Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Gabriel Ste-Marie

Bloc Québécois on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-09-23

196 words · 11 sentences · 12 clauses

Replying to Greg Fergus (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my esteemed colleague from Joliette a question about what he just said. He said that the government has gutted environmental regulations. I would like him to tell us where it says that. All we have asked our public servants to do is to act more quickly to provide a faster response. We are not cutting corners; we are continuing to do the assessments. Can my colleague tell us where in the text of the bill it says that we are gutting environmental protection regulations?”

Statement grade

Average 92 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Claims 85%Positioning 10%Reasoning 6%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 166 wordsfirst of all, that already happened with Bill C-5. As soon as a project is designated as being in the national interest, a whole host of environmental protection laws no longer apply.¹ In this case, rather than maintain the consultation process involving scientists, a gain achieved under the Liberals in 2015—I do not know where the hon. member was at the time—the government is now proposing to have the Canada Energy Regulator take care of that process.² A quick look at the list of commissioners shows that they are all oil industry lobbyists.³ Even if the regulator were to oppose a project, it would be pre-approved anyway, ⁴so the regulator would no longer have any power. That is what the government is doing. It is trampling on the environment and workers’ rights.Partly on point I could take a highlighter to the 250 pages of the bill and show him every place where this bill clearly undermines workers’ rights and the environment for the benefit of big international investors.⁵ Positioning · 19 wordsIs that what standing up for the public means to this government? Does it mean favouring big international investors?Positioning Reasoning · 11 wordsI think the government should have tried to strike a balance.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 85

2 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Is that what standing up for the public means to this government?”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Does it mean favouring big international investors?”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 85

4 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 “It is trampling on the environment and workers’ rights.”Restates the general criticism of the bill rather than showing where in its text the change lies.
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 “Is that what standing up for the public means to this government?”A rhetorical question about the government’s values, not a response to where the bill’s text makes the change.
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 “Does it mean favouring big international investors?”A rhetorical question about favouring investors, not pointing to the bill’s provisions.
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 the government should have tried to strike a balance.”Offers the member’s own preference for balance rather than answering where in the text the change is.

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 · 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“a whole host of environmental protection laws no longer apply”Under Bill C-5, once a project is designated as being in the national interest, a range of environmental protection laws no longer apply to it.search
2“have the Canada Energy Regulator take care of that process”Bill C-39 proposes to have the Canada Energy Regulator take over the impact assessment and consultation process that involves scientists.search
3“A quick look at the list of commissioners shows that they are all oil industry lobbyists”The commissioners of the Canada Energy Regulator are all oil industry lobbyists.search
4“Even if the regulator were to oppose a project, it would be pre-approved anyway”Under Bill C-39, a project would be pre-approved even if the Canada Energy Regulator opposed it.search
5“the 250 pages of the bill”Bill C-39 is 250 pages long.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20