Replying to Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Bloc Québécois)
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague. I served on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for over two years. Yes, we had begun considering this issue before any foreign interference occurred. It took up some 70 meetings; I remember it like it was yesterday. My question is very simple. I am surprised, even disappointed, when we talk about loopholes for foreign funds. When we seek impartiality and transparency, what are the consequences of not being able to block money that we cannot detect?”
Statement grade
A
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
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.
Thanks 8%Claims 33%Reasoning 59%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 14 wordsI thank my colleague for her question.She hit the nail on the head.ThanksClaims · 12 wordsThe problem of interference stems from an inability to identify the source.Reasoning · 20 wordsOne thing became clear in committee, and that is the fact that, unfortunately, we will always be one step behind.Unearned certaintyClaims · 18 wordsHostile foreign actors will always have vast resources at their disposal that allow them to find legal loopholes.Reasoning · 25 wordsThe problem is that when we are aware of these loopholes and choose not to close them, we become partly responsible for our own misfortune.Claims · 25 wordsI gave some examples, including allowing a third party to use up to 10% of its own funds to conduct activities during an election campaign.1Reasoning · 53 wordsA third-party organization could have $200 million in the bank from its own funds, which could come from the United States, China, or anywhere.That still amounts to $20 million that it can use with impunity, rather than having to go through a separate bank account where only Canadian funds would be used.
