Analysis · Speech on a bill · beta

Jagsharan Singh Mahal

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-09-24

950 words · 54 sentences · 61 clauses

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.

Procedure 4%Claims 62%Anecdote 11%Reasoning 14%The ask 7%Promise 1%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 24 wordsI rise today on behalf of the people of Edmonton Southeast to debate Bill C-39, legislation that the government says would get Canada building.Procedure Claims · 21 wordsConservatives will judge this bill by whether it saves Canadians money, protects their jobs and delivers the projects our country needs. Anecdote · 67 wordsIn my previous career as a lawyer, I understood that my clients depended on outcomes. Whether I was advocating for a favourable judgment or negotiating a successful settlement, my responsibility was to advance their interests and deliver a meaningful result. My clients needed more than assurances that I was working on their files. They needed to know what the progress was and what that meant for them.AnecdotePartly on point Reasoning · 25 wordsCanadians should expect the same accountability from the government. The government works for its people and they are entitled to judge it by the results. Claims · 49 wordsMore than a year ago, the Liberals introduced Bill C-5, promising to accelerate major projects, ¹yet, more than a year later, the Building Canada Act still contains no designated national interest projects.² Now, the Liberal government is asking Canadians to place their confidence in a nearly 250-page omnibus bill.³ The ask · 24 wordsCanadians deserve an explanation of why the previous legislation has not delivered the promised designations and why this legislation would produce a different outcome. Anecdote · 18 wordsIn my legal practice, another stack of paperwork would not, on its own, demonstrate progress for a client.Anecdote Reasoning · 33 wordsIt should not be the measure of success in government either. That is why we must look beyond the title of this bill and examine how it would actually change the approval system. Claims · 22 wordsBill C-39 would create a transportation project office, a national trade corridors council and a new framework for regions of national interest.⁴ Reasoning · 66 wordsCoordination can be useful, but creating new offices and frameworks would not necessarily eliminate regulatory issues. A faster approval system should clearly identify who is responsible for a decision, coordinate overlapping federal reviews and provide stakeholders with a predictable path through the process. The real test would be whether these changes actually reduce red tape and shorten the time it takes to reach a final decision. Procedure · 10 wordsThese delays have consequences beyond the walls of this chamber.Procedure Claims · 294 wordsA project awaiting a decision represents potential contracts for suppliers, apprenticeship for young workers and income for families. When those opportunities remain uncertain, people must make decisions about their futures. This is especially important for younger Canadians. Statistics Canada routinely reports that thousands of Canadians move abroad each year.⁵ In 2021, the majority of Canadians leaving the country were between 20 and 44 years old, many of whom moved down to the United States.⁶ People leave for many reasons, and we should respect their freedom to pursue opportunities elsewhere, but as MPs, we should be deeply concerned when Canada cannot offer a competitive future to the people we have educated and trained.Partly on point An engineering graduate needs a company willing to hire. An apprentice needs a project that will provide steady work. When investment is delayed, the opportunities attached to it are delayed too. For families in Edmonton Southeast, the stakes are personal. Parents want their children to build successful lives without having to move away to find the opportunities they need. Canada should be a country where ambition has room to grow.Partly on point That requires a government that understands the connection between investment, employment and the ability to build a free life here. Conservatives have proposed a clear approach: approve projects within six months, repeal antidevelopment laws brought in through Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, adopt “one project, one review”, set clear requirements, coordinate the process and deliver a predictable decision. Bill C-39 promotes a one-year decision timeline for certain assessments, ⁷but that would depend upon the preassessments and determinations, both of which have no clear timelines. For the stakeholders involved in those projects, the preparation and review needed before that point still take time and money, something that this bill would not entirely address. The ask · 13 wordsWe must examine whether these provisions produce greater certainty across the entire process. Claims · 15 wordsBusinesses cannot plan their investments around a deadline that tells only part of the story. Reasoning · 12 wordsThe same need for certainty applies to getting Canadian energy to market. The ask · 14 wordsThis is where the government must address the tanker ban created through Bill C-48. Claims · 52 wordsThe Oil Tanker Moratorium Act restricts large crude oil shipments through ports along British Columbia’s northern coast.⁸ For an oil export project that would rely on those ports, faster approval of pipelines would not itself resolve the separate restriction put by the tanker ban on the loading of its product onto ships. The ask · 18 wordsThe government must explain how it promises faster development when it continues to leave export barriers in place. Claims · 93 wordsInvestors need confidence that a complete project can operate from production to delivery to the customer. Bill C-39 would not repeal the tanker ban.⁹ Bill C-264, which was put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Signal Hill, directly addresses this issue.¹⁰ If the government wants to demonstrate it is serious about opening opportunities for Canadian energy, that is a concrete measure already before Parliament. For Alberta, access to markets means opportunities for people who build and maintain energy infrastructure and for the businesses that support them. Those opportunities matter in Edmonton Southeast. Anecdote · 23 wordsIn closing, my experience as a lawyer taught me to keep the interests of people I represent at the centre of my work.Anecdote Claims · 30 wordsI bring that same responsibility to the House.Partly on point Canadians deserve opportunities they can build their lives around and a government that can demonstrate what it has accomplished on their behalf. Promise · 14 wordsConservatives will review this legislation carefully and press for changes that deliver those results.Vague promise Claims · 13 wordsThe government has made its promises. Canadians are waiting for it to deliver.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 81

