“Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question, since I still have not received an answer. The parliamentary secretary and I know each other quite well. We all know that he has a way with words, but I want to ask him to refrain from skirting around the issue by talking about other things, like the recommendations from Justice Arbour or anyone else. We developed an amendment in committee that would allow a victim—male or female, since either is possible—who is in fact the most important person in these circumstances, to choose whether their sexual assault case would be handled by the civilian courts or a military court. That can be done. We do not own the truth, contrary to what the government might think. I would like to get an objective and sincere answer. Why was this amendment removed? I understand that the Liberals have a majority and that they can decide, but it was a good amendment. Why did they remove it? I would like to hear a rational explanation.”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 97 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Procedure 9%Reasoning 14%Claims 78%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 7 wordsI will give it my best shot.ProcedureVague promiseReasoning · 7 wordsIt is because of a specific recommendation.Claims · 63 wordsJustice Arbour knew, consulted and worked with hundreds if not thousands of people, directly or indirectly, including victims.1Her recommendation says that these offences “should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases.”2There is an exemption if it takes place outside of Canada.3I personally have more confidence in that report today than in what has been brought before me.Reasoning · 4 wordsThat is the reason.
