Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Ruby Sahota

Liberal on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-15

95 words · 5 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Elizabeth May (Green)

“Mr. Speaker, no matter how well-intentioned the bill may be, I do not think I have ever received so many angry and concerned calls, letters and emails from constituents about a bill. I do oppose the legislation, but I would appreciate adequate time to be able to explain the reasons I agree with those from the civil liberties community who believe the bill would create more litigation and more charter violations through the provisions that are unclear about when someone happens to be on the street and does not know that around the corner there is a day care centre or a synagogue, but they are expressing their charter rights to be able to participate. I cannot support time allocation on this. I know everybody is in a hurry, but rather than push us to bulldoze things through, why not consider keeping— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but we are debating time allocation. I feel like I am being heckled and cannot express myself properly. If we are interested in having proper time to debate bills, why does the government want to use time allocation as opposed to allowing us to sit until Friday, which was the original schedule?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 96 / 100

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

Claims 77%Procedure 4%Anecdote 9%Reasoning 9%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 30 wordsthis bill has had an unprecedented number of hours of debate, whether in the House or at committee. Like I said previously, it was tabled in the House September 19.¹ Procedure · 4 wordsLet me be clear, ProcedureClaims · 10 wordsbecause there is a lot of misinformation about the bill. Anecdote · 9 wordsI too have been receiving a lot of calls, AnecdoteClaims · 9 wordsbut I have been trying to correct the narrative, Reasoning · 9 wordsbecause many people misunderstand and have misinterpreted the bill. Claims · 24 wordsThe intimidation and obstruction offence in the bill would not criminalize expression or peaceful assembly, including lawful protests or other forms of public communication.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 · 83

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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Let me be clear,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “I too have been receiving a lot of calls,”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not 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 motion 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“it was tabled in the House September 19”Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, was tabled in the House on September 19.search
2“The intimidation and obstruction offence in the bill would not criminalize expression or peaceful assembly, including lawful protests or other forms of public communication”The intimidation and obstruction offence in Bill C-9 will not criminalize expression or peaceful assembly, including lawful protests or other forms of public communication.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20