Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Ben Carr

Liberal on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-16

50 words · 2 sentences · 4 clauses

Replying to Mario Beaulieu (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the repeal of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for cases of incitement of hatred. It definitely does not mean that reading religious texts of any religion whatsoever is forbidden, but it does prohibit deliberately using religious texts to incite hatred against a group or another religion.”

Statement grade

78 / 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 · 50 wordsI missed the first part of my colleague’s question, but I think it is an extremely important conversation. We have a problem with hate in Canadian society, and in my opinion, Bill C‑9 is an extremely important step to ensuring that we have greater protection for Canadians across the country.Partly 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 4 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 · 48

4 of 4 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 missed the first part of my colleague’s question,”It addresses the question only to say the question was not fully heard, without answering it.
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 “but I think it is an extremely important conversation.”It comments on the importance of the conversation, not the exemption 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 “We have a problem with hate in Canadian society,”It is about hate in society generally, not the religious exemption repeal the question raised.
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 in my opinion, Bill C‑9 is an extremely important step to ensuring that we have greater protection for Canadians across the country.”It praises Bill C-9 broadly but gives no view on the repeal of the religious exemption that was asked.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 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 4 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 · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-20