Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Heather McPherson

NDP on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-05

125 words · 5 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to have the member reflect on the issue of essential services, because it is important for us to recognize that governments of all political stripes have used labour boards in order to end strikes. If we take a look at my home province of Manitoba, very recently, back in September, the provincial government asked the Manitoba Labour Board to in essence end the strike of Dynacare employees and ultimately made them go back to work. I am wondering if the member opposite would recognize that at least at the provincial level, where the NDP has governed, and at the federal level, labour boards have been used to end strikes. Does she believe in any—”

Statement grade

A+

Average 96 / 100

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

Claims 49%Reasoning 39%Positioning 12%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 38 wordsthe member should know very well that they have used the essential services provision for section 107 to undermine workers’ ability to bargain in good faith with their employers more than any other government has ever done before.¹ Reasoning · 35 wordsTo not bring it to Parliament for a vote, to not debate it within the House of Commons and to give unilateral power to one minister is the opposite of what we should be doing. Claims · 8 wordsIt is undermining workers’ rights in this country. Positioning · 15 wordsHe can try to find some ways of saying there is a rationale for it, PositioningClaims · 15 wordsbut what this does is it allows any minister to order workers back to work.² Reasoning · 14 wordsThe minute employers know that power exists, they do not bargain in good faith.

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 · 84

1 of 1 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 “He can try to find some ways of saying there is a rationale for it,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 1 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 1 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 1 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 · 2

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“they have used the essential services provision for section 107 to undermine workers’ ability to bargain in good faith with their employers more than any other government has ever done before”Canada’s Liberal government has used the section 107 essential services provision to order workers back to work more than any previous government has.search
2“it allows any minister to order workers back to work”Bill C-39 would allow any minister to order workers back to work.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19