Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Leah Gazan

NDP on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-05

120 words · 9 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to Sébastien Lemire (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her staunch defence of indigenous rights. She has done so eloquently once again. As an aside, I would like to thank Idriss, the good Samaritan who came to my rescue when I got a flat tire in La Vérendrye Park. Without his help, I would not be here today. I would also like to thank the Carquest garage in Gracefield that fixed my tire. It is thanks to their help that I am able to be here today. That said, I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the potential for authoritarian abuse of power with Bill C-39. This expression was thrown around rather freely during the election campaign, as I am sure the member will agree. At times, during the election campaign, close ties to certain individuals, their spouses or their relatives led organizations like Amnistie internationale Canada francophone to raise concerns about it based on their assumptions. However, in this case, we have an actual example. After Bill C-5, Bill C-15 and now Bill C-39, the government wants to give itself powers with no consultations required. This affects first nations, environmental laws and social licence in particular. Is there a risk of authoritarian abuse of power here?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 82 / 100

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

Positioning 32%Claims 60%Procedure 8%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 11 wordsall the government is building is a pipeline to the courts.Positioning Claims · 36 wordsWhether it is with workers or indigenous peoples, there are already court challenges starting to brew from the legislation. The government, time and time again, puts forward legislation that violates the Constitution and violates the charter. Positioning · 6 wordsThis is the latest and greatest.Positioning Claims · 36 wordsIn fact, the bill would violate section 35 rights. The bill would not only violate section 35 rights; it also talks about indigenous groups without definition.¹ It does not even have a definition in international law. Procedure · 9 wordsI am calling this out for what it is.ProcedureUnearned certainty Positioning · 22 wordsIt is paving a way for the Liberals’ corporate buddies on the backs of the charter rights and constitutional rights of Canadians.PositioningUnearned certainty

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 · 54

4 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 “all the government is building is a pipeline to the courts.”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 “This is the latest and greatest.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I am calling this out for what it is.”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 “It is paving a way for the Liberals’ corporate buddies on the backs of the charter rights and constitutional rights of Canadians.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

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 · 75

2 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “I am calling this out for what it is”Asserts a definitive verdict in place of any source or evidence.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “It is paving a way for the Liberals’ corporate buddies”Characterizes the bill’s purpose as fact without any cited source.

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“it also talks about indigenous groups without definition”Bill C-39 refers to indigenous groups without defining the term in the bill.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19