Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Ruby Sahota

Liberal on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-15

121 words · 11 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Andrew Lawton (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I will start with a quote: “[Bill C-9] has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent. This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.” That was from the Liberal member for Nunavut a couple of months ago. I have a question for the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. Her colleague, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, is a lawyer. He said the following: “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred.... There should...be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.” Is he right or wrong in his interpretation of hate speech laws applying to scripture?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 82 / 100

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

Claims 74%Positioning 21%Procedure 5%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 64 wordsI mentioned that the bill has gone through all the steps of the legislative process.¹ Through those steps, amendments have been made. Witnesses were able to come forward at committee.² Members were able to give their opinions. There was an amendment made by the House.³ Therefore, after that amendment, the bill maintains the requirement of Attorney General consent for all offences in the bill.⁴ Positioning · 6 wordsWhat is the member talking about?Positioning Claims · 26 wordsPolice will not even be able to lay charges on their own. This is exactly the misinformation that I keep saying the Conservatives have been spreading. Procedure · 6 wordsMy message to Canadians is this.Procedure Positioning · 19 wordsWe are the government and we are the party that is here to act and to keep Canadians safe.PositioningOff pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 68

3 of 5 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “What is the member talking about?”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “My message to Canadians is this.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We are the government and we are the party that is here to act and to keep Canadians safe.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 79

1 of 5 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We are the government and we are the party that is here to act and to keep Canadians safe.”Praise of the speaker’s own party rather than the question about scripture or discretion.

Respect · 100

0 of 5 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 · 79

1 of 5 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we are the party that is here to act”A self-description of commitment to act with no measure, date or success condition named.

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 bill has gone through all the steps of the legislative process”Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, has gone through all the steps of the legislative process.search
2“Witnesses were able to come forward at committee”Bill C-9 was studied at committee where witnesses were able to come forward.search
3“There was an amendment made by the House”The House made an amendment to Bill C-9.search
4“the bill maintains the requirement of Attorney General consent for all offences in the bill”After the House amendment, Bill C-9 maintains the requirement of Attorney General consent for all offences in the bill.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20