“Madam Speaker, earlier, we were talking about infrastructure to promote international trade. I pointed out to my colleague from Halifax that division 3 accelerates pipeline construction. If we take a closer look at where our oil exports go, we see that most of them go to the United States. In fact, 91% of our oil exports go to the United States. The government is scrapping environmental laws so it can send more oil to the United States to shore up that country’s energy security despite the ongoing trade conflict. That makes no sense to me, especially since oil companies are largely owned by American interests. Does my colleague agree that it makes absolutely no sense to scrap environmental legislation in order to supply more oil to the Americans, who are the main beneficiaries?”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 100 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 100%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Madam Speaker, Claims · 67 wordsfirst, I would remind the House that no environmental legislation will be amended and that all existing requirements must be met.1Second, thanks to oil and gas pipelines, our exports will not necessarily be going to the United States anymore; they may go to Asia and Europe instead.Given the geopolitical situation in Europe, our allies are very eager to access Canadian energy to heat their homes.