“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also on the justice committee, and I was hoping he could elaborate on the problems that emerged during our committee study, because we actually put forward a lot of amendments. It was shocking how many amendments the Liberal government put forward to its own bill, which I think reinforces the point that even the Liberals saw the flaws in this. We were prepared to work across party lines to protect victims, but can my colleague answer what happened when we tried to put forward concrete amendments that would keep offenders behind bars, where they belong?”
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 94%Procedure 6%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 63 wordsrepeatedly, the chair of the justice committee called our amendments to reintroduce and strengthen mandatory minimum sentences out of order.1This is despite the fact that this is precisely what the bill seeks to do, which is supposedly to strengthen mandatory minimum sentences.Why the chair of the justice committee called them out of order and out of scope, I do not know, Procedure · 8 wordsbut ironically, something interesting happened during that process.ProcedureClaims · 56 wordsIn one specific instance, which had to do with the use of a firearm during extortion, the chair of the justice committee initially called the proposed amendment in order, contrary to the fact that every other amendment was out of order.2I do not believe that the ruling was correct.We were overruled again and again.
