“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her thoughtful and heartfelt words. We may hear the party opposite continually refer to the Arbour report, yet much has changed since then, such as the mandatory duty to report and access to the SMSRC. Military members at that time did not have access to victim liaison services or independent legal support. I was wondering if my colleague could explain why the party opposite continues to refer to the report of Justice Arbour’s, who did not testify at committee, and has failed to refer to the Deschamps and Fish reports, which supported that choice for military sexual trauma.”
Statement grade
–
Not graded: fewer than 4 clauses beyond the address. The scores are shown; a grade would say little.
Not graded
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Aside 14%Positioning 47%Claims 39%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Aside · 8 wordsI actually wrote down “cherry-picking” on my paper.AsidePositioning · 28 wordsThe Liberals are not choosing to look at the broad picture of what has been presented to them on behalf of veterans who have suffered military sexual trauma, PositioningClaims · 23 wordsand who will continue to suffer under the CAF until things improve and the changes are made that truly need to be made.
