“Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for me to correct the record. The member’s speech was extremely sensational. I know the Conservatives are trying to get a rise out of people and tell them that somehow there are going to be no penalties for anyone in any case. There are minimum penalties that are in our Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-16 also still maintains a minimum penalty. That is what, technically, the bill would do. In the Senneville decision, there were some questions left, and we addressed those gaps and questions through the bill. That decision did not hold that all minimum sentences are unconstitutional, but it gave some examples of where they may be in violation of section 12. It was really important for us to make sure we address that so we do not risk other minimum—”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 98 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 93%Positioning 7%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 97 wordsI was at the justice committee.1I was questioning witnesses.I participated in clause-by-clause.2The secretary of state did not.What she is proposing is absolutely incorrect.The only limitation of Bill C-16 is that a judge cannot deviate from a mandatory minimum penalty for two offences: 3homicide or murder and treason.4Everything else is fair game, so long as there is a jail sentence.There is nothing preventing an activist judge, a clever defence counsel or a desperate accused to say that a one-day sentence is appropriate, as opposed to, say, a one-year mandatory minimum penalty.Positioning · 7 wordsThat is fine with the Liberal government.Positioning
