Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-09-23

88 words · 3 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Elizabeth May (Green)

“Mr. Speaker, this bill is an abomination. I want to go back to Bill C-5 along with Bill C-39. All of the language in these statutes rests on the assumption that cabinet can pick a project of national interest or a region of national interest without any criteria and without any cost-benefit analysis or proof of a business case. Will the minister commit that before naming any such project or any such region, we actually have some facts presented to this House?”

Statement grade

76 / 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 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 88 wordsthis bill, as Bill C-5 did, sets out a process that helps investors, project proponents, those who assess independently or otherwise each individual project, ¹and applies the best possible scientific and other expertise, in addition, of course, to the duty to consult first nations, to the proposal that is before that regulator. This process can go faster without having any standard lowered or any other Canadian standard or ability to evaluate diluted. We can make these projects get evaluated quicker: a yes or a no within a year.²Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 6 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 · 46

6 of 6 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 “this bill,”It merely names the bill, without addressing the commitment sought.
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 “as Bill C-5 did, sets out a process that helps investors, project proponents, those who assess independently or otherwise each individual project,”It describes the bill’s evaluation process, not whether facts will be presented to the House before naming a project.
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 applies the best possible scientific and other expertise, in addition, of course, to the duty to consult first nations, to the proposal that is before that regulator.”It describes the expertise applied in project review, not the requested commitment to present facts to 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 “This process can go faster without having any standard lowered or any other Canadian standard or ability to evaluate diluted.”It speaks to standards being maintained in the process, not to what would be disclosed before a project is named.
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 can make these projects get evaluated quicker:”It addresses evaluation speed, not the commitment on presenting facts to 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 “a yes or a no within a year.”It gives a timeline for decisions, not whether facts will be presented to the House before a project is named.

Respect · 100

0 of 6 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 6 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 · 2

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“as Bill C-5 did, sets out a process”Bill C-39 sets out a process for evaluating projects similar to the process in Bill C-5.search
2“a yes or a no within a year”Bill C-39’s project evaluation process provides for a decision within a year.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20