Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Nathalie Provost

Liberal on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-09-25

99 words · 3 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, during question period, I had an opportunity to ask my colleague opposite about a provision in Bill C-5 that the government wants to remove using Bill C-39. This provision states that, after five years, the exceptional powers conferred by Bill C‑5 cease to apply. In answer to my question, she said that her government was not using Bill C‑39 to backtrack on environmental progress. I have a question for the government. If that is not backtracking, what is? A power that was supposed to be temporary and limited to five years is being made permanent and unlimited, and we know full well that this power is used precisely to get around environmental rules.”

Statement grade

A+

Average 96 / 100

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

Claims 71%Reasoning 29%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 70 wordsif we read the content of Bills C-5 and C-39 carefully, we can see that they work on the assumption that projects can be developed in keeping with legal requirements while allowing sufficient time for determining the conditions surrounding their implementation.¹ This approach, which resembles what in Quebec is known as the pre-tabling of authorizations, is quite common in countries that take a strict and streamlined approach to environmental approvals. Reasoning · 29 wordsWe are familiar with the projects, and we do not want to expose them to legal challenges; we simply want to create the conditions necessary to meet environmental requirements.Vague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 1 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 · 100

0 of 1 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.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 1 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 · 85

1 of 1 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 “create the conditions necessary to meet environmental requirements”The statement commits to an action without defining specific measures, timelines, or success criteria.

Claims · 1

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“projects can be developed in keeping with legal requirements”Bills C-5 and C-39 are based on the assumption that projects can be developed in compliance with legal requirements while allowing sufficient time to determine their implementation conditions.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20