Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois on Government Orders 2026-06-03

123 words · 8 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to Claude DeBellefeuille (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Shefford, who really knows her stuff, as members can see. She always speaks so eloquently and focuses on the common good. She is well versed in this issue. I would like to learn more about the amendments the Bloc Québécois would have liked to see adopted to further improve the situation. Can she explain to me why, in her view, the government rejected these amendments?”

Statement grade

76 / 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.

Thanks 20%Procedure 4%Claims 74%Reasoning 2%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 24 wordsI thank my colleague for her question and comments about my speech. I also want to commend her for fighting for the feminist cause.Thanks Procedure · 5 wordsRegarding the Bloc Québécois’s amendments, ProcedureClaims · 72 wordsas I mentioned earlier, there are some inconsistencies. For example, the offence of criminal harassment is supposedly being modernized by the introduction of objective criteria. However, when we talk about sureties to keep the peace—the infamous peace bonds under section 810 of the Criminal Code, ¹which is another study that I worked on for the Bloc Québécois, together with my Conservative colleagues—it is clear that, in this case, the criteria are subjective.² Reasoning · 3 wordsThat creates inconsistencies. Claims · 19 wordsThe Bloc Québécois wanted to see fewer of them. Our amendments sought to remove these inconsistencies from Bill C‑16.³Partly on point

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 · 71

3 of 10 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I thank my colleague for her question and comments about my speech.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I also want to commend her for fighting for the feminist cause.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Regarding the Bloc Québécois’s amendments,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 46

7 of 10 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 “as I mentioned earlier, there are some inconsistencies.”It speaks of inconsistencies in the bill without saying why the government rejected the amendments.
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 “For example, the offence of criminal harassment is supposedly being modernized by the introduction of objective criteria.”It describes the criminal harassment provisions, not the fate or rejection of the amendments.
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 “However, when we talk about sureties to keep the peace—the infamous peace bonds under section 810 of the Criminal Code,”It describes peace bonds under section 810, not the government’s rejection of the amendments.
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 “which is another study that I worked on for the Bloc Québécois, together with my Conservative colleagues—it is clear that, in this case, the criteria are subjective.”It describes past work and subjective criteria in section 810, not why the amendments were rejected.
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 “That creates inconsistencies.”It states that inconsistencies exist, not why the government rejected the amendments.
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 Bloc Québécois wanted to see fewer of them.”It says what the Bloc wanted in the bill, not why the government rejected the amendments.
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 “Our amendments sought to remove these inconsistencies from Bill C‑16.”It describes what the amendments sought to do in the bill, not the government’s reasons for rejecting them.

Respect · 100

0 of 10 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 10 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 · 3

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 infamous peace bonds under section 810 of the Criminal Code”Section 810 of the Criminal Code provides for peace bonds (sureties to keep the peace).search
2“another study that I worked on for the Bloc Québécois, together with my Conservative colleagues”Andréanne Larouche worked on a study on section 810 peace bonds for the Bloc Québécois together with Conservative colleagues.search
3“Our amendments sought to remove these inconsistencies from Bill C‑16”The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to Bill C-16 that sought to remove inconsistencies between the objective criteria in the criminal harassment offence and the subjective criteria in section 810 peace bonds.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20