Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jacques Gourde

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-06

98 words · 7 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Alexis Deschênes (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his contribution. In his speech he said that the environmental assessments were used to hold up projects. I find that fascinating and I would like him to elaborate on that. Is that what he really thinks? Does he think that environmental assessment processes were put in place to calculate the environmental impact of projects such as pipelines, not with the aim of getting answers and trying to ensure that projects are improved or that bad projects are blocked, but with the aim of slowing down projects? Is that really what he thinks?”

Statement grade

Average 93 / 100

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

Claims 78%Reasoning 7%Promise 15%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 76 wordseverything I have seen in Bill C-39 aims to significantly shorten the timelines for the environmental assessment and approval process. We are talking about time frames that could be as short as one year.¹ At one point in time, it took eight years.² The government is now proposing a time frame of one year. As early as 2007, I said on LCN that the goal should be to complete the process within one to two years.³ Reasoning · 7 wordsUltimately, projects must be allowed to proceed. Promise · 15 wordsWe will review this issue at committee and see what we can do about it.Partly on pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 2 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 · 90

1 of 2 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.

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 will review this issue at committee and see what we can do about it.”About future study at committee, not whether assessments were used to slow projects.

Respect · 100

0 of 2 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 · 81

1 of 2 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 “We will review this issue at committee and see what we can do about it”The commitment names no measure, date or success condition beyond looking at it.

Claims · 3

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“time frames that could be as short as one year”Bill C-39’s environmental assessment and approval timelines could be as short as one year.search
2“At one point in time, it took eight years”At some point in the past, Canada’s environmental assessment and approval process took eight years.search
3“As early as 2007, I said on LCN that the goal should be to complete the process within one to two years”Jacques Gourde said on LCN in 2007 that the goal for the environmental assessment process should be one to two years.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19