Replying to Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault (Liberal)
“Mr. Speaker, in her introduction, my colleague mentioned the importance of protecting our children, yet she spent the next 10 minutes criticizing just about everything that we included in Bill C-34 to achieve that objective. This is hardly surprising, given her voting record. Members will recall Bill C-22, a bill that police forces had called for to make our communities safer, something that the official opposition claims it wants. When it was time for the vote, the official opposition’s position on the matter was unclear. As for Bill C-16, which was intended to improve protection for victims, the opposition said that was important, but when the vote was held, it voted against the bill. This time, my question is simple: Will my colleague support referring Bill C‑34 to committee for a detailed study, or will she oppose it, as we have come to expect since she was elected?”
Statement grade
B
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 80. The grade is held to 76, 30 above Relevance.
76 / 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.
Procedure 11%Positioning 12%Claims 77%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 10 wordsI am not entirely sure I understand my colleague’s question, ProcedurePositioning · 11 wordsor it is possible that he did not understand my speech.PositioningClaims · 72 wordsWhat I just did is what I try to do with all of the legislation that comes before us in the House.I tried to read it.I tried to understand it.Where there was a lack of clarity, I have pointed that out and invited the government to correct the record and improve the bill so we can realize the very worthy objective of it, which is to protect our kids.Partly on point
