Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Rebecca Alty

Liberal on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

180 words · 10 sentences · 14 clauses

Replying to John Brassard (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, all is not well in the Emerald City. Earlier today, while speaking on the bill, the Liberal member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, a member from the minister’s caucus, spoke about Bill C-39’s shortcomings but stopped short of explicitly calling for amendments to the bill. We believe there should be amendments. Among the issues that he flagged are that there is too much discretion for ministers to exempt projects from environmental regulations and that the compressed timelines may prevent indigenous communities and NGOs from giving meaningful input, allowing construction to begin before an environmental assessment is complete. This is coming from a Liberal member of the caucus who has his own concerns about Bill C-39. There are multiple concerns right across the country with respect to this piece of legislation. How would the minister react to the member’s comments?”

Statement grade

Average 91 / 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 · 180 wordsone great thing about this legislation is the opportunity to have efficiencies and to reduce duplication. For example, if there is an offshore energy project that is being proposed, right now it has to go through an assessment with the Impact Assessment Agency, ¹as well as the Canada Energy Regulator.² What is being proposed in Bill C-39 is that it would go from two agencies to one agency.³ It would be the Canada Energy Regulator doing the review.⁴ That would also be the federal department leading consultations and bringing the federal family in to do one project, one review, one consultation.Partly on point I would also note that the legislation allows for an extension, if need be, for further consultations. There are parameters in the legislation that allow for some flexibility, but the benefits of this legislation are really about reducing the duplication and having more coordinated consultation. Another thing is that the minister’s decision-making time goes from 90 days down to 65 days.⁵ Again, there would be no impact on consultation. It would just be with the minister for less time.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 7 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 · 63

7 of 7 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 “one great thing about this legislation is the opportunity to have efficiencies and to reduce duplication.”About the bill’s efficiency benefits, not the discretion or timeline concerns raised.
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 “For example,”Introduces an example of the bill’s review process, not the concerns raised.
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 “if there is an offshore energy project that is being proposed, right now it has to go through an assessment with the Impact Assessment Agency,”Describes the current assessment process, not the concerns raised.
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 “as well as the Canada Energy Regulator.”Describes the current dual-agency review, not the concerns raised.
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 “What is being proposed in Bill C-39 is that it would go from two agencies to one agency.”About the bill’s single-agency change, not the concerns raised.
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 “It would be the Canada Energy Regulator doing the review.”About which agency would review projects, not the concerns raised.
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 “That would also be the federal department leading consultations and bringing the federal family in to do one project, one review, one consultation.”About coordinated consultations as a benefit, not the specific concerns raised.

Respect · 100

0 of 7 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 7 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 · 5

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“if there is an offshore energy project that is being proposed, right now it has to go through an assessment with the Impact Assessment Agency”Under current law, a proposed offshore energy project must go through an assessment with the Impact Assessment Agency.search
2“as well as the Canada Energy Regulator”A proposed offshore energy project currently must also go through an assessment with the Canada Energy Regulator.search
3“What is being proposed in Bill C-39 is that it would go from two agencies to one agency”Bill C-39 would change offshore energy project assessment from two agencies to one agency.search
4“It would be the Canada Energy Regulator doing the review”Under Bill C-39, the Canada Energy Regulator would conduct the review of offshore energy projects.search
5“the minister’s decision-making time goes from 90 days down to 65 days”Bill C-39 would reduce the minister’s decision-making time from 90 days to 65 days.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19