Replying to Simon-PierreSavard-Tremblay (Bloc Québécois)
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, aside from him saying shame on me. It is okay, I will sleep soundly, better than he will, I suspect. Let us forget the principle of the amendments. In his last response, the member asked our colleague to listen to what was said at the standing committee. I thought that was funny, because I was there but he was not. He was in the House, as usual. He probably spends Christmas here. That said, something that came up often was the Quebec model of a specialized court to deal with misconduct. I moved a motion that was unrelated to the bill but that asked whether, in the long term, we could consider this, look at it and assess this option. The Liberals filibustered for the entire meeting. Is that how they feel about institutions?”
Statement grade
A
The average of Signal, Relevance and Clarity.
Average 93 / 100
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 · 23 wordsthe nice thing about standing committees is that everything is recorded.We do not have to physically be there.There is a Hansard.Procedure · 16 wordsLet me read a quote from a standing committee.This is a quote from Charlotte Duval-Lantoine: ProcedureClaims · 58 wordsI want to underline what Madam Arbour said about recommendation five, which is that giving the choice to victims to choose the jurisdiction in which they find themselves puts them “in an untenable position.”1If the case doesn’t go their way, then they find themselves retraumatized and with the possible question, “Did I make the wrong choice here?”
