Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Connie Cody

Conservative on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-16

81 words · 6 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Kelly McCauley (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, we listened to the Liberals earlier, especially the member for Winnipeg North, bash and attack anyone who disagrees with Bill C-9, actually in fear that they are all far right, right-wing, crazy white supremacists if they oppose the government on this. However, we have seen the leadership of all the Abrahamic faiths in Canada oppose big parts of Bill C-9. I wonder if my colleague agrees that perhaps there is more to this issue that needs to be studied and that we should not just label everyone who opposes it as being racist, as the Liberals seem to be doing.”

Statement grade

Average 92 / 100

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

Positioning 6%Claims 67%Reasoning 27%

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

Madam Speaker, Positioning · 5 wordsmy colleague is absolutely correct.Positioning Claims · 3 wordsAnti-Semitism is real, Reasoning · 5 wordsand Jewish communities deserve protection, Claims · 51 wordsbut the Criminal Code already provides that.¹ A lawyer the Liberals themselves brought to committee said Bill C-9 would not criminalize anything that is not already illegal.² The real conversation is about why existing hate crime laws are not being enforced consistently.Unearned certainty We agree on the goal of protecting vulnerable communities. Reasoning · 17 wordsThe question is whether duplicating existing law, ³while removing the religious text defence, actually gets us there.

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 · 92

1 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “my colleague is absolutely correct.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No 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 bill 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 · 78

1 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 real conversation is about”The phrase asserts what the debate is really about without offering a source, replacing evidence with the formula itself.

Claims · 3

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 Criminal Code already provides that”The Criminal Code already provides protection for Jewish communities against hate.search
2“A lawyer the Liberals themselves brought to committee said Bill C-9 would not criminalize anything that is not already illegal”A lawyer the Liberals brought to committee said Bill C-9 would not criminalize anything that is not already illegal.search
3“The question is whether duplicating existing law, ”Bill C-9 removes the religious text defence in the Criminal Code.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20