Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Gord Johns

NDP on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

122 words · 7 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to Dan Albas (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, it feels like quality time with other British Columbians tonight because I get to ask the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni a question. I know that the NDP members, as well as many labour unions, have raised issues with Bill C-39 when it comes to workers’ rights. The government likes to claim that it is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Liberals constantly talk about how they respect the charter. They could start by respecting the charter and by respecting this place, because under subsection 4.2(1) of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. That means that the Department of Justice would give its legal opinion on the constitutionality vis à vis the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(d). Does he believe that the committee that will be studying this should have that document before its study begins?”

Statement grade

Average 90 / 100

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

Thanks 10%Positioning 10%Claims 43%The ask 37%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 12 wordsI do appreciate working with my colleague as a fellow British Columbian.Thanks Positioning · 4 wordsHe is absolutely right.Positioning Claims · 53 wordsNot only are they fast-tracking the bill, they are trying to fast-track everything: fast-tracking rights, fast-tracking the duties and responsibilities of this place, and fast-tracking over environmental organizations, over local communities and over first nations. Again, Stephen Harper would not even think of bringing forward legislation like this and moving at this speed. Positioning · 8 wordsThe streets would be full.Partly on point This is unacceptable.Positioning The ask · 45 wordsIt is time for the government to take a step back, listen to labour, listen to environmental organizations, listen to first nations, and make sure it is listening to government lawyers and doing what is responsible and what we have done traditionally in this place.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 75

4 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I do appreciate working with my colleague as a fellow British Columbian.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “He is absolutely right.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “The streets would be full.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “This is unacceptable.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 86

2 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 “Again, Stephen Harper would not even think of bringing forward legislation like this and moving at this speed.”A comparison to a former prime minister’s pace of legislation, not whether the committee should see the Charter statement.
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 “The streets would be full.”A remark about public protest under a former government, not the question about the Charter statement.

Respect · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

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 · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-19