Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Dane Lloyd

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

142 words · 7 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to John Brassard (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, the way the Liberals are acting tonight, it is almost like the arsonist who sets a house on fire and then we expect him to put the fire out. It is almost the same thing. I want to go back to the issue of the Privacy Commissioner. One of the things that I saw, and the member was there when I was there, was that the briefs that were submitted to the committee did not arrive and were not sent to committee members until the day they were sitting around the table to question the Privacy Commissioner and other witnesses who had submitted briefs, eight days later. I know the hon. member brought this up. He was quite concerned, as were other members sitting around that table, including the Bloc members. How much of an impact did not having those briefs have on the member’s ability, as a member of this committee, to scrutinize this piece of legislation?”

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.

Claims 75%Reasoning 25%

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

Madam Speaker, Claims · 107 wordsthe hon. member was indeed there.¹ It was very concerning because we had the Privacy Commissioner come to committee, and I had received nothing from the Privacy Commissioner prior to the start of that meeting.² The Privacy Commissioner was referencing recommendations that he had provided to the committee weeks before, ³and I had no idea what these recommendations were. There were issues with interpretation and technical issues, but I could not even get transcripts from the meeting that had taken place three weeks before, ⁵where we had former justice Deschamps from NSIRA come and provide recommendations to the committee.⁴ I could not even reference past committee meetings.Partly on point Reasoning · 35 wordsBecause the government is rushing through this legislation so quickly, we could not even do proper due diligence. It really did impact my ability and all members’ ability to be effective in scrutinizing this legislation.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 4 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 · 77

4 of 4 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 “There were issues with interpretation and technical issues,”About interpretation and technical problems at the meeting, not the missing briefs 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 “but I could not even get transcripts from the meeting that had taken place three weeks before,”About missing transcripts from an earlier meeting, not the late-arriving briefs the question 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 “where we had former justice Deschamps from NSIRA come and provide recommendations to the committee.”About a different past committee meeting and witness, not the briefs at issue.
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 could not even reference past committee meetings.”About inability to reference past meetings, not the effect of the missing briefs.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 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 4 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 hon. member was indeed there”John Brassard was present at the Public Safety committee meeting where the Privacy Commissioner testified on Bill C-22.search
2“I had received nothing from the Privacy Commissioner prior to the start of that meeting”Dane Lloyd had received nothing from the Privacy Commissioner before the committee meeting at which the Privacy Commissioner testified on Bill C-22.search
3“The Privacy Commissioner was referencing recommendations that he had provided to the committee weeks before”The Privacy Commissioner had provided recommendations to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security weeks before the meeting at which he testified on Bill C-22.search
4“former justice Deschamps from NSIRA come and provide recommendations to the committee”Former justice Deschamps of NSIRA appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to provide recommendations on Bill C-22.search
5“transcripts from the meeting that had taken place three weeks before”Transcripts of a Public Safety committee meeting held roughly three weeks before the Privacy Commissioner’s testimony on Bill C-22 were not available to members.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20