Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Michael Cooper

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-06-03

115 words · 7 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, there are no floodgates here, but there is a lot of contrast between the Conservatives and the government on the issue. There are laws in place that have been ruled as unconstitutional, in violation of the charter, so a lot of the minimum penalties have been thrown out. The current government and the Prime Minister would reinstate minimum sentences. Yes, there is the exceptional clause so the course could be stayed, we would be allowed to continue and things would not be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Conservative approach is the notwithstanding clause. How many times is the member going to have to bring in the notwithstanding clause to deal with the legislation? Is it twelve times or 20 times? What is the limit?”

Statement grade

75 / 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 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 115 wordsthe solution is not to impose a blanket escape valve and leave it to judges to, at their discretion, disregard or bypass what Parliament has judged to be a minimum sentencing floor related to the seriousness of the offence. That is what the Liberals have done.³ The Liberals have completely surrendered Parliament’s law-making power as it relates to mandatory minimum penalties. They had many options, including the notwithstanding clause and including bringing in new mandatory minimums.⁴ At the very least, as we said, if the Liberals are insistent upon an escape valve, then there needs to be robust safeguards. We brought forward robust safeguards.² They voted them down every step of the way at committee.¹Partly 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 · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 45

9 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 “the solution is not to impose a blanket escape valve and leave it to judges to, at their discretion, disregard or bypass what Parliament has judged to be a minimum sentencing floor related to the seriousness of the offence.”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 “That is what the Liberals have done.”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 Liberals have completely surrendered Parliament’s law-making power as it relates to mandatory minimum penalties.”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 “They had many options, including the notwithstanding clause and including bringing in new mandatory minimums.”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 “At the very least,”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 “as we said,”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 “if the Liberals are insistent upon an escape valve, then there needs to be robust safeguards.”About safeguards for an escape valve, not the number of notwithstanding invocations 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 brought forward robust safeguards.”About the Conservatives’ proposed safeguards, not the notwithstanding question put.
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 voted them down every step of the way at committee.”About committee votes on safeguards, not the number of charter invocations asked about.

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 · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 4

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“They voted them down every step of the way at committee.”The Liberals’ proposed safeguards were voted down at committee.search
2“We brought forward robust safeguards.”The Conservatives introduced robust safeguards concerning sentencing.search
3“That is what the Liberals have done.”The Liberals have taken legislative action relating to minimum sentencing penalties.search
4“They had many options, including the notwithstanding clause and including bringing in new mandatory minimums.”The Liberals had options to handle mandatory minimum penalties, including using the notwithstanding clause or introducing new mandatory minimums.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20