Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jenny Kwan

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

118 words · 6 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to John Brassard (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what I thought was a very thoughtful speech on a very concerning bill. It is not just the NDP or Conservatives who are concerned, but civil liberty organizations and other stakeholders. The Privacy Commissioner himself has significant concerns about the privacy aspects of this legislation. Earlier today, Conservatives moved an amendment to separate the bill into Bill C‑22A and Bill C‑22B. By doing that, we could work with and allow the police the tools they need for investigations of serious crimes and other matters, but it would also put on pause the ultimate concern of this bill, which is part 2, and allow the Privacy Commissioner and others to come back in further reflection on this bill. Does the hon. member agree with the amendment that we put forward?”

Statement grade

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 25%Reasoning 53%The ask 14%

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

Madam Speaker, Thanks · 9 wordsI appreciate what the Conservatives are trying to do, ThanksClaims · 29 wordswhich is to bring more debate on part 2 of the bill. However, the premise of the amendment is still framed in terms of bringing in closure on debate. Reasoning · 43 wordsThat is what I am challenged with. I do not think we should be bringing in closure to any parts of this bill. The two parts go hand in hand and are important, so we should take the time to do the work.Vague promise The ask · 17 wordsThis is what I am urging all members to do, take the time to do it right, Reasoning · 20 wordsbecause it is significant in terms of the changes for Canadians and for us as a country, as a whole.

At a glance

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

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 90

1 of 2 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 appreciate what the Conservatives are trying to do,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 2 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.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 2 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 · 88

1 of 2 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we should take the time to do the work”A general commitment to more deliberation with no measure, date or named action.

Claims · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-20