Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Claude DeBellefeuille

Bloc Québécois on Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22 2026-06-17

187 words · 11 sentences · 15 clauses

Replying to Rhonda Kirkland (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the work ethic of my friend and colleague who sits with me on the public safety committee and the amount that she has studied this bill. We studied it in depth, and I appreciate her being thankful for all the staff who have done this work with us as well. As we went through this very rushed process of pre-clause-by-clause, I think there were somewhere upward of 48 witnesses over just nine hours whom we sped through to try to study the bill. We had a hard time getting the briefs, as well, because it was rushed, and that created some problems. I asked for consent of the committee to bring the Privacy Commissioner in during clause-by-clause to help us. As we looked through the amendments, a lot of them he had suggested, we could not ask him questions very much during pre-clause-by-clause. Could the member comment on what she thought the Liberals were doing when they blocked the Privacy Commissioner from coming?”

Statement grade

B–

73 / 100, held down by Relevance

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

Thanks 7%Procedure 3%Claims 37%Reasoning 43%Positioning 10%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 13 wordsI want to thank my colleague. I appreciate her thoroughness a great deal.Thanks Procedure · 5 wordsI spoke about that earlier.Procedure Claims · 16 wordsI ended my speech by saying that I would really have liked him to come back.¹ Reasoning · 16 wordsI think that would have been a good thing for everyone, including members of the government. Positioning · 18 wordsFrom the start, however, I sensed that the dice were loaded and that we were basically marking time, PositioningReasoning · 35 wordsbecause there was not a lot of interest. I am not blaming committee members; as I said, there are party lines and members sometimes do things that they would not have necessarily chosen to do. Claims · 29 wordsHowever, I want to highlight that the Canadian Association of Journalists is concerned about this bill.² It wonders whether journalistic sources, whistle-blowers and investigative journalists themselves could face threats.³ Reasoning · 30 wordsI find that disappointing, because I would have liked to have heard from the association’s representatives and to have explored these questions, which came to me after reading their brief.⁴ Claims · 25 wordsUnfortunately, we were unable to invite them because the study period was so short that it prevented us from hearing what they had to say.⁵Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 73

4 of 16 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 “I want to thank my colleague.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I appreciate her thoroughness a great deal.”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 spoke about that earlier.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “From the start, however, I sensed that the dice were loaded and that we were basically marking time,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 43

12 of 16 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 motion under debate.

Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “I ended my speech by saying that I would really have liked him to come back.”Expresses regret that the Privacy Commissioner could not return, but does not say what the Liberals were doing in blocking him.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “I think that would have been a good thing for everyone, including members of the government.”Comments on the Commissioner’s missed appearance, not on who blocked him or why.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “From the start, however, I sensed that the dice were loaded and that we were basically marking time,”About her sense that the committee process was predetermined, not about the blocking of the Privacy Commissioner.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “because there was not a lot of interest.”About members’ lack of interest in committee, not about the question put.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “I am not blaming committee members;”About committee members’ conduct generally, not about the Privacy Commissioner being blocked.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “as I said, there are party lines and members sometimes do things that they would not have necessarily chosen to do.”About party discipline in committee, not about what the Liberals did regarding the Commissioner.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “However, I want to highlight that the Canadian Association of Journalists is concerned about this bill.”About the Canadian Association of Journalists’ concerns with the bill, not about the Privacy Commissioner question.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “It wonders whether journalistic sources, whistle-blowers and investigative journalists themselves could face threats.”About the association’s worries over journalistic sources, not about who blocked the Commissioner or why.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “I find that disappointing,”Expresses disappointment about not hearing the association, not an answer to the question asked.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “because I would have liked to have heard from the association’s representatives and to have explored these questions,”About wishing to hear from the association, not about the blocking of the Privacy Commissioner.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “which came to me after reading their brief.”About questions arising from the association’s brief, not the question put.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Unfortunately, we were unable to invite them because the study period was so short that it prevented us from hearing what they had to say.”About the shortness of the study period preventing witnesses, not about what the Liberals were doing over the Privacy Commissioner.

Respect · 100

0 of 16 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 16 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 · 5

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“I ended my speech by saying that I would really have liked him to come back”In her earlier speech during the June 17, 2026 debate on Government Business No. 13, Claude DeBellefeuille said she would have liked the Privacy Commissioner to come back.search
2“the Canadian Association of Journalists is concerned about this bill”The Canadian Association of Journalists expressed concern about Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, 2026.search
3“It wonders whether journalistic sources, whistle-blowers and investigative journalists themselves could face threats”The Canadian Association of Journalists asked whether journalistic sources, whistle-blowers and investigative journalists could face threats under Bill C-22.search
4“which came to me after reading their brief”The Canadian Association of Journalists submitted a brief to the public safety committee’s study of Bill C-22.search
5“the study period was so short that it prevented us from hearing what they had to say”The public safety committee’s study period for Bill C-22 was too short for the Canadian Association of Journalists to be heard as witnesses.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20