“Mr. Speaker, while there were very heartfelt emotions that came from the member, I do question why she is conflating mandatory minimums with what victims of domestic violence and intimate partner violence are facing. In 2018, when there was a study within the justice committee about coercive control behaviour as a Criminal Code charge, the chief of police for Peel Region was very much in favour of this and said we needed it. Even now, chiefs of police are standing up in support of the bill. I do not understand why the Conservatives are holding up a bill that would save lives. Every other day, a woman is murdered because of intimate partner violence. I do not understand the justification that the member has provided for voting against the bill.”
Statement grade
A
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 94 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Positioning 5%Claims 92%Procedure 4%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 5 wordsthe spin has already begun.PositioningOff pointUnearned certaintyClaims · 101 wordsI am not voting against protecting victims of intimate partner violence.I am absolutely not.What we cannot stand behind is making mandatory minimums optional so the judge can decide whether the perpetrator of the offence gets any time at all.1That is just not what we can stand behind.I am saying here today that I would vote in favour of the victims of intimate partner violence.We worked hard with the government to ensure that we could get these corrections made so the mandatory minimums would be taken out, but the government refused to work with us on this.Procedure · 4 wordsThat is the truth.ProcedureUnearned certainty
