Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Liberal on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-16

55 words · 5 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Leslyn Lewis (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, the member across the way makes reference to the Charter of Rights, but it is not clear that for the charter to be invoked, a person has to be charged first? The removal of the good-faith clause means that people who are citing religious texts in good faith could be charged, and then they would have to go through financial expense and public shame before they could defend their rights and before the charter would be imposed. Is that not the process, and is that not the way it would work? People would be guilty before proven innocent in this case.”

Statement grade

Average 78 / 100

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

Positioning 35%Claims 55%Procedure 11%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 19 wordsmy colleague across the way is playing a very dangerous game, namely, sowing confusion in the minds of Canadians.PositioningOff point Claims · 19 wordsWhat she said is not true. This bill is designed to protect Canadians. It provides a definition of hatred.¹ Procedure · 6 wordsLet us stick to the bill, ProcedureClaims · 11 wordsbecause it is important and protects Canadians from east to west.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 52

2 of 3 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 across the way is playing a very dangerous game, namely, sowing confusion in the minds of Canadians.”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 “Let us stick to the bill,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 58

1 of 3 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “my colleague across the way is playing a very dangerous game, namely, sowing confusion in the minds of Canadians.”An attack on the questioner rather than an answer to the process she described.

Respect · 100

0 of 3 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 · 100

0 of 3 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.

Nothing lost points.

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“provides a definition of hatred”Bill C-9 provides a definition of hatred.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20