“Mr. Speaker, of course, we have heard from unionized labour. We have heard from the Canadian Labour Congress. We have heard from Unifor, CUPE, ILWU and USW, and these unions have been very clear: this is a red line for them. In fact, the CLC did a legal analysis and found that this would give more powers to the Liberal government than any legislation in any other G7 country. How does the minister feel when she says that this would enable more rights for workers, yet every single union that has told her that they cannot support this says the opposite?”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 95 / 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 22%Promise 22%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 67 wordsI would point out that section 107, a contentious part of the Canada Labour Code, has been used pre-emptively two times in the past.1In fact, we are responding to unions’ concerns that this particular part of the code could be used to pre-emptively prevent a strike from occurring.We have said that is unconstitutional, so we have put guardrails around this particular piece of the code, 2Reasoning · 27 wordswhich must, in my opinion, remain there as an emergency piece of the code for when parties are at an impasse and a strike has no end.Promise · 27 wordsThe point is that we will be there to support employers and workers in getting to those collective agreements, Vague promiseand we will respect Canadians’ right to strike.
