Analysis · Debate question · beta

Roman Baber

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-06-04

96 words · 3 sentences · 3 clauses

Following a speech by Raquel Dancho (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear any of that coming from Liberal members. What we are fixated on is rights for women against their abusers. For example, there was my bill from a few years ago that was from the Senate, from Senator Boisvenu. In that bill, there was the opportunity for a peace bond for two years. A peace bond is something that a woman who has been abused can get as protection against her abuser. It takes a lot of courage and a lot of time to go before the courts, through the process, to get it; in essence, it is a type of restraining order. In that bill, a woman would have had two years when she could relax for a moment with that protection. Liberal members diluted that to one year. I will take no lectures, no ivory tower from these Liberal members about protecting women and what is best for them.”

Statement grade

–

Not graded

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

The question 65%Claims 35%

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

Mr. Speaker, The question · 53 wordsin terms of improving the bill, I wonder how the member feels about a proposal that the Conservatives, in fact, it was me, brought to the justice committee in response to the Senneville decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography.¹ Claims · 34 wordsInstead of going with the safety valve to potentially undermine mandatory minimum sentences, the Conservatives proposed the invocation of the notwithstanding clause to preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography.² The question · 9 wordsI wonder if the member could comment on that.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Relevance · 100

Nothing lost points on 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 speech it follows, and the bill under debate.

Respect · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Clarity · 100

Nothing lost points on Clarity.

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

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“the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography”In the Senneville decision, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography.search
2“the Conservatives proposed the invocation of the notwithstanding clause to preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography”The Conservatives proposed at the justice committee that the notwithstanding clause be invoked to preserve the mandatory minimum sentences for accessing and possessing child pornography.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20