Analysis · Reply to a comment · beta

Jenny Kwan

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

204 words · 13 sentences · 14 clauses

Replying to Sima Acan (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that we have not consulted with the Privacy Commissioner. I want to mention that this is the wrong information, and I believe that my colleague was misinformed before her speech. The Privacy Commissioner said at the committee, “I would not say that we were not consulted in this instance. We made a number of recommendations. A number of them were taken and I’ve highlighted those improvements”. He said that during his witness testimony. I would also like to highlight that the government did its due diligence by getting the Privacy Commissioner’s input for that bill. I also want to mention that, as a Liberal member on the committee, we would like to work with the opposition party members to improve the bill and work on the amendments. However, we heard 10 hours of witness testimonies, plus three hours with the officials. We had over 40 briefs and lots of witnesses on that study. Filibustering, unfortunately, is not allowing us to move on the amendments. The amendments are on the table. We would like to continue with the amendments and working on them, but the Conservatives are not allowing us to.”

Statement grade

A+

Average 97 / 100

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

Claims 53%Reasoning 28%The question 18%

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

Madam Speaker, Claims · 46 wordsthe Privacy Commissioner actually appeared as a witness at the committee and offered suggestions.¹ I also contacted the Privacy Commissioner after Bill C‑22 was tabled and asked whether they had any comments about the bill. They provided comments on C‑2, ²which the government took into consideration.Off point Reasoning · 11 wordsHowever, I think that there is much work to be done.Partly on point The question · 37 wordsI wonder why the government rejected the motion that was tabled by committee members to bring the Privacy Commissioner back to committee to ensure questions were answered by the Privacy Commissioner as the committee went through clause-by-clause. Claims · 63 wordsThat was rejected by the Liberals.³ To the member’s point about the filibustering, I went to committee and watched what was going on. What happened was members were asking legitimate questions and then there was a motion to split the bill, by the Conservatives, into part one and part two.⁴ The Liberals rejected it.⁵ I then observed that the filibustering started to happen. Reasoning · 47 wordsIt is a tool. When members get frustrated with the government’s approach, they use that as a tool to send a message to the government that it cannot run roughshod when trying to make laws. That was the message, I believe, the members were trying to send.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 3 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 87

3 of 3 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 comment put to the member, and the motion under debate.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “They provided comments on C‑2,”About comments the Privacy Commissioner gave on Bill C-2, a different bill than the one under debate.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “which the government took into consideration.”Continues about the government’s treatment of comments on Bill C-2, not the bill or motion before the House.
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 think that there is much work to be done.”A general remark that more work is needed on the bill, without addressing the points raised about consultation or filibustering.

Respect · 100

0 of 3 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 3 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“the Privacy Commissioner actually appeared as a witness at the committee”The Privacy Commissioner appeared as a witness at the Public Safety committee studying Bill C-22.search
2“They provided comments on C‑2, ”The Privacy Commissioner provided comments on Bill C-2 when the member contacted him.search
3“That was rejected by the Liberals.”Liberal committee members voted down a motion to bring the Privacy Commissioner back to the Public Safety committee during clause-by-clause study of Bill C-22.search
4“there was a motion to split the bill, by the Conservatives, into part one and part two”Conservative members moved a motion at the Public Safety committee to split Bill C-22 into part one and part two.search
5“The Liberals rejected it.”Liberal committee members voted against the Conservative motion to split Bill C-22 into two parts.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20