Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-28

115 words · 6 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. I believe we share the same point of view on the need to regulate digital safety, particularly for children. I would like to hear her thoughts on the new digital safety commission that will be established. We do not know the parameters or what powers it will have. We also do not know which platforms it will regulate. Does my colleague not think that the government is doing things a bit backwards? As legislators, we are being asked to pass a bill, but we do not have a full understanding of the parameters involved.”

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.

Procedure 11%Reasoning 89%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 13 wordsthere is very much agreement with the member who just asked the question.Procedure Reasoning · 102 wordsIt is hard to vote on something that you know halfway. We do not know anything about this commission. We do have a very live example in one of our country’s closest allies, where pieces of this did not work. We know that putting 20 different social media companies into a piece of legislation just drives people into other ones where they are not actually off and it drives parents to put trust in the government where it does not deserve trust.¹ There are a lot more questions than answers in this legislation and that is exactly where we are on it.

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 85

1 of 1 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 very much agreement with the member who just asked the question.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 1 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.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 1 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 1 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“20 different social media companies”Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, as tabled names 20 different social media companies in its text.search

Analysed on 2026-10-30