Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Roman Baber

Conservative on Protecting Victims Act 2026-06-04

97 words · 4 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the bill.

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to lawful access. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they are going to fight and get tough on crime, but then, when we have police agencies and law enforcement agencies from across the country saying they want lawful access, be so determined to prevent the House of Commons, the Prime Minister and the government from passing lawful access. I ask the member to tell us the reason why.”

Statement grade

D–

44 / 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.

Positioning 10%Reasoning 18%Claims 51%Promise 18%Procedure 4%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 10 wordsthe Conservative Party is the party of law and order, PositioningPartly on pointReasoning · 17 wordsand the key to the rule of law is that the government is also under the law. Claims · 49 wordsThis means that, when the government comes along and says it wants a sweep, it wants the private sector to hold all metadata, all of it, without a warrant, without any suspicion of a crime being committed, that would be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Off point Promise · 17 wordsAs the party of law and order, we will defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Partly on pointVague promise Procedure · 4 wordsThat is the reason.Procedure

At a glance

Lost points for
Off topicNone of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 82

2 of 7 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 “the Conservative Party is the party of law and order,”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 “That is the reason.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 14

4 of 7 deductions are Relevance

The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the bill.

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 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 Conservative Party is the party of law and order,”A general claim about the Conservative Party’s character, not about any provision of the bill.
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 the key to the rule of law is that the government is also under the law.”A general statement about the rule of law, not tied to the bill’s contents.
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 means that, when the government comes along and says it wants a sweep, it wants the private sector to hold all metadata, all of it, without a warrant, without any suspicion of a crime being committed, that would be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”About warrantless metadata collection and the Charter, a subject the bill does not address.
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 the party of law and order, we will defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”A general pledge to defend the Charter, not about what the bill proposes.

Respect · 100

0 of 7 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 · 78

1 of 7 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we will defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”A commitment with no measure, date or success condition named.

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 2026-10-20