s constitutionality, which is a legal rather than a consensus-based debate.

Reasoning · 0

3 of 17 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 “It would be reckless to not take care of these vulnerable people.”The verdict that inaction would be reckless stands alone as a counter-assertion to the member’s point, with no ground offered for it.
A conclusion stated with no reason given for it.What the tags mean “What I mean by that is that we need to be proactive so that people are not forced to sue.”The call for proactivity is presented as an explanation of what political courage means, without any fact or risk that shows lawsuits would follow inaction.
A conclusion stated with no reason given for it.What the tags mean “We in the Bloc do not think so.”The doubt about constitutionality is asserted with no legal ground or argument offered anywhere in the statement.

Conclusions found · 3

Conclusion“It would be reckless to not take care of these vulnerable people.”

BecauseNo reason given

No reason givenThe verdict that inaction would be reckless stands alone as a counter-assertion to the member’s point, with no ground offered for it.
Conclusion“What I mean by that is that we need to be proactive so that people are not forced to sue.”

BecauseNo reason given

No reason givenThe call for proactivity is presented as an explanation of what political courage means, without any fact or risk that shows lawsuits would follow inaction.
Conclusion“We in the Bloc do not think so.”

BecauseNo reason given

No reason givenThe doubt about constitutionality is asserted with no legal ground or argument offered anywhere in the statement.

Respect · 100

0 of 17 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 · 100

0 of 17 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 Criminal Code would still need to be amended to allow advance requests”The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying reported that the Criminal Code would still need to be amended to allow advance requests.search

Analysed on 2026-10-31