Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Nathalie Provost

Liberal on Climate Change 2026-06-15

78 words · 6 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Sébastien Lemire (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources announced on Thursday that we are facing another bad summer for wildfires. However, that is not apparent from listening to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Two days earlier, he was at an energy trade show in Calgary, calling the oil sands one of the great industrial achievements in Canadian history. He was boasting about speeding up oil and gas exports at the very same time as his own department was warning that our regions are going to burn. Do the Liberals not think that the safety of forested regions should come before oil sands profits?”

Statement grade

75 / 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.

Claims 59%Positioning 8%Reasoning 33%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 5 wordsclimate change is a reality. Positioning · 6 wordsWe are fully cognizant of that, PositioningClaims · 21 wordsand we are working on it.Vague promise With Canada’s 2030 nature strategy, we plan to protect 30% of our lands and waters, ¹²Reasoning · 7 wordswhich will help us fight climate change. Claims · 20 wordsMy colleague mentioned strengthening methane regulations and all the things we are going to do for renewable electricity, renewable energy.³ Reasoning · 19 wordsThese things will help us fight climate change. That is how we will make progress and become economically self-sufficient.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 90

1 of 10 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We are fully cognizant of that,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 45

8 of 10 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 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 “climate change is a reality.”Affirms climate change is real without addressing whether safety should come before oil profits.
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 “We are fully cognizant of that,”States awareness of climate change but does not address the choice the question put.
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 “and we are working on it.”Says the government is working on climate, not answering the question about oil sands profits versus safety.
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 “With Canada’s 2030 nature strategy, we plan to protect 30% of our lands and waters,”Describes the nature strategy’s protection targets without addressing the wildfire-versus-oil question.
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 will help us fight climate change.”Links land protection to fighting climate change, not to the choice 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 “My colleague mentioned strengthening methane regulations and all the things we are going to do for renewable electricity, renewable energy.”Recalls methane regulations and renewable energy plans, not the question on oil sands profits.
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 “These things will help us fight climate change.”Speaks to climate measures generally without addressing whether safety should come before oil profits.
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 how we will make progress and become economically self-sufficient.”Turns to economic self-sufficiency rather than the wildfire safety question asked.

Respect · 100

0 of 10 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 · 90

1 of 10 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 are working on it”The commitment names no measure, actor, date or success condition.

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“With Canada’s 2030 nature strategy, we plan to protect 30% of our lands and waters”Canada’s 2030 nature strategy plans to protect 30% of the country’s lands and waters.search
2“With Canada’s 2030 nature strategy”Canada has a 2030 nature strategy.search
3“strengthening methane regulations”Canada has strengthened its methane regulations.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20