“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the argument of private property at court. The member opposite, being involved in the law, should know that if we do not make the argument in the lower court, we cannot use that argument at appeal or if it goes to the Supreme Court. The government cannot make that argument. The other thing the court decision did was that it eviscerated sections 23 and 25 of the B.C. Land Title Act, which is the underpinning of private ownership in the city of Richmond and within the province of British Columbia. Again, how does the government expect to use an argument and win at court with something it cannot actually use?”
Statement grade
C
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 72. The grade is held to 60, 30 above Relevance.
60 / 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.
Claims 32%Positioning 37%Reasoning 31%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 23 wordsI would invite the member to look at every single aboriginal title litigation or every section 35 case.There are things called intervenors.1Positioning · 26 wordsThe Conservative Party of Canada could actually apply to be an intervenor, since it has all the answers when it comes to litigating first nations rights.2PositioningReasoning · 22 wordsI doubt it would be granted, because the Supreme Court looks at rational and reasonable arguments, not at political and irresponsible arguments.Off pointSome hon. members: Oh, oh!
