“Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague contributed to this discussion at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but I would like to hear him elaborate further on this matter. The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to Bill C-16, but they were rejected. This leaves a certain inconsistency in the bill. On the one hand, the bill modernizes the offence of criminal harassment by introducing objective criteria based on the totality of the circumstances. On the other hand, the sureties to keep the peace under section 810 and subsection 810(3) of the Criminal Code are still based on a purely subjective criterium. This creates a real inconsistency. Could my colleague comment on that?”
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 95%Positioning 5%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 108 wordsmy colleague is absolutely correct.I did participate in one committee meeting at the status of women committee, 1where we were discussing the ineffectiveness and the tragic consequences of the enforcement of section 810 common law bonds.It is unfortunate that the whole concept of section 810 consideration did not find itself within the confines of Bill C-16.2This would have been a glorious opportunity for the Liberal government to strengthen section 810 orders to protect women who have no recourse other than to ask for that type of protection.Again, the government claims to be tough on crime and claims to be very cognizant of victims’ rights.Positioning · 6 wordsIts actions speak to the opposite.Positioning
