Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Adam Chambers

Conservative on Canada Revenue Agency Act 2026-05-28

138 words · 7 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Yves Perron (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very worthwhile bill. My colleague will be pleased to hear that the Bloc Québécois is prepared to support this bill and carefully examine it in committee. I have a question for him. In his speech, he talked about tax evasion, which is addressed in the bill. He also talked about tax avoidance and how businesses are able to avoid paying taxes by using tax havens. However, as far as I know, the bill does not address that issue. Does he not think that the scope of his bill should be expanded to include tax avoidance? It is not fair that businesses are not paying their fair share.”

Statement grade

Average 94 / 100

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

Greeting 4%Thanks 14%Claims 12%Reasoning 62%Promise 9%

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

Mr. Speaker, Greeting · 5 wordsthat was an excellent question.Greeting Thanks · 19 wordsI am certainly pleased to hear that the Bloc is open to supporting the bill’s being studied at committee.Thanks Claims · 16 wordsHe put his finger on an interesting point with respect to companies that are avoiding taxes. Reasoning · 59 wordsI think that is partially what the bill is trying to get at, with respect to measuring the tax gap. That is to say, what does the government believe is owed to the government, i.e., what does the CRA believe is owed versus what they are able to collect? I do think that is a portion of tax avoidance. Promise · 12 wordsIn my view, we could study this a bit more at committee, Reasoning · 27 wordsbut I think that is one of the things this bill is trying to get at, with respect to companies that avoid paying the taxes they owe.¹

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 · 77

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.

Greetings and pleasantries.What the tags mean “that was an excellent question.”A greeting: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I am certainly pleased to hear that the Bloc is open to supporting the bill’s being studied at committee.”Thanks: 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“this bill is trying to get at, with respect to companies that avoid paying the taxes they owe”The Canada Revenue Agency Act bill under debate addresses, through the tax gap, companies that avoid paying the taxes they owe.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20