Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Raquel Dancho

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-06-04

193 words · 12 sentences · 15 clauses

Replying to Martin Champoux (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech by my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. Her passion for this issue was evident in her remarks. I know she has worked tirelessly and with great dedication on these issues over the years. I see in Bill C‑16 many improvements in terms of compassion and fairness for victims. There are also many improvements regarding the recognition of deepfakes. I therefore see very positive developments. My colleague is right to say that the collaboration that took place in committee left something to be desired. The committee rejected amendments and refused to discuss amendments from the opposition parties that were entirely constructive. Even if we can agree that we could be stricter on certain points—that we could place greater emphasis on minimum sentences, for example—does my colleague not think that there is still some improvement in Bill C‑16, that it is better than nothing, and that we can work on the rest later? Would that not be something worth considering?”

Statement grade

78 / 100, held down by Signal

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

Thanks 11%Claims 57%Positioning 26%Procedure 6%

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

Thanks · 12 wordsI thank my colleague for the question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it.Thanks Claims · 69 wordsAgain, I outlined in my speech a number of things we like in this bill, a number of things we have put forward and advocated for. That is why it is so frustrating that there is a provision in here that allows the opportunity for more judicial activism for lesser sentencing. It is very difficult for us because, again, there is a lot of our work represented in there, Positioning · 26 wordsbut how can we in good conscience support something that is going to provide more opportunity for judicial discretion to lower sentencing for violent repeat offenders?Positioning Procedure · 11 wordsIt is very difficult. I have outlined our position on this.Procedure Thanks · 9 wordsI appreciate the member’s work, as well, on this.Thanks Positioning · 20 wordsAgain, what is most frustrating, I think, is that we gave them every opportunity to get on board for this.Positioning Claims · 41 wordsWe brought forward concrete, clear amendments to ensure that the most egregious offences, for example, aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint, are removed from that safety valve, ¹and the Liberals voted them down.² They are not interested in working on this together. Positioning · 5 wordsThey want to play politics.Positioning

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 48

9 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I thank my colleague for the question, Mr. Speaker.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I appreciate it.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “but how can we in good conscience support something that is going to provide more opportunity for judicial discretion to lower sentencing for violent repeat offenders?”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 “It is very difficult.”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 have outlined our position on this.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I appreciate the member’s work,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “as well, on this.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Again, what is most frustrating, I think, is that we gave them every opportunity to get on board for this.”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 “They want to play politics.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

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 · 2

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“concrete, clear amendments to ensure that the most egregious offences, for example, aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint, are removed from that safety valve”During the committee study of Bill C-16, the Conservatives brought forward amendments to remove the most egregious offences, such as aggravated sexual assault at gunpoint, from the provision allowing courts to impose sentences below mandatory minimums.search
2“the Liberals voted them down”Liberal members on the committee studying Bill C-16 voted against the Conservative amendments that would have removed the most egregious offences from the provision allowing sentences below mandatory minimums.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20