Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Juanita Nathan

95 words · 5 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Tamara Jansen (Conservative)
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep telling Canadians that their safety valve measure in the bill, or, more accurately, a poison pill, a get-out-of-jail-free card, will be used only in rare and exceptional cases. If that is true, why were they unwilling to exclude serious offences such as aggravated sexual assault, extortion, and child sexual offences? If it is truly meant to be narrow, why is it written so broadly?”
Statement grade
A–
Average 89 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 97%Procedure 3%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Madam Speaker, Claims · 64 wordsthe bill that is in front of the House today and that we are debating is progressive. The changes we are proposing today would progress the Criminal Code more than the changes in all other years when we added so many measures to it did. The protecting victims act would be one of the most significant updates to the criminal justice system in generations, Partly on pointProcedure · 3 wordsas I said.Procedure Claims · 28 wordsIt has a broad scope. It would give judges the right to make decisions, and the safety valve would be there so they could make those decisions appropriately.

Analysed on