Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-05-04

523 words · 23 sentences · 37 clauses

Replying to Tamara Jansen (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, a country that cannot keep its streets safe is a country that is totally losing control of its future. What is happening in my community of Surrey and Cloverdale should be a warning to every member of the House. Quiet neighbourhoods are being hit by gunfire. Families are wondering whether they are safe in their own homes, and businesses are being threatened. The rule of law is being challenged in broad daylight. This is not inevitable, but if we do not act with seriousness and resolve, organized crime will continue to test the limits of our justice system and intimidate law-abiding Canadians in their own communities. Let us begin with what happened just last week. In the residential neighbourhood of Sullivan, shots were fired into a vehicle. One 25-year-old man was killed and another was seriously injured. Investigators have confirmed that it was a targeted act tied to the ongoing B.C. gang conflict. This is a neighbourhood where I door knock regularly. It is the second gang execution there in a month. What is most troubling is not the violence itself, but the facts around it. In late April, Surrey police confirmed that officers from the gang unit had been reassigned to deal with a surge in extortion. When organized crime required focused and sustained pressure, specialized resources were being pulled in another direction. That should concern everyone. When enforcement is stretched too thin, criminals look for openings. When pressure is not sustained, organized crime adapts. When police are forced to shift limited resources from one serious threat to another, innocent Canadians are the ones left in the crosshairs. What happened last week was not some isolated gangland shooting in a back alley. It happened in a quiet neighbourhood filled with families, people who had nothing to do with this violence and are now left wondering what could happen next. We need to be clear about what we are dealing with. This is a web of rival gangs and sophisticated organized crime networks increasingly tied to extortion. The violence is not contained between criminals. It is spilling into our neighbourhoods, our businesses and our streets. When a multi-agency task force was empowered to go after these criminals, there were signs of progress, with more than 30 active investigations, close to 100 judicial authorizations and coordinated action across agencies. Over 100 individuals were being examined for immigration violations linked to those networks. That is what it looks like when the full weight of the system is applied, but that pressure has to be constant. Organized crime does not disappear because of one announcement or one operation. It has to be confronted every day with sustained enforcement, specialized policing and real consequences. At the same time, we cannot ignore the pattern of leniency in the system itself. Individuals with serious criminal histories remain in this country when they should have been removed. Offenders breach conditions, reoffend and continue to benefit from delays, reduced sentences or rulings that allow them to stay. Judges have warned of a two-tier justice system, where penalties are softened to avoid deportation while Canadians face the full weight of the law. Even people under deportation orders who are facing serious allegations have been able to exploit the gaps and disappear from oversight or avoid consequences. That is not right. It sends a dangerous message to criminals that the rules are negotiable and the consequences are minimal. If we want to turn this around, we need sustained support for law enforcement. That means specialized units that remain focused, officers on the ground who are not pulled away at the first shift in priorities, and tools, such as air support, that help police monitor suspects, coordinate responses and stop offenders from operating freely. Will the government finally stop with the rhetoric, restore mandatory minimums, repeal its catch-and-release laws and ensure that criminals face real consequences?”

Statement grade

C+

66 / 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.

Greeting 4%Claims 55%Procedure 3%Positioning 22%Reasoning 1%Promise 2%The ask 13%

