Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois on Strong and Free Elections Act 2026-04-24

205 words · 11 sentences · 15 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I know a number of Bloc members have raised the whole voting dollar issue and how that could possibly help finance political entities. I do not believe there is any public will for that to take place, but I would encourage the member to bring it up at the standing committee. I would like some clarification. The member talked a lot about the long ballot, and I do not know if it is me or possibly the translation, but I am a little confused. In the legislation, it says that a voter can only sign one nomination form. Then it also indicates that an official agent can only be the official agent for one candidate in that given riding. Does the Bloc support those two measures?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 81 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Promise 8%Reasoning 32%Claims 31%Procedure 7%Anecdote 22%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Promise · 17 wordsof course we will be there in committee to present our proposals, including on political party financing. Reasoning · 3 wordsThat is essential. Claims · 63 wordsTo answer my colleague’s second question, we support half of these measures. We believe that prohibiting an official agent from representing more than one candidate will solve most of the problem.Unearned certainty However, we are very concerned, and we do not agree with preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper. This raises issues concerning the secrecy of the vote, among other things. Procedure · 13 wordsI do not know if the parliamentary secretary heard me say this earlier, ProcedureAnecdote · 46 wordsbut the fact that I can sign as many nomination papers as I want has in the past allowed me to sign the nomination papers of my own political opponents.¹ I did so in good faith for the sake of a healthy political debate and campaign.Anecdote Procedure · 1 wordsHowever, ProcedureReasoning · 62 wordsif a voter can sign only one nomination paper, that means the individual signing the paper will be voting for that candidate. Even if that is not the case, it will prevent people from signing the nomination paper of the candidate for whom they intend to vote, and that makes the vote partially public. This raises issues that need to be addressed.

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 61

4 of 5 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I do not know if the parliamentary secretary heard me say this earlier,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “but the fact that I can sign as many nomination papers as I want has in the past allowed me to sign the nomination papers of my own political opponents.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “I did so in good faith for the sake of a healthy political debate and campaign.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “However,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 5 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the point put to the member, and the bill under debate.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Clarity · 82

1 of 5 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “will solve most of the problem”Asserts a confident outcome for a proposed rule with no evidence or measure offered.

Claims · 1

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“the fact that I can sign as many nomination papers as I want has in the past allowed me to sign the nomination papers of my own political opponents”Yves Perron has in the past signed the nomination papers of his own political opponents, which the current rules permitted.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16