“Madam Speaker, this is yet another example of the Liberal government stifling debate. We are here to debate the bill in good faith, and unfortunately, we are in for another time allocation motion, which does not allow members to fully debate their mind. I believe that is not the way to go. I would like to ask the Attorney General a specific question. He knows that at committee, I brought a motion forward to bring a further amendment to Bill C‑16 to invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to the Senneville decision, in which the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory minimum sentences for the possession of and access to child pornography. I subsequently read in the newspaper that the Attorney General had, in fact, considered invoking the notwithstanding clause. I ask the Attorney General this question. If he refused to invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to the minimum sentences for the possession of and access to child pornography being struck down, is there a possibility that he would ever do it with respect to any legislation? Would he ever specifically invoke the notwithstanding clause, or is—”
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 7%Claims 74%Reasoning 19%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Madam Speaker, Procedure · 14 wordsfirst, I take issue with the characterization of not providing adequate opportunity for debate.ProcedureClaims · 109 wordsI warned the member and his colleagues on the justice committee that their shenanigans and filibustering for months on a separate bill, which tied up work, would delay our work on bail reform, sentencing reform and protections for victims of gender-based violence.Here we are, months down the road.They spent hours upon hours debating whether they prefer puppies or kittens, rather than how we can protect victims of crime.We are now facing a potential delay over the summer, due specifically to the wasted time at the justice committee, including the member’s repeated interventions that were designed to chew up the clock, rather than advance protections for Canadians.Reasoning · 8 wordsI disagree with him on his threshold question.Claims · 43 wordsOn the substance, we examined a range of different options for how to address the fallout of the Senneville decision to restore mandatory minimums in cases involving child pornography, 2as well as mandatory minimums that were previously struck down or were constitutionally vulnerable.3Reasoning · 21 wordsOne of the reasons his proposal would result in weaker protections for victims is the temporary nature of the notwithstanding clause.Claims · 5 wordsThere is a five‑year term, 1Reasoning · 12 wordswhich would expire when we have the same constitutional challenges that would—