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

Mr. Speaker, Greeting · 20 wordsI welcome the opportunity to rise today to speak about an issue that Canadians are no longer willing to tolerate: GreetingClaims · 27 wordsthe surge of extortion that is targeting our communities, our businesses and our families. Crime has evolved, and frankly, our laws did not keep pace quickly enough.Partly on point Procedure · 4 wordsThat is a reality, ProcedureUnearned certaintyPositioning · 23 wordsbut unlike the members opposite, we are not interested in pointing fingers and walking away. We are taking responsibility and fixing the issue.PositioningPartly on pointVague promise Claims · 120 wordsThis is why we introduced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, ¹and Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, two of the most consequential proposed reforms to the Criminal Code in a generation.² Bill C-14 would give tools to provincial judges and police officers to put repeat and violent extortionists in jail, where they belong. It would mandate strict bail conditions for people accused of extortion and organized crime, including weapons prohibitions and geographic restrictions.³ It would introduce a reverse onus for extortion involving violence, shifting the burden so that the people accused must justify their release instead of the Crown having to justify their detention, ⁴and it would ensure that sentences for extortion and arson are served consecutively, ⁵Reasoning · 7 wordsbecause escalating violence deserves escalating consequences, period. Claims · 50 wordsBill C-16 would go even further by addressing how criminal networks operate. It would create a new stand-alone offence to target people who recruit young people into committing crimes like extortion.⁶ These criminals are not just breaking the law; they are grooming young people to do their work for them.Partly on point Promise · 13 wordsWe are shutting that pipeline down before more lives are pulled into it.Vague promise Procedure · 6 wordsHere is something Canadians must know.Procedure Claims · 11 wordsThese bills were introduced last fall, last year.⁷ Canadians expected urgency, Partly on pointPositioning · 26 wordsbut what they got from the Conservatives is delay, obstruction and political gamesmanship, all while they stood in the House pretending to be tough on crime.PositioningOff point Claims · 72 wordsNow the same pattern is repeating itself in the Senate, where a Conservative senator has recently claimed there is no timeline to pass Bill C-14 and bring it back to the House for final stage.⁸ This is despite overwhelming support from all 10 premiers, from police chiefs across the country, from frontline officers I have talked to and from business leaders across this country who are dealing with extortion in real time.⁹Partly on point Procedure · 4 wordsLet us be clear: ProcedurePositioning · 43 wordsThe only thing standing between Canadians and stronger protections right now is Conservative delay. If the member opposite truly cared about victims of extortion, she would use her rhetoric and her actual influence inside her party to make sure these bills get passed.Positioning The ask · 66 wordsTonight when she goes home, we hope she will pick up the phone and tell her Conservative colleagues in the Senate to stop blocking these bills, which she has been doing, and urge them to pass Bill C-14 both at committee and at third reading, before this Friday, or she will continue to say one thing here while her colleagues ensure that nothing actually gets done.Off point Claims · 8 wordsThe legislation is here. The solution is here.Partly on point Positioning · 23 wordsThe only question is whether the members opposite will finally stop their obstruction and start standing with Canadians and the victims of extortion.PositioningOff point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 53

10 of 35 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 welcome the opportunity to rise today to speak about an issue that Canadians are no longer willing to tolerate:”A greeting: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “That is a reality,”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 “but unlike the members opposite, we are not interested in pointing fingers and walking away.”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 are taking responsibility and fixing the issue.”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 “Here is something Canadians must know.”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 “but what they got from the Conservatives is delay, obstruction and political gamesmanship, all while they stood in the House pretending to be tough on crime.”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 “Let us be clear:”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 “The only thing standing between Canadians and stronger protections right now is Conservative delay.”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 “If the member opposite truly cared about victims of extortion, she would use her rhetoric and her actual influence inside her party to make sure these bills get passed.”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 “The only question is whether the members opposite will finally stop their obstruction and start standing with Canadians and the victims of extortion.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 36

