Analysis · Debate question · beta

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-15

148 words · 5 sentences · 7 clauses

Statement grade

A–

Average 89 / 100

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

Claims 80%The question 20%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 119 wordsI have not seen such public upheaval over legislation since the gun registry was introduced in the late 1990s.¹ The fact of the matter is that we have had anti-hate legislation on the books since the 1970s, ²Unearned certaintyand under former justice minister Vic Toews it was more clearly defined; ³that has been in place. The real problem is that the government does not want to enforce this and law enforcement is not enforcing what already exists.Unearned certainty When we see protests, right outside this building, with people screaming at the top of their lungs that they want to see our Jewish population annihilated, there is a refusal to act on that, even on the grounds of the House of Commons.⁴ The question · 29 wordsIs this bill not really about trying to make it look like the Liberals are doing something about combatting hate instead of really doing it and having it enforced?

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · no score

Not applicable: nothing to answer. Excluded from the average.

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue.

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 · 66

2 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “The fact of the matter is”The phrase asserts certainty in place of any source for the historical claim that follows.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “The real problem is”The formula presents the speaker’s interpretation of the government’s motives as an established fact without backing.

Claims · 4

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“the gun registry was introduced in the late 1990s”Canada’s firearms registry was introduced in the late 1990s.search
2“we have had anti-hate legislation on the books since the 1970s”Canada has had anti-hate legislation in the Criminal Code since the 1970s.search
3“under former justice minister Vic Toews it was more clearly defined”Anti-hate legislation was more clearly defined under former justice minister Vic Toews.search
4“protests, right outside this building”There have been protests right outside the House of Commons building where participants called for the annihilation of the Jewish population.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20