Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Claude DeBellefeuille

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

74 words · 6 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Jenny Kwan (NDP)

“Madam Speaker, I just want to acknowledge and thank my colleague as well. I am not a regular attendee of the SECU committee. However, on Bill C-22 I listened to all the exchanges and debates. I have to say my colleague from the Bloc was superb in many of her interventions. With respect to the amendments that were made, the NDP also moved an amendment related to the issue of “reasonable grounds to suspect” versus “reasonable grounds to believe”. However, the NDP amendment was defeated. The Bloc similarly moved an amendment in that regard, in accordance with the Quebec bar association. This was also an important issue that did not get support. Could the member elaborate on the rationale behind the Liberals’ objection to that important amendment?”

Statement grade

77 / 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 26%Claims 55%Reasoning 19%

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

Madam Speaker, Thanks · 19 wordsI would like to return the compliment to my colleague from Vancouver East. It has truly been a pleasure.Thanks Claims · 21 wordsYes, that is true. Together, often alongside the Conservatives, we tabled the same amendments, particularly regarding the threshold for obtaining information.¹ Reasoning · 14 wordsWe both believe that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is not a high enough threshold. Claims · 20 wordsOur political parties, along with the Conservative Party, are calling for a much higher threshold, namely “reasonable grounds to believe”.²Partly 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 · 70

2 of 6 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 would like to return the compliment to my colleague from Vancouver East.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “It has truly been a pleasure.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 47

4 of 6 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 “Yes, that is true.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 “Together, often alongside the Conservatives, we tabled the same amendments, particularly regarding the threshold for obtaining information.”About the amendments the parties tabled together, not the rationale for the Liberals’ objection asked about.
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 “We both believe that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is not a high enough threshold.”States the shared belief that the suspect threshold is too low, but offers no reason for the Liberals’ objection.
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 “Our political parties, along with the Conservative Party, are calling for a much higher threshold, namely “reasonable grounds to believe”.”Restates the parties’ common position on the higher threshold without addressing why the Liberals opposed it.

Respect · 100

0 of 6 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 6 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 · 2

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“Together, often alongside the Conservatives, we tabled the same amendments, particularly regarding the threshold for obtaining information”The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives tabled the same amendments during committee consideration of Bill C-22, particularly on the threshold for obtaining information.search
2“Our political parties, along with the Conservative Party, are calling for a much higher threshold, namely “reasonable grounds to believe”.”The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservative Party are calling for the threshold in Bill C-22 to be ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ rather than ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20