Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Don Davies

NDP on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

185 words · 11 sentences · 13 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would apply the very same principles he just spoke about to the Province of Manitoba, in which one minister went to the Manitoba Labour Board and forced 350 health care workers back to work. The member knows that it was Wab Kinew’s New Democratic government. The changes being made to section 107 would put in safeguards to ensure more accountability and more transparency. However, as one of my colleagues talked about, it is easy to get a quick social clip that spreads misinformation. Can the member provide his thoughts, on principle, in terms of what the Manitoba government has done with the health care workers?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 82 / 100

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

Positioning 22%Anecdote 13%Procedure 6%Claims 58%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 24 wordsit is funny that whenever this member and the current government want to deflect attention from their own actions, they point to someone else.Partly on pointMotive imputed Anecdote · 24 wordsIt reminds me of my mother when I was in grade 3, when she asked me, “If Johnny jumped off the bridge, would you?”Anecdote Positioning · 5 wordsIt is a ridiculous argument, PositioningProcedure · 12 wordsbut I want to address the misinformation embedded in the member’s question.Procedure Claims · 108 wordsThere is not a single guardrail in the legislation, not one. We can read it. It says that it is through the sole opinion of the minister, taking into account any relevant consideration they want, that they may order the end of a strike.¹ There is not a guardrail in the legislation. One person can end a strike based on no evidence whatsoever after a special mediator issues a report.² The only misinformation is spread by the government in trying to tell Canadians that they put guardrails in this. There are no guardrails at all. This is a road map to violate Canadian workers’ constitutional right to strike, Positioning · 12 wordsand that member knows it or he has not read the legislation.Motive imputed

At a glance

Lost points for
Personal attackThis statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “this member and the current government want to deflect attention from their own actions”.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 70

3 of 6 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.

A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “It reminds me of my mother when I was in grade 3, when she asked me, “If Johnny jumped off the bridge, would you?””An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It is a ridiculous argument,”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 “but I want to address the misinformation embedded in the member’s question.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 88

1 of 6 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 “it is funny that whenever this member and the current government want to deflect attention from their own actions, they point to someone else.”About the member’s motives for asking, not the Manitoba example or the safeguards.

Respect · 69

2 of 6 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.

Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.What the tags mean “this member and the current government want to deflect attention from their own actions”It attributes to the member personally a bad motive of deflecting attention, presented as fact.
Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.What the tags mean “that member knows it or he has not read the legislation”It attributes a state of mind to the member, asserting he knowingly spreads what the speaker calls misinformation.

Clarity · 100

0 of 6 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“it is through the sole opinion of the minister, taking into account any relevant consideration they want, that they may order the end of a strike”Bill C-39 as drafted allows a strike to be ended on the sole opinion of the minister, taking into account any relevant consideration they want.search
2“One person can end a strike based on no evidence whatsoever after a special mediator issues a report”Under Bill C-39, after a special mediator issues a report, a single person can end a strike with no requirement of evidence.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19