Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Larry Brock

Conservative on Protecting Victims Act 2026-06-09

87 words · 3 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Jeff Kibble (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for both his compassion and his expertise. The member examined the fine print of the bill. The party opposite stands here promising to restore mandatory minimums, and on the very next page, would hand the judges’ clauses to sentence below them, and no proportionality test. The Supreme Court told us in the Senneville case exactly how to draft minimums that survive. The bill ignored that road map. My question for my colleague is simple. When a victim’s offender walks out at below the minimum sentence under the bill, who does he believe the party opposite will blame, the court or the bill that was written to let this happen?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 100 / 100

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

Reasoning 48%Claims 52%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 23 wordsI would hope they would blame the justice, and more importantly, the tools that the justice relies upon, which the federal government provides, Claims · 45 wordsand this tool, Bill C‑16, is going to lead to absurd, obscene results across this country. I asked the justice minister to name one accused who is not going to say that a mandatory minimum penalty is going to lead to cruel and unusual punishment.¹ Reasoning · 19 wordsEvery single accused facing criminal charges where there is a mandatory minimum penalty is entitled to use that argument.²

At a glance

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

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 point put to the member, 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“I asked the justice minister to name one accused”Larry Brock asked the justice minister to name one accused who would not argue that a mandatory minimum penalty leads to cruel and unusual punishment.search
2“Every single accused facing criminal charges where there is a mandatory minimum penalty is entitled to use that argument”Every accused facing a charge carrying a mandatory minimum penalty is entitled to argue that the penalty would amount to cruel and unusual punishment.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20