8 of 23 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I rise today on behalf of the people of Edmonton Southeast to debate Bill C-39, legislation that the government says would get Canada building.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “In my previous career as a lawyer, I understood that my clients depended on outcomes.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “Whether I was advocating for a favourable judgment or negotiating a successful settlement, my responsibility was to advance their interests and deliver a meaningful result.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “My clients needed more than assurances that I was working on their files.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “They needed to know what the progress was and what that meant for them.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “In my legal practice, another stack of paperwork would not, on its own, demonstrate progress for a client.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “These delays have consequences beyond the walls of this chamber.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “In closing, my experience as a lawyer taught me to keep the interests of people I represent at the centre of my work.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 91

14 of 23 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 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 “In my previous career as a lawyer, I understood that my clients depended on outcomes.”About the member’s past legal career, setting up an analogy rather than addressing the bill.
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 “Whether I was advocating for a favourable judgment or negotiating a successful settlement, my responsibility was to advance their interests and deliver a meaningful result.”About the member’s legal practice, not 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 “My clients needed more than assurances that I was working on their files.”About the member’s former clients, not the bill.
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 needed to know what the progress was and what that meant for them.”About the member’s former clients, not the bill.
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 “Statistics Canada routinely reports that thousands of Canadians move abroad each year.”About emigration statistics generally, touching the bill’s subject only 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 “In 2021, the majority of Canadians leaving the country were between 20 and 44 years old, many of whom moved down to the United States.”About emigration figures, not the bill’s measures.
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 “People leave for many reasons,”About reasons people leave Canada, not the bill.
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 should respect their freedom to pursue opportunities elsewhere,”About respecting freedom to move abroad, not the bill.
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 as MPs, we should be deeply concerned when Canada cannot offer a competitive future to the people we have educated and trained.”About Canada’s competitive future broadly, touching the bill only 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 “For families in Edmonton Southeast, the stakes are personal.”About the member’s constituents’ personal stakes generally, not the bill’s measures.
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 “Parents want their children to build successful lives without having to move away to find the opportunities they need.”About parents’ hopes for their children, touching the bill only 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 “Canada should be a country where ambition has room to grow.”A general statement about Canada, not 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 “In closing, my experience as a lawyer taught me to keep the interests of people I represent at the centre of my work.”About the member’s legal background again, setting up his closing rather than the bill.
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 bring that same responsibility to the House.”About the member’s own conduct in the House, not the bill.

Respect · 100

0 of 23 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 · 98

1 of 23 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 “press for changes that deliver those results”A commitment by the speaker’s side to press for changes with no measure, date or success condition named.

Claims · 10

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 Liberals introduced Bill C-5”The Liberal government introduced Bill C-5 more than a year before 24 September 2026.search
2“the Building Canada Act still contains no designated national interest projects”As of September 2026, the Building Canada Act has no designated national interest projects under it.search
3“a nearly 250-page omnibus bill”Bill C-39 is nearly 250 pages long.search
4“a transportation project office, a national trade corridors council and a new framework for regions of national interest”Bill C-39 would create a transportation project office, a national trade corridors council and a new framework for regions of national interest.search
5“Statistics Canada routinely reports that thousands of Canadians move abroad each year”Statistics Canada data show thousands of Canadians move abroad each year.search
6“the majority of Canadians leaving the country were between 20 and 44 years old”In 2021, the majority of Canadians who left the country were between 20 and 44 years old.search
7“a one-year decision timeline for certain assessments”Bill C-39 sets a one-year decision timeline for certain assessments.search
8“restricts large crude oil shipments through ports along British Columbia’s northern coast”The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act restricts large crude oil shipments through ports along British Columbia’s northern coast.search
9“Bill C-39 would not repeal the tanker ban”Bill C-39 does not repeal the oil tanker moratorium on BC’s northern coast.search
10“put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Signal Hill”Bill C-264 was introduced by the member for Calgary Signal Hill.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20