Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kelly DeRidder

Conservative on Protecting Victims Act 2026-06-09

70 words · 3 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, tonight, it is clear that there is a party line. I can tell what my colleague wants. There are consequences to voting against this bill because it falls short and is not broad enough. We can analyze the situation and decide that the bill can be reassessed. Has there been any progress? If the answer is yes, can victims be kept safe right now? If the answer is yes, then I beg them to please hold a free vote.”

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 46%Claims 54%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 9 wordsthe bill is not moving in the right direction, Claims · 21 wordsbecause it has a piece, clause 63, which would remove mandatory minimums and make it optional to put them in place.¹ Reasoning · 9 wordsThis is not a step in the right direction. Claims · 17 wordsEvery other piece of the bill, 99% of the legislation, is a step in the right direction, Reasoning · 14 wordsbut that 1% is a step backward, and that is what we cannot support.

At a glance

AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
Echo ×8“It is a step in the right direction.” Said 8 times by 8 members.Every time it was said

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.

Echo · 1 repeated line

Words members of Parliament keep repeating, found by the same rule for every member. No score depends on it.

“It is a step in the right direction.”Said 8 times by 8 members.Every time it was said

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“would remove mandatory minimums and make it optional to put them in place”Clause 63 of Bill C-16 would remove mandatory minimums and make their imposition optional.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20