Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Larry Brock

Conservative on Protecting Victims Act 2026-06-09

90 words · 3 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Andréanne Larouche (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know that he has taken an interest in the issue of women’s safety. He even participated in a few meetings of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Bill C‑16 incorporates many of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. These recommendations are based on requests from survivors and victims, particularly with regard to court delays and the criminalization of coercive control. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women made these recommendations and they have been incorporated into Bill C‑16. Did he discuss this with his Conservative colleagues?”

Statement grade

76 / 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.

Procedure 11%Positioning 8%Claims 70%The ask 11%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 10 wordsI am not sure if I heard a question there, ProcedurePositioning · 7 wordsbut I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague.Positioning Claims · 63 wordsThere are definite enhancements when it comes to victim safety and victim procedure in Bill C‑16, which is why I said at the outset that 99% of the bill is supportable. We would be very supportive of splitting the bill and having the good parts, that 99%, pass into the Senate, but split off that poisonous safety valve consideration in proposed section 63, ¹The ask · 10 wordswhich is what we would like to have taken off.Partly 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 · 77

2 of 8 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 “I am not sure if I heard a question there,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “but I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 46

6 of 8 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 “but I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague.”It agrees with the member generally but does not say whether the recommendations were discussed with his colleagues.
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 “There are definite enhancements when it comes to victim safety and victim procedure in Bill C‑16,”It speaks to victim protections in Bill C-16 without addressing whether the committee recommendations were discussed with colleagues.
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 “which is why I said at the outset that 99% of the bill is supportable.”It gives his overall support for the bill, not whether he discussed the committee’s recommendations with his colleagues.
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 would be very supportive of splitting the bill and having the good parts, that 99%, pass into the Senate,”It states his party’s wish to split the bill, not whether he discussed the committee’s recommendations with colleagues.
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 “but split off that poisonous safety valve consideration in proposed section 63,”It names the part of the bill the party wants removed, not whether the committee’s recommendations were discussed with colleagues.
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 “which is what we would like to have taken off.”It restates the request to remove that part of the bill, without saying whether the recommendations were discussed with colleagues.

Respect · 100

0 of 8 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 8 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 · 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“safety valve consideration in proposed section 63”Bill C-16 contains a provision in proposed section 63 that the speaker describes as a safety valve.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20