Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Rosemarie Falk

Conservative on Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act 2026-09-24

88 words · 6 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Arnold Viersen (Conservative). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the bill.

“Mr. Speaker, the journey of this bill started back in 2015 with Motion No. 47, which came before this Parliament and was unanimously passed. That caused a health committee report that recommended exactly what the bill before us would do. It has been over a decade since that report come out. Canada was kind of a first mover back then, but efforts have kind of stalled. I wonder if the member could talk about what other countries have done in this regard.”

Statement grade

A+

Average 100 / 100

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

Claims 78%The ask 22%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 69 wordsit has been a very long time. It has been over 10 years that we have known this is an issue.¹ Not long ago, there was an article in The Globe and Mail, which I referred to in my remarks, about sexual strangulation derailing a generation of girls.² This is how pornography is affecting children, the next generation. It is a distorted version of what relationships and sex are. The ask · 19 wordsIt is time this legislation passes so that we are able to move forward and take it to committee.

At a glance

Nothing lost points.

Choose a measurement above to see how it scored.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Relevance · 100

Nothing lost points on Relevance.

The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the bill.

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 bill under debate.

Respect · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Clarity · 100

Nothing lost points on Clarity.

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Claims · 2

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“It has been over 10 years that we have known this is an issue”More than 10 years have passed since Parliament first became aware of the issue the bill addresses, which the speaker ties to a 2015-era motion and health committee report.search
2“which I referred to in my remarks, about sexual strangulation derailing a generation of girls.”The Globe and Mail recently published an article about sexual strangulation derailing a generation of girls.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20