Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Gord Johns

NDP on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

99 words · 10 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his speech. It is clear that the government wants to move quickly, but it is also doing things that run counter to workers’ rights. For example, the proposed amendments to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code could potentially prevent the use of strikes and job action. Quebec was an innovator. It successfully enacted anti-scab legislation. We have been waiting for years for this to happen at the federal level. I would like my colleague to explain why he is concerned about the proposed amendments to section 107 and the right of workers to use job action in a dispute with the employer.”

Statement grade

C+

66 / 100, held down by Signal

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

Thanks 13%Claims 31%Positioning 47%The ask 8%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 7 wordsmy colleague asks excellent questions in here.Thanks Claims · 31 wordsI will highlight this, that when we talk about section 107, we were actually pushing the government to get rid of it so that it stopped overriding the rights of workers.¹ Positioning · 12 wordsInstead, what are the Liberals doing? They are making it even worse.Positioning Thanks · 6 wordsI completely agree with my colleague.Thanks The ask · 8 wordsThe government needs to sit down with labour. Positioning · 35 wordsIt is ignoring their requests, completely ignoring them. It is ignoring so many other stakeholders when it comes to the legislation. It is fast-tracking and ramming this through. It is like Bill C-5 repeating itself.Positioning

At a glance

Lost points for
Little substanceMuch of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 36

8 of 8 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 “my colleague asks excellent questions in here.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Instead, what are the Liberals doing?”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 “They are making it even worse.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I completely agree with my colleague.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It is ignoring their requests, completely ignoring them.”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 “It is ignoring so many other stakeholders when it comes to the legislation.”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 “It is fast-tracking and ramming this through.”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 “It is like Bill C-5 repeating itself.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 8 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 8 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 8 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 · 1

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“we were actually pushing the government to get rid of it”The NDP pressed the government to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code so it would stop overriding workers’ rights.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19