Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Eleanor Olszewski

Liberal on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-05

94 words · 6 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Sébastien Lemire (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the member for Edmonton Centre, and I have serious doubts about the notion of people power, particularly when looking at her title. She is the Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada, fair enough, but she is also the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience. We can all agree there is no real emergency here though, because Donald Trump’s presidency is likely to have been long over before a single drop flows from the new pipeline. As for the “community resilience” part, that really fascinates me. It is like an honoris causa for someone honourable. I do not understand the point of it, especially if the aim of the bill is to steamroll these communities, whether in terms of environmental rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, workers’ rights or the people’s right to be consulted. If a region is declared to be of national interest, the authorities can steamroll anything they want. What, then, is the point of a Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 95 / 100

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

Procedure 15%Claims 50%Reasoning 35%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 14 wordsI apologize. Sorry, my French is quite poor. Therefore, I will answer in English.Procedure Claims · 47 wordsThis bill would in no way detract from our obligation to consult with indigenous peoples, ¹nor would it change anything about environmental laws and protections.² What it would do is remove duplication and a series of permitting, regulations and processes that do not proceed concurrently but sequentially.³ Reasoning · 33 wordsProjects in this country cannot take 10 to 15 years for there to be a decision because no one will ever want to invest in this country or in any project at all.⁴

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 · 81

3 of 3 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 apologize.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Sorry, my French is quite poor.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Therefore, I will answer in English.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 3 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 3 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 3 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 · 4

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“This bill would in no way detract from our obligation to consult with indigenous peoples”Bill C-39 would not detract from the government’s obligation to consult with indigenous peoples.search
2“nor would it change anything about environmental laws and protections”Bill C-39 would not change anything about environmental laws and protections.search
3“remove duplication and a series of permitting, regulations and processes that do not proceed concurrently but sequentially”Bill C-39 would remove duplication and change permitting and regulatory processes so they no longer proceed sequentially.search
4“10 to 15 years”Projects in Canada can take 10 to 15 years to reach a decision.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19