Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Caroline Desrochers

Liberal on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

106 words · 11 sentences · 12 clauses

Replying to Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Trois‑Rivières. She said a lot of things in her speech, but we will try to keep it simple. How does fast-tracking projects make them better projects? She says that there is no environmental risk and that there will be assessments. Imagine that it takes a year and a half to assess a project, but the bill says that is too long and it must be done within a year. I would like my colleague to simply explain to the people of Trois‑Rivières and Quebec how it is that any project that needs more than a year is not a good project. Under the bill, all projects must be approved within a year, at most, based on the minister’s decision, obviously, whether or not he takes into account the assessments that have been done.”

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%Positioning 13%Reasoning 28%Claims 55%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 4 wordsI thank my colleague, ThanksPositioning · 14 wordsbut I am a little disappointed that he oversimplified some things in his question.Positioning Reasoning · 26 wordsI think it is clear that the fact that a project takes more than a year to be assessed does not make it a bad project.Unearned certainty Claims · 58 wordsThe assessment standards remain the same. The process remains as rigorous. The processes will take place simultaneously.¹ The decision-making process will be coordinated to expedite the project. The degree of rigour is not changing. The standards are not changing. The same standards apply. The timelines are there so people know whether or not a project can move forward. Reasoning · 4 wordsInvestors need that predictability.

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 · 79

2 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I thank my colleague,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “but I am a little disappointed that he oversimplified some things in his question.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. 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 · 69

1 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “it is clear”The phrase asserts certainty in place of giving a source or argument for the claim about assessment timelines.

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“The processes will take place simultaneously”Under Bill C-39, the assessment processes for evaluated projects would take place simultaneously.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19