Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kelly Block

Conservative on Criminal Code 2026-10-05

156 words · 9 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Bob Zimmer (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for such an awesome bill. As we all see, the rise of persecution against the Christian church across Canada has been profound. We have seen more than 100 churches burned in the last 10 years in Canada alone. It is a modern-day form of religious persecution, and it is very troubling. I want to ask the member a question that she alluded to earlier. We are seeing responses from the Liberals across the way. This seems like an obvious bill that everyone can support in this place. Are the Liberals going to support her bill?”

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.

Procedure 28%The ask 24%Claims 48%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 38 wordsit is important to note that today is a day of debate, and we will be hearing from a number of our colleagues, both on this side of the House and on the other side of the House.Procedure The ask · 38 wordsI hope that throughout the debate, they will note the merits of this bill, and that even if they have already made up their minds to oppose it, they will be open-minded to what is shared here today. Claims · 75 wordsI want to remind them that this bill seeks to accomplish two things. First, it would broaden the scope of mischief by removing the requirement for the mischief offence to be hate-motivated.¹ That is a huge difference. Law enforcement resources are already stretched. Second, this bill would make monetary compensation to the victim by the perpetrator a mandatory part of any sentence.² Those provisions already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials.³Partly on point Procedure · 5 wordsI think the members in—Procedure

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 · 65

3 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “it is important to note that today is a day of debate,”Procedure or throat-clearing: 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 we will be hearing from a number of our colleagues, both on this side of the House and on the other side of the House.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I think the members in—”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 45

8 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 hope that throughout the debate, they will note the merits of this bill,”Expresses hope members will note the bill’s merits, but gives no answer on Liberal support.
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 “and that even if they have already made up their minds to oppose it, they will be open-minded to what is shared here today.”A call for open-mindedness in debate, not an answer on Liberal support.
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 want to remind them that this bill seeks to accomplish two things.”Introduces the bill’s aims without addressing whether the Liberals will support 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 “First, it would broaden the scope of mischief by removing the requirement for the mischief offence to be hate-motivated.”Describes what the bill would do, but not whether the Liberals will support 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 “That is a huge difference.”Comment on the significance of the bill’s change, not on Liberal support.
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 “Law enforcement resources are already stretched.”A point about law enforcement resources, not whether the Liberals will support the bill.
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 “Second, this bill would make monetary compensation to the victim by the perpetrator a mandatory part of any sentence.”Describes what the bill would do, but not whether the Liberals will support 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 “Those provisions already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials.”Notes the bill mirrors existing Criminal Code provisions, not whether the Liberals will support it.

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 · 3

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 broaden the scope of mischief by removing the requirement for the mischief offence to be hate-motivated”Bill C-255 would broaden the scope of the Criminal Code mischief offence relating to religious property by removing the requirement that the offence be hate-motivated.search
2“this bill would make monetary compensation to the victim by the perpetrator a mandatory part of any sentence”Bill C-255 would make monetary compensation to the victim by the perpetrator a mandatory part of any sentence for mischief relating to religious property.search
3“Those provisions already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials”The Criminal Code already contains provisions requiring monetary compensation to victims of mischief in regard to war memorials.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19