Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Elizabeth May

Green on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

98 words · 6 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands’ indignation. She provided an excellent summary of the bulldozer that is Bill C‑39. As she explained, Bill C‑5 allowed certain laws to be set aside for a period of five years. Bill C‑39 would make that change permanent. However, the Prime Minister is not just anyone: He is the former United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. What is he doing through Bill C‑39? He is permanently repealing or amending environmental legislation. Do members see the hypocrisy? It is the same individual, but he is no longer advocating the same cause. His role has changed. I would like my colleague to explain how she sees this hypocrisy. What does she think of the fact that a person who once championed environmental protection is now granting himself extraordinary powers to circumvent environmental safeguards?”

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.

Positioning 24%Procedure 7%Claims 68%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 24 wordsI completely agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. I would add that the word “hypocrisy” may actually be a little too kind.Positioning Procedure · 7 wordsThere is one thing that troubles me.Procedure Claims · 67 wordsDuring last year’s debates, Liberal members argued that the five-year sunset clause could be problematic because a future Conservative government might use these extraordinary powers improperly.¹ At the time, the bill contained a provision that would have limited those powers to five years.² Under this bill, however, these powers would remain in the hands of the Prime Minister and cabinet indefinitely, regardless of which party forms government.³

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 · 63

3 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I completely agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois.”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 “I would add that the word “hypocrisy” may actually be a little too kind.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “There is one thing that troubles me.”Procedure or throat-clearing: 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 · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 3

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“Liberal members argued that the five-year sunset clause could be problematic because a future Conservative government might use these extraordinary powers improperly”During last year’s debates on Bill C-5, Liberal members argued that the five-year sunset clause could be problematic because a future Conservative government might misuse these powers.search
2“the bill contained a provision that would have limited those powers to five years”Bill C-5 contained a provision limiting the special powers to five years.search
3“these powers would remain in the hands of the Prime Minister and cabinet indefinitely”Under Bill C-39, the special powers would remain in the hands of the Prime Minister and cabinet indefinitely, with no sunset clause, regardless of which party forms government.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19