Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kelly Block

Conservative on Criminal Code 2026-10-05

96 words · 3 sentences · 4 clauses

Replying to Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague. We are aware that my colleague’s bill does not replace section 430 of the Criminal Code, which already provides for sanctions in this respect. It simply adds mandatory minimum punishments. Personally, I see this as somewhat of a parliamentary supervision of our courts, telling judges that they cannot impose a sentence that is less than the minimum punishment described. Does my colleague have any courts or judges in mind that deserve to be subject to such supervision? Can she give us some examples? I cannot think of any off the top of my head. Second, our Liberal colleague referred to Bill C‑9. In fact, our Conservative colleagues opposed an amendment I proposed, which sought to make it illegal to spread hatred or promote hatred based on a religious text. We wanted to remove that from the Criminal Code. Does my colleague think that, if somebody commits mischief in relation to property with the goal of inciting hatred on religious grounds, would that be acceptable? The mandatory minimum punishment—”

Statement grade

77 / 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 25%Claims 75%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 24 wordsI want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to expand on the remarks related to mandatory minimum punishment prescribed in Bill C-255.Thanks Claims · 72 wordsFirst of all, my bill simply mirrors the mandatory minimum fines that already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials.¹ I mentioned I was glad that the provisions in the Criminal Code that address hate-motivated crimes still exist, but the changes I am proposing in this bill do not require law enforcement and the courts to prove that hate was a motivating factor when the perpetrator committed the crime.²Partly 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 · 70

1 of 4 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 “I want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to expand on the remarks related to mandatory minimum punishment prescribed in Bill C-255.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 47

3 of 4 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 “First of all, my bill simply mirrors the mandatory minimum fines that already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 mentioned I was glad that the provisions in the Criminal Code that address hate-motivated crimes still exist,”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 the changes I am proposing in this bill do not require law enforcement and the courts to prove that hate was a motivating factor when the perpetrator committed the crime.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 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 4 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“simply mirrors the mandatory minimum fines that already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials”Bill C-255’s mandatory minimum fines mirror the mandatory minimum fines that already exist in the Criminal Code for mischief relating to war memorials.search
2“the changes I am proposing in this bill do not require law enforcement and the courts to prove that hate was a motivating factor”Bill C-255 would not require law enforcement or the courts to prove hate was a motivating factor in the mischief.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19