“Mr. Speaker, in so many respects, the bill is not as advertised. The Liberals have advertised the bill as one of restoring mandatory minimum penalties, but one of the things the Liberals have not restored is the mandatory minimum penalties that they removed from the Criminal Code, including with respect to serious firearms offences, like robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking, among other serious firearms offences. Would the member agree that the Liberals missed an opportunity to reinsert those mandatory minimum penalties? It is consistent with their soft-on-crime approach. This government has the dubious distinction of being the only government to remove mandatory minimums from the Criminal Code.”
Statement grade
A–
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 90. The grade is held to 89, 30 above Signal.
89 / 100, held down by Signal
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Positioning 37%Claims 39%Reasoning 24%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 30 wordsI thank my colleague for that question, because that question exposes the severe hypocrisy of the Liberal government, which claims to actually give a damn about being tough on crime.PositioningClaims · 18 wordsWhen Bill C-5 was introduced, the Liberals claimed that it would address the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimum penalties.1Reasoning · 20 wordsHere is an opportunity, and now they are saying mandatory minimum penalties work.This was an opportunity to reinstate them.Claims · 14 wordsI asked the justice minister several times why they did not, 2and not one—
