Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Dan Albas

Conservative on Connected Care for Canadians Act 2026-11-05

195 words · 11 sentences · 14 clauses

Replying to Danielle Martin (Liberal)

“I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which I listened to with great interest. I would like to commend my colleague, who spoke in both official languages. I want to talk a little about data blocking and ask the member opposite whether he believes the banning of data blocking is a good thing. We have seen some very serious instances, in his province and in mine, of companies refusing to let the data be used and refusing to let it exit the electronic systems because they are hanging onto it to monetize it. I wonder if the member thinks it is a good thing that the Government of Canada would put an end to that with Bill S-5.”

Statement grade

B+

84 / 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.

Reasoning 29%Claims 64%The ask 7%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 57 wordsif monetizing Canadians’ information was important to the government, it would be doing it right across the board. When I walk, Apple owns my health data.³ When I spend, my bank owns that particular data. That is the problem here, that the government only tries to pick and choose when it believes there is something politically popular.Partly on point Claims · 125 wordsAs I said, in the case of this particular bill, it seems the government wants to do something on health care, so it has landed on something that is germane and, I think, everyone agrees with. Another member of Parliament brought up the issue of interoperability in the agricultural sector.¹ I think what we need to do more than anything is what the Australians considered, ²which is the equivalent of a royal commission, where they did intense hearings. I have read through some of their books. They are so far ahead when it comes to the issues of data, monetization, personal privacy and the efficiencies that can be given when consumers are empowered with their own information. There is so much that can be done.Partly on point The ask · 13 wordsI hope the member pushes the government to do more on those things.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 11 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 · 54

11 of 11 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 bill 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 “if monetizing Canadians’ information was important to the government, it would be doing it right across the board.”About the government’s broader record on data monetization, not whether the ban in the bill is good.
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 “When I walk, Apple owns my health data.”About personal data ownership outside health care, not the bill’s data-blocking ban.
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 “When I spend, my bank owns that particular data.”About banking data ownership, not the health data question asked.
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 “That is the problem here, that the government only tries to pick and choose when it believes there is something politically popular.”An accusation that the government picks popular causes, not an answer on the ban itself.
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 “Another member of Parliament brought up the issue of interoperability in the agricultural sector.”About interoperability in agriculture, another sector only touching the bill in passing.
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 think what we need to do more than anything is what the Australians considered,”Points to an Australian inquiry as a model, an alternative approach rather than a view on the ban.
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 “which is the equivalent of a royal commission,”Describes an Australian royal commission, not the bill’s data-blocking ban.
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 they did intense hearings.”About the hearings of the Australian inquiry, not the question asked.
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 have read through some of their books.”A personal note on reading the inquiry’s material, not the ban.
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 “They are so far ahead when it comes to the issues of data, monetization, personal privacy and the efficiencies that can be given when consumers are empowered with their own information.”About Australia’s broader record on data and privacy, not the bill’s measure.
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 is so much that can be done.”A general remark about what could be done, not a view on the ban.

Respect · 100

0 of 11 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 11 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 · 3

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“Another member of Parliament brought up the issue of interoperability in the agricultural sector”Another member of Parliament raised the issue of interoperability in the agricultural sector during this debate.search
2“I think what we need to do more than anything is what the Australians considered, ”Australia considered a process equivalent to a royal commission, involving intense hearings, on data and privacy issues.search
3“Apple owns my health data”The speaker’s health data is owned by Apple.search

Analysed on 2026-11-06