Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Emma Harrison

Liberal on Protecting Victims Act 2026-06-09

137 words · 8 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to Stephanie McLean (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, we know that 76% of appellate-level challenges to Harper-era mandatory minimum sentences were successful. We also know that the Conservatives are saying that they will not support this bill without the addition of mandatory minimum sentences, but more than 217 challenges to the constitutionality of these since 2021 have been made. When the courts frequently strike down mandatory minimum sentences, why do members think the Conservatives want the government to include clauses that would weaken the legislation, increase the likelihood of it being struck down, and take up precious court time and costs on unconstitutional clauses? What do you think their real reason is for—”

Statement grade

75 / 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.

Thanks 12%Claims 63%Positioning 3%The ask 22%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 17 wordsmy colleague did a beautiful job of painting the picture of what is really going on here.Thanks Claims · 56 wordsI would like to take a moment to speak as a survivor of domestic violence and how critically important this legislation is. It is hard to truly put into words how challenging it is to navigate a justice system after having been a victim of crime. This bill would address that. It would address coercive control, ¹Positioning · 4 wordswhich is incredibly important.Positioning Claims · 30 wordsIt is very hard to understand what it is like for victims of intimate partner violence and what they go through for years on end. This bill would address that. The ask · 30 wordsI would like for the Conservatives to understand, get out of the way, as they like to say, support this bill for victims and show survivors that we are listening.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 · 79

2 of 11 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “my colleague did a beautiful job of painting the picture of what is really going on here.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “which is incredibly important.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 45

9 of 11 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 “I would like to take a moment to speak as a survivor of domestic violence and how critically important this legislation is.”Speaks to the bill’s importance for survivors, not the point about unconstitutional mandatory minimum clauses.
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 “It is hard to truly put into words how challenging it is to navigate a justice system after having been a victim of crime.”About victims’ difficulty navigating the justice system, not the question of why the Conservatives want those clauses.
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 “This bill would address that.”Affirms the bill helps victims but does not address why the Conservatives want the mandatory minimum clauses.
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 “It would address coercive control,”About the bill’s coercive control provisions, not the point put about unconstitutional clauses.
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 incredibly important.”Emphasizes the importance of the coercive control provision without addressing the point put.
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 “It is very hard to understand what it is like for victims of intimate partner violence and what they go through for years on end.”About the experience of intimate partner violence victims, not the question asked.
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 “This bill would address that.”Affirms the bill addresses victims’ experience but does not answer why Conservatives want the mandatory minimum clauses.
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 “I would like for the Conservatives to understand, get out of the way,”Urges the Conservatives to support the bill rather than explaining why they want the mandatory minimum clauses.
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 “as they like to say, support this bill for victims and show survivors that we are listening.”Calls on the Conservatives to back the bill for victims without addressing their stated reasons for the mandatory minimum clauses.

Respect · 100

0 of 11 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 11 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“It would address coercive control”Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, would address coercive control.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20