Replying to Mark Gerretsen (Liberal). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the bill.
“Mr. Speaker, the member spoke so passionately about such a serious and important issue, this piece of legislation, but I cannot help reflecting on the fact that earlier this evening, the Conservatives put forward a motion to adjourn the House so that this debate would have ended. He would not have had the opportunity to speak on the bill like he did now. As a matter of fact, whereas every Liberal voted on that adjournment motion, 18 Conservatives did not vote, including the Leader of the Opposition. They did not even vote on the motion they put forward. They would have had all the time to plan this. They could have been planning it since noon today, preparing for the moment. They could have told all their members, “At this specific time, we’re going to pull this game. Please make sure to vote,” but they did not. It is more of an indication that this is nothing but a game to the Conservatives. Why are they doing this? Why did he vote in favour of that motion to adjourn?”
Statement grade
B+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 85. The grade is held to 83, 30 above Signal.
83 / 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.
Claims 58%Positioning 42%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 57 wordsI find it very concerning that I am up here speaking to a bill to keep Canadians safe, a bill I have said is very positive in a sense but that has a release valve in it that would allow judges to not enact mandatory minimums, 1and the member does not even want to talk about it.Partly on pointPositioning · 41 wordsHe just wants to deflect.Off pointLet us get serious here for a second.Canadians want a safer Canada, and the sooner the Liberals realize that and work with us and look at our amendments, the sooner we can keep Canadians safe.Positioning
