Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Connie Cody

Conservative on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-16

93 words · 5 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Alexis Deschênes (Bloc Québécois)

“Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier. I hope I get an answer by the end of the debate. Bill C-9 contains interpretive clauses specifically intended to ensure that under no circumstances are individuals prevented from practising the religion of their choice or communicating the contents of a biblical text. The following involves subsections 319(2) and 319(2.2): For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.‍2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement. Why is my colleague not reassured by Bill C-9’s interpretive clauses?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 100 / 100

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

Claims 100%

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

Madam Speaker, Claims · 93 wordsCanada’s hate speech laws currently provide a defence against prosecutions for the wilful promotion of hatred where a person, in good faith, expresses an argument or opinion on a religious subject based on a belief found in a religious text.¹ The defence applies only to that specific offence. It does not apply to advocating genocide or counselling violence or threats.² It does not apply to any other Criminal Code offence. Calls to incite hatred or violence, whether cloaked in religion or not, are already illegal and are not protected by the religious defence.³

At a glance

AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Relevance · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Respect · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Clarity · 100

Nothing lost points on Clarity.

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

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“a defence against prosecutions for the wilful promotion of hatred where a person, in good faith, expresses an argument or opinion on a religious subject based on a belief found in a religious text”Canada’s Criminal Code currently provides a defence to the wilful promotion of hatred offence where the statement is made in good faith and is based on a belief found in an approved religious text.search
2“It does not apply to advocating genocide or counselling violence or threats”The religious-text/good-faith defence in Canada’s hate speech law does not apply to the offences of advocating genocide or counselling violence or threats.search
3“already illegal and are not protected by the religious defence”Calls to incite hatred or violence are already illegal under the Criminal Code and are not protected by the religious-text defence.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20