Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Ben Carr

Liberal on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-16

122 words · 6 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Kelly McCauley (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying; it is understandable. Various faith groups have expressed concerns about Bill C‑9, such as the leadership for the Catholic bishops in Canada and others from the Abrahamic faiths. Can the member explain why those views and concerns on Bill C‑9 should be discounted?”

Statement grade

Average 94 / 100

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

Claims 52%Reasoning 48%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 13 wordsI do not, in any way, believe that their views should be discounted. Reasoning · 27 wordsI simply do not believe that their views ought to be the determining factor for how we choose to protect Canadians through public policy and legal reform. Claims · 51 wordsI would suggest that part of the reason people are scared is that we have members of the opposition sending out emails on a weekly basis to Jewish leaders that say they are going to be put in jail for publicly saying that they are a Zionist.¹ It is not true.Partly on point Reasoning · 31 wordsIt is not about diminishing the importance of hearing feedback from leaders in this country. It is about being honest and transparent with them about what this law would actually do.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 74

2 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.

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 would suggest that part of the reason people are scared is that we have members of the opposition sending out emails on a weekly basis to Jewish leaders that say they are going to be put in jail for publicly saying that they are a Zionist.”About the opposition’s emails to Jewish leaders, not the faith groups’ concerns the question 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 “It is not true.”It disputes the opposition’s email claims, not the concerns of the faith groups raised in the question.

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 · 100

0 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.

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“members of the opposition sending out emails on a weekly basis to Jewish leaders that say they are going to be put in jail for publicly saying that they are a Zionist”Members of the opposition have been sending weekly emails to Jewish leaders saying they could be jailed for publicly identifying as Zionists.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20