Following a speech by Raquel Dancho (Conservative)
“Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear any of that coming from Liberal members. What we are fixated on is rights for women against their abusers. For example, there was my bill from a few years ago that was from the Senate, from Senator Boisvenu. In that bill, there was the opportunity for a peace bond for two years. A peace bond is something that a woman who has been abused can get as protection against her abuser. It takes a lot of courage and a lot of time to go before the courts, through the process, to get it; in essence, it is a type of restraining order. In that bill, a woman would have had two years when she could relax for a moment with that protection. Liberal members diluted that to one year. I will take no lectures, no ivory tower from these Liberal members about protecting women and what is best for them.”
Statement grade
A
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 92 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Thanks 23%Claims 41%The question 36%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 38 wordsI very much appreciated the speech by my colleague from Kildonan—St.Paul.Her passion for this issue was evident in her remarks.I know she has worked tirelessly and with great dedication on these issues over the years.ThanksClaims · 67 wordsI see in Bill C‑16 many improvements in terms of compassion and fairness for victims.There are also many improvements regarding the recognition of deepfakes.1I therefore see very positive developments.My colleague is right to say that the collaboration that took place in committee left something to be desired.The committee rejected amendments and refused to discuss amendments from the opposition parties that were entirely constructive.2The question · 58 wordsEven if we can agree that we could be stricter on certain points—that we could place greater emphasis on minimum sentences, for example—does my colleague not think that there is still some improvement in Bill C‑16, that it is better than nothing, and that we can work on the rest later?Would that not be something worth considering?
