Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jeremy Patzer

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-06-10

131 words · 8 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, most of what the member said is just not true, and it is somewhat misleading, quite frankly. At the end of the day, the legislation would do some wonderful things. Canada could set the stage, dealing with issues and establishing coercive behaviour as an offence. The issue of femicide, in certain situations, would be elevated to first-degree murder. We have reinstated a number of mandatory minimums. The Conservatives, quite frankly, have come up with some bogus excuse, and it is only because they do not want to support the legislation. They used to support the idea of a safety valve. The former critic for the Conservative Party did. Why is the Conservative Party so against making our communities safer and not allowing legislation of this nature to pass?”

Statement grade

Average 78 / 100

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

Positioning 36%Procedure 3%Reasoning 61%

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

Madam Speaker, Positioning · 47 wordsthe member says all kinds of ridiculous things. Referring to yesterday and the language the Speaker let him use, that was a dumb question from the member. The Speaker allowed him to use that word, so I am going to use it. That was a dumb question, PositioningOff pointProcedure · 4 wordsand this is why.Procedure Reasoning · 80 wordsIf the Liberals actually truly cared about crime and if they truly cared about victims, they would not allow people to have mandatory minimums be circumvented by clause 63.¹ That should not have been allowed to happen. At the very least, the member should have said he supported some of the safeguards we are proposing to make sure that victims would be respected and that criminals would go to jail, but that did not happen. The Liberals voted them down.²

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 55

6 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “the member says all kinds of ridiculous things.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Referring to yesterday and the language the Speaker let him use, that was a dumb question from the member.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “The Speaker allowed him to use that word,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “so I am going to use it.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “That was a dumb question,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “and this is why.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 57

5 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “the member says all kinds of ridiculous things.”A personal jab at the member’s character, not an answer to the charge about the party’s position.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Referring to yesterday and the language the Speaker let him use, that was a dumb question from the member.”About the member’s conduct and yesterday’s ruling by the Speaker, not the bill or the point put.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “The Speaker allowed him to use that word,”Procedural comment on the Speaker’s ruling, not the bill or the point put.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “so I am going to use it.”A procedural aside about repeating a word, not the bill or the point put.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “That was a dumb question,”A repeat of the personal jab about the member’s question, not an answer on the bill.

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 · 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“mandatory minimums be circumvented by clause 63”Bill C-16’s clause 63 would allow mandatory minimum sentences to be circumvented.search
2“The Liberals voted them down”Liberal members voted down the Conservative safeguards proposed for Bill C-16.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20