“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe in evidence-based decision-making as opposed to decision-based evidence-making. We heard language like “often unsolicited offers of death” and people being “bombarded with requests”. We heard several anecdotes that came well short, in my view, of coercion, but we only heard anecdotes. My question for this member is this. This is proposing an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada. What is the evidentiary basis? Is there anything more than second- and third-hand, unproven anecdotal stories?”
Statement grade
A
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 94 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 105 wordsI am very surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs speak in this way given the preponderance of testimony we have heard on this subject.Partly on pointHe should know that the veterans affairs committee has heard from many veterans who have raised this concern.1They have highlighted friends of theirs who have had the same issues who are afraid to speak out, for understandable reasons.We have had many instances involving multiple different caseworkers in different provinces where these concerns have been brought forward.3I mentioned testimony from Inclusion Canada that weekly hears complaints from people living with disabilities who bring these issues forward.2Procedure · 10 wordsI would say this as well to the parliamentary secretary.ProcedurePositioning · 3 wordsHe is wrong, PositioningReasoning · 24 wordsbut let us suppose that he is right, let us say this happens very rarely, my bill says it should not happen at all.The ask · 18 wordsTherefore, even if he thinks this does not happen very often, then he should still support the bill, Reasoning · 12 wordsbecause it prevents this from happening in the cases where it does.
