Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Claude DeBellefeuille

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

110 words · 4 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to John Brassard (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, I was at the committee meeting the day the Privacy Commissioner was there, along with other witnesses representing social media platforms. Before the meeting, all the witnesses indicated that they had submitted their briefs to the committee. However, members were not able to see them because they had not received them. Did the member not find it frustrating that we did not receive the briefs before the meeting, not only from the Privacy Commissioner but also from the other witnesses?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 100 / 100

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

Claims 72%Reasoning 28%

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

Claims · 32 wordsIt certainly did, Madam Speaker. I think even the Privacy Commissioner was disappointed that we did not have his brief or his amendment recommendations before us when he testified before the committee.¹ Reasoning · 31 wordsHaving that information would have allowed us to make better use of his presence right then and there by asking him more specific questions so that he could defend his amendments. Madam Speaker, Claims · 47 wordsI think it was a mistake on the part of government members not to agree to invite him back so that we could give him another opportunity to defend his amendments, ²which, in my view and that of the New Democrats and the Conservatives, were very important.

At a glance

AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Relevance · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Respect · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Clarity · 100

Nothing lost points on Clarity.

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

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“I think even the Privacy Commissioner was disappointed that we did not have his brief or his amendment recommendations before us when he testified before the committee.”The Privacy Commissioner testified before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-22 without members having received his brief and amendment recommendations beforehand.search
2“not to agree to invite him back”Committee members from the government party did not agree to invite the Privacy Commissioner back to testify again after his initial appearance on Bill C-22.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20