Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-28

125 words · 5 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Garnett Genuis (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the implication of children being exposed in particular to pornographic content online. This is a major and still underdiscussed issue and problem. Many children are exposed to pornography online at the age of nine, 10, 11 or 12 years old, and it has significant negative implications for them, their understanding and their expectations. In looking at this bill, my understanding is that it deals with some of this content if it is on social media websites. It does not deal with other situations outside of social media where young people may encounter this content. I think it is incumbent on us to work together to look at this and/or other legislation that addresses it. I wonder if the member could comment on ensuring that children are not accessing this material not only on social media but anywhere else.”

Statement grade

Average 76 / 100

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

Claims 22%Reasoning 32%Positioning 36%Promise 10%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 12 wordsthe minister has made very clear that he wants to work collaboratively.Vague promise Reasoning · 40 wordsThe simple message that needs to get across is that there is a role for the Parliament of Canada to protect the interests of our children from the negative side, the very hurtful side, of social media and the Internet. Positioning · 30 wordsI would suggest to the member opposite, who I know has a number of young children, that this is not to take away any sort of parenting from the child, PositioningClaims · 8 wordsbut is rather to complement the parent’s role. Positioning · 15 wordsAt the end of the day, there is a wonderful opportunity to have that dialogue.PositioningPartly on point Claims · 8 wordsThe minister is very much open to it, Promise · 12 wordsand I look forward to ongoing discussions both here and at committee.Vague promise

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 58

2 of 7 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 “I would suggest to the member opposite, who I know has a number of young children, that this is not to take away any sort of parenting from the child,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “At the end of the day, there is a wonderful opportunity to have that dialogue.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 73

3 of 7 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 to the member opposite, who I know has a number of young children, that this is not to take away any sort of parenting from the child,”About how the bill relates to parenting, not whether protection extends beyond social media
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 is rather to complement the parent’s role.”About complementing parents’ role, not the question of coverage beyond social media
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 “At the end of the day, there is a wonderful opportunity to have that dialogue.”A general remark about dialogue, not addressing the question asked

Respect · 100

0 of 7 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 · 75

2 of 7 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “wants to work collaboratively”A commitment to collaboration with no action, measure or condition named.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “I look forward to ongoing discussions”A forward-looking commitment with no date, subject or outcome specified.

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 2026-10-30