Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

171 words · 11 sentences · 16 clauses

Replying to Alexis Deschênes (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insightful remarks. Listening to him contributes to our collective understanding of Bill C‑39. One issue that we have homed in on is the possibility of pre-approving projects. If we think about the regions of national interest, and I would like to hear my colleague’s views on this, it is apparent that the regional assessment would be conducted in advance, and the minister would make the decision afterwards. The minister will read the reports, but then he is free to do whatever he wants. As long as a regional assessment has been completed, the minister can proceed as he sees fit. The minister would then be able to designate and describe a region and approve specific categories of projects and criteria. Would my colleague not agree that this is a way of pre-approving projects en masse based on very general criteria, rather than on assessments of the individual projects?”

Statement grade

A–

Average 87 / 100

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

Thanks 4%Claims 64%Positioning 25%Reasoning 6%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 7 wordsmy colleague is right in his analysis.Thanks Claims · 87 wordsThe government tells us that investors are reaching out, that it wants investment, and that we need a stable regulatory environment, Partly on pointor so the Liberals say.Off point However, what is being proposed here is not a stable regulatory environment. There is no regulatory environment. An investor is told that their project will be pre-approved and that, when the report comes out, at worst, it will be scrapped or parts of it will be removed, ¹and then three or four laws will be violated just to move it forward. Positioning · 14 wordsThat is not a stable regulatory environment. There is nothing more unstable than that.Positioning Claims · 6 wordsIt is a lack of regulation, Positioning · 29 wordsbut it is also an injustice. What happens to investors who do not have access to the Prime Minister’s Office or are not a priority to the current government?Positioning Claims · 17 wordsThose investors have to comply with the other laws. This is an asymmetrical and unpredictable regulatory regime, Reasoning · 11 wordsand I do not think it necessarily serves the government’s objectives.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 63

5 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “my colleague is right in his analysis.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “That is not a stable regulatory environment.”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 “There is nothing more unstable than that.”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 “but it is also an injustice.”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 “What happens to investors who do not have access to the Prime Minister’s Office or are not a priority to the current government?”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 86

3 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.

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 “The government tells us that investors are reaching out, that it wants investment,”It reports the government’s stated aims for the bill but not the agreement 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 “and that we need a stable regulatory environment,”It repeats the government’s stated aim rather than the member’s agreement on pre-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 “or so the Liberals say.”An attribution of what the Liberals say, not about the pre-approval question.

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 · 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“their project will be pre-approved and that, when the report comes out, at worst, it will be scrapped or parts of it will be removed”Under Bill C-39, projects would be pre-approved, and once the report comes out they could be scrapped or have parts removed.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19