Statements by Members

Most media coverage of parliamentary proceedings seems to focus on question period, which is undoubtedly the best source of partisan sniping. But equally interesting in my view are the statements by members, since they show just what a given member will talk about with free range to discuss any topic. So what did one of our good MPs have to say yesterday?

Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) presented an argument well-suited to losing a junior high school round of debate:

In 2003, when Ward last pleaded guilty to a string of sexual assaults, the crown sought dangerous offender status to help keep the serial predator locked up. “No way,” said the judge. These crimes did not meet the threshold for dangerous offender status.
Now this Scarborough rapist has struck again, according to a woman who says that she was his victim on Friday.
How many more women will be victimized before the Liberal government introduces mandatory minimum sentences for violent and repeated offences? How many more women will be victims before the Liberal government acts?

Are we following closely here? The proposed policy (minimum sentences for repeat violent offenders) relates in no way to the supposed need for change (a judge's refusal to order dangerous offender status). I'll deal with the merits of minimum sentences sometime in the future, but shouldn't each MP at least have a speechwriter who can point out this sort of inconsistency?