“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Repentigny for his speech, which has made it very clear where the Bloc Québécois stands on the environmental aspects of Bill C-39. However, I would now like to ask him to speak to us about another area, namely labour relations and the right to strike, and more specifically the use of section 107. This type of recourse has always been exceptional and should remain that way even more so under Bill C-39. This bill introduces the concept of national interest, which, in my view, makes perfect sense. I would just like to hear the MP’s opinion and perhaps get his response on how this criterion of national interest should be defined.”
Statement grade
B+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 84 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 55%Reasoning 28%Positioning 17%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 22 wordsright now, the national interest is the government’s interest, and it is the government that decides what is in the national interest.Reasoning · 40 wordsWhether the government likes it or not, it is very clear to us that these debates must take place among elected officials, particularly when it comes to the use of arbitrators, restricting the right to strike and restricting workers’ rights.Unearned certaintyClaims · 47 wordsIt is no wonder that the FTQ, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, is speaking out against this bill.1Not only is this one of the worst rollbacks for the environment, but the bill also includes some extremely worrisome rollbacks in terms of workers’ rights.Positioning · 25 wordsWe in the Bloc Québécois are here to stand up for people and for workers, not to defend the interests of oil and gas companies, PositioningClaims · 9 wordswhich, by the way, primarily belong to American interests.2Partly on point
