Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Corey Hogan

Liberal on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

69 words · 3 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Dan Albas (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, I know that the Liberals like to say that they are against two-tier anything, but Bill C-39 would create a statutory authority for the regulator, or in this case the responsible authority, that would give the one year, one review. There would be exemptions. Obviously, there is proposed section 19(4), which would force a completeness sign-off that could be like Groundhog Day for someone. In addition to the loopholes in the bill, there would be no statutory deadline for transportation projects. I would like to ask the member why transportation projects would have no statutory one year, one review equivalent like the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Impact Assessment Agency or the Canadian Energy Regulator have. Why would there be a two-tier approach to big projects?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 82 / 100

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

Reasoning 57%Thanks 9%Promise 35%

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

Madam Speaker, Reasoning · 39 wordsI think the member opposite will also appreciate that there are different considerations, both in transportation because of the nature and the concentration that exists, and also in linear infrastructure and the challenges that are presented there as well. Thanks · 6 wordsI certainly welcome the member’s comments, ThanksPromise · 24 wordsand I hope that at committee we can flesh this out.Vague promise Perhaps there are opportunities to meet his concerns as we advance on this.Off point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 89

1 of 4 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 certainly welcome the member’s comments,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 58

2 of 4 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 “and I hope that at committee we can flesh this out.”About taking the matter up at committee, not the reason for the difference in statutory deadlines.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Perhaps there are opportunities to meet his concerns as we advance on this.”About possible future committee changes, not the question’s two-tier concern.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 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 · 80

1 of 4 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 “at committee we can flesh this out”It commits to a future effort with no measure, timeline or success condition named.

Claims · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-19