“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compassionate words from the member opposite, and I acknowledge that much of the bill is going in the right direction and, indeed, is good. However, in one part, the bill promises to restore mandatory minimums, but then later it hands judges a clause to sentence below mandatory minimums. My question is simple: When a victim’s offender walks out below the mandatory minimum sentence under the bill, who will the member opposite tell the victim to blame: the court or the bill that was written to let this happen?”
Statement grade
C
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 77. The grade is held to 60, 30 above Relevance.
60 / 100, held down by Relevance
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 84%Procedure 16%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 39 wordsI would like to recognize that it is same piece of paper that the member has stood up and read from tonight, asking the exact same question about one little piece of an amendment on a huge proactive bill.Off pointProcedure · 17 wordsI would like to tell him about all the people and organizations that we have heard from.ProcedureClaims · 79 wordsI was a member of FEWO with the member across the way when we heard from the hundreds of victims and hundreds of different witnesses.2On child protection, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and other organizations are in favour of this bill.1On victims’ rights, we have the Domestic Violence Prevention Society, Humane Canada and Niki Sharma, the attorney general for B.C. I could go on.3There are the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Police Association.4Partly on pointProcedure · 6 wordsI can go on all night.Procedure