Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kurt Holman

Conservative on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-16

71 words · 3 sentences · 4 clauses

Replying to Ryan Turnbull (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite’s speech, although I fundamentally disagree with some of his arguments. The previous Conservative member who spoke in the House could not cite an example of the religious defence’s being used. I wonder if this member could. What I do not understand is that the Conservatives talk a lot about wanting to protect communities and protect people’s rights, but here they are with an opportunity to step up and support a bill that would amend the Criminal Code and would allow new tools to be given to law enforcement and to our criminal justice system to really protect people’s rights to be able to worship and to express themselves in the way they see fit. Is that not fundamental enough? Does the member not believe that harsher penalties should come with hate-motivated crimes?”

Statement grade

77 / 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 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 71 wordsthe real concern, Unearned certaintywhich was brought to my attention by constituents of London—Fanshawe, is the potential removal of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. As mentioned in my speech, constituents are concerned that they would have to always look behind their back when they do share religious texts, both in person and online. They are concerned that even protected religious text, with Bill C-9, may be quoted as hateful speech.¹Partly on point

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 · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 47

4 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 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 “the real concern,”It introduces constituents’ concerns about the bill without giving an example of the religious defence or answering the penalties question.
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 “which was brought to my attention by constituents of London—Fanshawe, is the potential removal of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.”It states constituents’ concerns about freedom of expression and religion under the bill, not whether harsher penalties are warranted or an example of the 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 “As mentioned in my speech, constituents are concerned that they would have to always look behind their back when they do share religious texts, both in person and online.”It describes constituents’ fear about sharing religious texts, raising the bill’s subject without answering either question put.
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 “They are concerned that even protected religious text, with Bill C-9, may be quoted as hateful speech.”It raises the concern that protected religious text could be treated as hateful speech, but does not cite a use of the religious defence or answer the penalties question.

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 · 95

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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “the real concern”It asserts which concern is the real one in place of any supporting source.

Claims · 1

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“even protected religious text, with Bill C-9, may be quoted as hateful speech”Constituents of the member for London—Fanshawe are concerned that Bill C-9 could allow protected religious texts to be quoted as hateful speech.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20