22 of 35 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 on notice, as the member's speech raises 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 surge of extortion that is targeting our communities, our businesses and our families.”Describes the extortion problem without addressing the justice measures asked about.
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 “Crime has evolved,”General comment on crime evolving, not the specific changes asked for.
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 frankly, our laws did not keep pace quickly enough.”Concedes laws lagged, but does not say whether mandatory minimums or catch-and-release will change.
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 “but unlike the members opposite, we are not interested in pointing fingers and walking away.”Contrast with the opposition rather than the justice measures asked about.
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 are taking responsibility and fixing the issue.”General claim of fixing the issue without addressing the specific changes asked for.
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 “These criminals are not just breaking the law;”Comment on criminals’ conduct rather than the measures asked for.
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 “they are grooming young people to do their work for them.”Comment on grooming of young people, not the specific changes asked about.
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 “These bills were introduced last fall, last year.”Timing of the bills’ introduction, not whether the asked-for changes will be made.
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 “Canadians expected urgency,”Comment on Canadians’ expectations, not the measures asked for.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “but what they got from the Conservatives is delay, obstruction and political gamesmanship, all while they stood in the House pretending to be tough on crime.”Attack on the Conservatives’ conduct in place of an answer to what was asked.
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 “Now the same pattern is repeating itself in the Senate,”About the bill’s progress in the Senate, not the specific changes asked about.
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 “where a Conservative senator has recently claimed there is no timeline to pass Bill C-14 and bring it back to the House for final stage.”Reports a senator’s statement on the bill’s timeline, not the measures asked for.
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 “This is despite overwhelming support from all 10 premiers, from police chiefs across the country, from frontline officers I have talked to and from business leaders across this country who are dealing with extortion in real time.”Support for the bills by others, not whether the asked-for changes will be made.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “The only thing standing between Canadians and stronger protections right now is Conservative delay.”Blame of the Conservatives in place of an answer to what was asked.
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 member opposite truly cared about victims of extortion, she would use her rhetoric and her actual influence inside her party to make sure these bills get passed.”Attack on the member’s conduct rather than the justice measures asked about.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Tonight when she goes home, we hope she will pick up the phone and tell her Conservative colleagues in the Senate to stop blocking these bills,”Call on the member to lobby her colleagues instead of addressing the question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “which she has been doing,”Accusation about the member’s own actions, not the measures asked for.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and urge them to pass Bill C-14 both at committee and at third reading, before this Friday,”Demand that the member urge Senate passage rather than answer the question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “or she will continue to say one thing here while her colleagues ensure that nothing actually gets done.”Accusation about the member’s future conduct instead of an answer.
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 legislation is here.”Points to the legislation but does not address the specific changes asked for.
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 solution is here.”Restates that a solution exists without addressing the measures asked about.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “The only question is whether the members opposite will finally stop their obstruction and start standing with Canadians and the victims of extortion.”Attack on the opposition’s obstruction in place of an answer to what was asked.

Respect · 100

0 of 35 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 · 90

3 of 35 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 “That is a reality”Asserts certainty by formula in place of any backing or source.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We are taking responsibility and fixing the issue”Commits to fixing with no measure, date or success condition named in the clause.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We are shutting that pipeline down”Present-tense commitment with no measure, actor detail or success condition.

Claims · 9

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“we introduced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act”The government introduced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act.search
2“Bill C-16, the protecting victims act”The government introduced Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.search
3“It would mandate strict bail conditions for people accused of extortion and organized crime, including weapons prohibitions and geographic restrictions”Bill C-14 would mandate strict bail conditions for people accused of extortion and organized crime, including weapons prohibitions and geographic restrictions.search
4“It would introduce a reverse onus for extortion involving violence”Bill C-14 would introduce a reverse onus for extortion involving violence, requiring accused persons to justify their release.search
5“it would ensure that sentences for extortion and arson are served consecutively”Bill C-14 would ensure that sentences for extortion and arson are served consecutively.search
6“It would create a new stand-alone offence to target people who recruit young people into committing crimes like extortion”Bill C-16 would create a new stand-alone offence targeting people who recruit young people into committing crimes such as extortion.search
7“These bills were introduced last fall, last year”Bills C-14 and C-16 were introduced in the fall of 2025.search
8“a Conservative senator has recently claimed there is no timeline to pass Bill C-14”A Conservative senator recently claimed there is no timeline to pass Bill C-14 and return it to the House for its final stage.search
9“overwhelming support from all 10 premiers”All 10 provincial premiers support Bill C-14.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20