“Mr. Speaker, on the bail issue, I can understand my colleague’s position on the Senate amendment. However, it does come with certain guidelines. A judge who grants a person who has committed a crime in recent years the opportunity to be designated as a surety must demonstrate that it is in the interest of justice and must record the reasons for their decision in the case file. Does my colleague not think that refusing this amendment is a bit of an affront to judges’ ability to make sound decisions on a case-by-case basis, allowing them, where justified, to authorize a surety that would otherwise have been inadmissible?”
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.
Thanks 17%Claims 27%Reasoning 55%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 22 wordsI appreciate the accommodation by the member down the way in giving me time to make sure I clearly understood her question.ThanksClaims · 35 wordsIt goes, I guess, to the root of the problem, in that there is a concern about the public trust in the judiciary, the judgment of our judges.It is a separate arm of government.1Reasoning · 71 wordsWe have to have an independent judiciary, but it is equally incumbent on the Parliament of Canada to have absolutely clear legislation as to what we expect judges to do.It is the ambiguity in the loophole that brings into question the problem.That brings into question judges having the latitude to interpret things that Parliament has already decided must happen.In those cases, we need to tighten up the legislation.
