Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Blaine Calkins

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-05

121 words · 6 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Mario Beaulieu (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-39, the government can approve projects before they are even assessed. If the assessment shows that the project poses a risk to public health or that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits, it will be too late. The project will already have started. What does my colleague think about that?”

Statement grade

64 / 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%Claims 21%Positioning 17%Reasoning 50%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 14 wordsI hope I understood the gist of the question from my colleague from Quebec.Procedure Claims · 26 wordsHe should have thanked me, as an MP from Alberta, for all the money that has been transferred that is helping his community and his province.¹Off point Positioning · 20 wordsAlbertans understand that we can do projects that create wealth and prosperity for Canadians. We are not an unsophisticated society.Positioning Reasoning · 61 wordsWhen we have wealth and prosperity, we can have better environmental outcomes, we can have better health outcomes and we can have better educational outcomes. However, we cannot have a situation where we pretend we are going to build things and tie up the rest of the country and our water areas under protected zones that limit and scare away investment.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 · 66

3 of 9 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 hope I understood the gist of the question from my colleague from Quebec.”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 “Albertans understand that we can do projects that create wealth and prosperity for Canadians.”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 “We are not an unsophisticated society.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 34

6 of 9 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 “He should have thanked me,”A jab about thanking him, not the question about pre-assessment approval.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “as an MP from Alberta, for all the money that has been transferred that is helping his community and his province.”About federal transfers to Quebec, not the bill’s approval process.
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 “Albertans understand that we can do projects that create wealth and prosperity for Canadians.”A general point about Alberta and wealth-creating projects, not the concern about approving projects before assessment.
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 “We are not an unsophisticated society.”A rhetorical aside about Albertans’ sophistication, not the question asked.
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 “When we have wealth and prosperity, we can have better environmental outcomes, we can have better health outcomes and we can have better educational outcomes.”A general claim linking prosperity to outcomes, not the pre-assessment approval issue 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 “However, we cannot have a situation where we pretend we are going to build things and tie up the rest of the country and our water areas under protected zones that limit and scare away investment.”About protected zones limiting investment, not whether projects may be approved before assessment.

Respect · 100

0 of 9 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 9 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 · 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“all the money that has been transferred that is helping his community and his province”The federal government transfers money to Quebec that helps the member’s community and province, as the Alberta MP contends.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19