Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Adam Chambers

Conservative on Canada Revenue Agency Act 2026-05-28

120 words · 6 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts in regard to the issue of privacy. I know a part of the legislation would ultimately see reports going to our PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Does the member have any concerns at all in regard to privacy? Can he expand on that issue?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 95 / 100

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

Thanks 12%Procedure 4%Reasoning 84%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 14 wordsmy friend from Winnipeg North quite rightly points out a potential concern with privacy.Thanks Procedure · 5 wordsI would say two things.Procedure Reasoning · 101 wordsThe first is that I think any data provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer could be appropriately anonymized such that it would be impossible to identify any taxpayer, whether that is a corporate or individual taxpayer. We should judiciously protect the privacy rights of Canadians. However, with respect to the information that would be required to be publicly disclosed by the government, it would be about individuals who have been convicted of tax evasion in Canada.¹ Those individuals, if they have been convicted, have been convicted in a court of law and do not deserve any privacy rights, in my opinion.

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 · 79

2 of 2 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “my friend from Winnipeg North quite rightly points out a potential concern with privacy.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I would say two things.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 2 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 · 100

0 of 2 deductions are Respect

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.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 100

0 of 2 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.

Nothing lost points.

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“with respect to the information that would be required to be publicly disclosed by the government, it would be about individuals who have been convicted of tax evasion in Canada”Bill S-217, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax), would require the government to publicly disclose information about individuals who have been convicted of tax evasion in Canada.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20