Replying to Simon-PierreSavard-Tremblay (Bloc Québécois)
“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about intentions. We agreed on the intentions behind the bill. I would remind everyone that we voted to refer the bill to committee. That meant we were also listening to the victims. I agree with what my colleague said in support of the civilian courts. He praised their expertise, and I agree 100%. That said, it is possible that, in light of that very expertise, the civilian courts may consider that in certain specific cases it would be better for matters to remain within the military sphere. Our amendment allowed for this, but the Liberals’ Motion No. 5 will remove that possibility.”
Statement grade
B
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 75 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Positioning 44%Claims 23%Promise 33%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 33 wordsI fully understand my colleague’s point, Partly on pointbut the fact remains that we do not want to remove that possibility.Once again, there is a difference in understanding on both sides of the House.PositioningPartly on pointClaims · 17 wordsI can simply say that the civilian courts have the skills, understanding and experience in this regard.Promise · 25 wordsFurthermore, once again, we want to work with all parties on all sides to ensure that complainants are given every opportunity to make a complaint.Vague promise
