Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Rachael Thomas

Conservative on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-21

178 words · 10 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Gabriel Ste-Marie (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on her very moving and poignant speech. Indeed, urgent action is needed to protect our young people and improve digital safety. My colleague referred to the measures put in place in Australia that did not produce the desired results. Can she tell us what lessons we can learn from the measures introduced in Australia? What role should the federal government play in ensuring safety, and what role should the provinces play?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 96 / 100

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

Claims 59%Reasoning 29%Procedure 4%Promise 8%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 53 wordsin Australia, there was legislation put in place that essentially banned anyone under the age of 16 from setting up or maintaining a social media account.¹ Within their legislation, they outlined 10 specific social platforms.² What ended up happening is that many young people just went to other platforms that were not regulated. Reasoning · 23 wordsOf course, there is an argument to be said that this actually drives young people into the dark web, which is potentially dangerous. Procedure · 8 wordsThere is another thing that happened in Australia.Procedure Claims · 52 wordsWhen the legislation was independently reviewed in terms of its effect or its impact, it was found that, three months after it was implemented, only 30% of youth had complied.³ In other words, 70% of youth accounts still existed and 70% of young people were still online within these social media platforms.⁴ Reasoning · 17 wordsThere are questions there with regard to the efficacy of the legislation and whether it can work. Promise · 14 wordsI think that is one of the things we will be bringing to committee. Reasoning · 11 wordsWhat changes would be needed for the legislation to be successful?Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 93

1 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “There is another thing that happened in Australia.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 89

2 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.

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 think that is one of the things we will be bringing to committee.”About future committee work on the bill, not the lessons asked about or the roles of governments.
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 “What changes would be needed for the legislation to be successful?”Raises open questions for committee instead of addressing the roles of the federal government and provinces asked about.

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 · 4

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“in Australia, there was legislation put in place that essentially banned anyone under the age of 16 from setting up or maintaining a social media account.”Legislation was put in place in Australia that essentially banned anyone under the age of 16 from setting up or maintaining a social media account.search
2“outlined 10 specific social platforms.”The legislation in Australia outlined 10 specific social platforms.search
3“three months after it was implemented, only 30% of youth had complied.”Only 30% of youth had complied three months after the Australian legislation was implemented, according to an independent review.search
4“70% of youth accounts still existed and 70% of young people were still online within these social media platforms.”70% of youth accounts and 70% of young people were still online within the social media platforms.search

Analysed on 2026-10-22