Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jamil Jivani

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

50 words · 3 sentences · 4 clauses

Replying to Dan Albas (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about how the government tries to distract from core issues. The member spoke a lot about workers’ rights and the fact that in Bill C-39, the government has proposed a number of changes that seem to be running roughshod over many workers’ concerns. Under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a Charter of Rights and Freedoms statement for every single government bill. This means the Department of Justice should weigh in and tell Parliament and the Canadian people exactly what its legal opinion is of the measures that are in Bill C-39. We have not seen that published on the government’s website. The special committee that is organizing very soon to study this legislation has not received it. Does the member believe the government needs to start being transparent with Canadians as to what its plans are in regard to the Charter of Rights and fulfilling its responsibilities under the law to Parliament?”

Statement grade

Average 93 / 100

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

Aside 26%Claims 32%The ask 42%

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

Madam Speaker, Aside · 13 wordstransparency is such a great word, and absolutely we need more transparency here.Aside Claims · 16 wordsUnifor has raised concerns about how this bill would impact the constitutional rights of unionized workers.¹ The ask · 21 wordsI would love to see the government produce an analysis of how this bill would affect the charter rights of Canadians.²

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 · 71

2 of 2 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 remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “transparency is such a great word,”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “and absolutely we need more transparency here.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 2 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 2 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 2 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“Unifor has raised concerns about how this bill would impact the constitutional rights of unionized workers”Unifor has raised concerns that Bill C-39 would impact the constitutional rights of unionized workers.search
2“I would love to see the government produce an analysis of how this bill would affect the charter rights of Canadians”The government had not produced or published an analysis of how Bill C-39 would affect the Charter rights of Canadians at the time of the debate (2026-10-07).search

Analysed on 2026-10-19