Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Ellis Ross

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-06-04

57 words · 6 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that there is a difference between what the government and the Conservative Party are proposing. At the end of the day, exceptional circumstances would enable the legislation and the reinstatement of a number of mandatory sentences to be supported within the courts. That is a really important fact. Just over a year ago, this Prime Minister was elected with a mandate to make our communities safer. We have a series of pieces of legislation, not one but a half dozen or so, which would make our communities safer. We are working with provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement and indigenous communities to make sure we have safer communities and that there is a consequence for criminals who commit crimes. Does the member not believe that using the notwithstanding clause should be a last resort?”

Statement grade

A–

Average 88 / 100

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

Reasoning 33%Procedure 14%Claims 53%

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

Madam Speaker, Reasoning · 19 wordsthat was not the point. The point is that we should actually impose a mandatory sentencing for these offenders.Vague promise Procedure · 8 wordsThat is it. That is the starting point.Procedure Claims · 30 wordsWe could have made the legislation so much stronger if we had actually taken more of the amendments that were proposed by my colleagues.¹ Instead, we have watered it down.

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 · 84

2 of 3 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “That is it.”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 “That is the starting point.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 3 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 3 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 · 69

1 of 3 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 should actually impose a mandatory sentencing for these offenders”A commitment with no named measure, date or success condition beyond the phrase itself.

Claims · 1

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“taken more of the amendments that were proposed by my colleagues”During consideration of Bill C-16, amendments proposed by Conservative members were not adopted.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20