Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Connie Cody

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-05

120 words · 7 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Christine Normandin (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I think I know what kind of answer I am going to get, but I would still like the member to share her thoughts on the impartiality of the people who will be assessing certain projects, particularly pipeline projects. We know that it will now be the Canada Energy Regulator and not the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada that will be responsible for conducting those assessments. However, five of the regulator’s seven commissioners used to work in the oil industry. The CER’s mission is to promote the transmission of electricity and the transportation of oil. It is safe to say that this body is not impartial. I would like the member to tell us about how important it is to have impartial agencies assess all projects, particularly major projects that are in the so-called national interest.”

Statement grade

62 / 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.

Procedure 12%Positioning 20%Reasoning 53%Claims 15%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 14 wordsthere is a lot to discuss about who would be involved with the decision-making.Procedure Positioning · 24 wordsWe have to think about who cares about whether local businesses stay open and whether children and grandchildren can find opportunities close to home.Positioning Reasoning · 7 wordsThose objectives should not be in conflict.Off point Claims · 18 wordsCanada has some of the most skilled workers, highest environmental standards and strongest regulatory expertise in the world. Reasoning · 57 wordsSurely we should be capable of conducting a rigorous review process while still providing businesses and workers with certainty. That is why Parliament’s responsibility would be not simply to review projects or have specific people assigned to review these projects. It would be to ensure that decisions are made before jobs, investment and opportunities disappear from Canada.Partly 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 · 62

2 of 8 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 “there is a lot to discuss about who would be involved with the decision-making.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We have to think about who cares about whether local businesses stay open and whether children and grandchildren can find opportunities close to home.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 32

6 of 8 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We have to think about who cares about whether local businesses stay open and whether children and grandchildren can find opportunities close to home.”About local businesses and opportunities for children, not the impartiality of project assessors.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Those objectives should not be in conflict.”A general remark about objectives not conflicting, not addressing who assesses projects.
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 has some of the most skilled workers, highest environmental standards and strongest regulatory expertise in the world.”Praises Canada’s regulatory expertise in general terms but does not address the impartiality concern raised.
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 “Surely we should be capable of conducting a rigorous review process while still providing businesses and workers with certainty.”About the rigour of review processes generally, without speaking to the impartiality of the reviewers 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 “That is why Parliament’s responsibility would be not simply to review projects or have specific people assigned to review these projects.”Touches on who is assigned to review projects but does not answer the impartiality 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 “It would be to ensure that decisions are made before jobs, investment and opportunities disappear from Canada.”About jobs and investment disappearing, not the impartiality of the assessment bodies.

Respect · 100

0 of 8 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 8 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 · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-19