Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Rosemarie Falk

Conservative on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-16

147 words · 8 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Ryan Turnbull (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, there are many examples of legal experts who say this bill would not do what the member opposite claims, such as chipping away at religious freedoms or others. In fact, this bill would step up, and the government is acting to enhance the Criminal Code to ensure that communities are safe, to ensure that people can express, can worship the way they choose to in their communities. This is exactly what I have heard in my community. I understand that we may disagree on this fundamentally, but what I want to know is, can the member cite an example of the religious defence being used in a case where an individual was accused or charged with a hate-motivated crime?”

Statement grade

B–

74 / 100, held down by Relevance

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

Claims 96%Procedure 4%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 141 wordsthere was lack of consultation with this bill. We know there was lack of consultation when it came to religious organizations, civil liberty groups, legal experts and faith communities across Canada, ¹Unearned certaintyand I would say individual Canadians as well. I will also note that stakeholders have publicly raised concerns about this, many of them, including the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Council of Imams, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, ARPA Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.² There have been many organizations, not just one particular faith group, that have brought forward the concerns of not being consulted or seeing issues with the bill. I will also note, though, that there are sections within the Criminal Code that address crimes against places of worship and obstruction. That would be section 176, for example.³ Acts of intimidation are in section 423.1.⁴Partly on point Procedure · 6 wordsI could go on and on.Procedure

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 94

1 of 10 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 “I could go on and on.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 44

8 of 10 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.

Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “there was lack of consultation with this bill.”About alleged lack of consultation on the bill, not about an example of the religious defence being used.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “We know there was lack of consultation when it came to religious organizations, civil liberty groups, legal experts and faith communities across Canada,”About groups reportedly not consulted, not the example asked for.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “and I would say individual Canadians as well.”Adds individual Canadians to the consultation point, not the question asked.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “I will also note that stakeholders have publicly raised concerns about this, many of them, including the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Council of Imams, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, ARPA Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.”Lists stakeholders’ concerns about the bill, not an instance of the religious defence.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “There have been many organizations, not just one particular faith group, that have brought forward the concerns of not being consulted or seeing issues with the bill.”About organizations raising consultation concerns, not the example requested.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “I will also note, though, that there are sections within the Criminal Code that address crimes against places of worship and obstruction.”About existing Criminal Code sections covering such crimes, not an example of the religious defence in a case.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “That would be section 176, for example.”Cites section 176 as existing law, not the example asked about.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Acts of intimidation are in section 423.1.”Cites section 423.1 as existing law, not the example asked about.

Respect · 100

0 of 10 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 10 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 “We know”The phrase asserts certainty about the consultation record in place of a source or evidence.

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“lack of consultation when it came to religious organizations, civil liberty groups, legal experts and faith communities across Canada”There was a lack of consultation with religious organizations, civil liberty groups, legal experts and faith communities when Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, was developed.search
2“including the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Council of Imams, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, ARPA Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada”The Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Council of Imams, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, ARPA Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada publicly raised concerns about Bill C-9.search
3“section 176”Section 176 of the Criminal Code addresses crimes against places of worship.search
4“section 423.1”Section 423.1 of the Criminal Code addresses acts of intimidation.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20