Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Gabriel Hardy

Conservative on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-28

153 words · 8 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Steeve Lavoie (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, this is an important topic we are discussing today. I am a parent myself. I understand that we may sometimes disagree. In his recommendations, my colleague said that we should look after the parents first. I would say that we need to look after the children first. I have four children. My first was born when I was 20 years old, but the rules were not the same 31 years ago. I look at my son, who is 31 years old today and has three children of his own. When I see social media, I wonder what I would have done 31 years ago. Often, I see that parents need help. My colleague mentioned two polls. One was about parents and the other was about the government. I would argue that they were about both. Does my colleague not agree that parents need the government’s support in setting appropriate rules in order to help them do the best they can?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 82 / 100

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

Aside 9%Positioning 17%Claims 26%Reasoning 48%

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

Mr. Speaker, Aside · 14 wordsthat is such a good question that I already answered it in my speech.AsideOff point Positioning · 22 wordsWhen I say that children must be the priority in this bill, I mean it. We are doing all this for them.Positioning Claims · 40 wordsI also pointed out that, according to the Angus Reid poll, 75% of people agree that legislation should be passed to protect our children online, ¹but 72% of people, so roughly the same number, said they want to retain control.² Positioning · 4 wordsWe agree with that.PositioningPartly on point Reasoning · 73 wordsWe need to give parents the tools to better understand the reality young people are facing. We cannot ask young people what they want, because they are the ones we are trying to protect.Partly on point We need to ensure that our young people, who are at the heart of our decisions, are protected and that parents have the tools they need to exercise vigilant, effective and judicious supervision in line with the current situation.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 67

4 of 13 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.

A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “that is such a good question that I already answered it in my speech.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “When I say that children must be the priority in this bill, I mean it.”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 “We are doing all this for them.”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 “We agree with that.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 63

9 of 13 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “that is such a good question that I already answered it in my speech.”This clause notes that the topic has been covered in a previous speech.
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 “When I say that children must be the priority in this bill, I mean it.”It states that children are the priority in the bill without directly addressing parental support for rules.
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 are doing all this for them.”It is a general statement regarding the purpose of the legislation.
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 also pointed out that, according to the Angus Reid poll, 75% of people agree that legislation should be passed to protect our children online,”It cites polling data supporting the necessity of legislation, which is related to the overall 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 “but 72% of people,”This is an incomplete statistical reference that does not answer the specific question.
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 “so roughly the same number, said they want to retain control.”This continues the statistical comparison without answering the inquiry about parental support.
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 agree with that.”It expresses agreement with a point rather than answering the question asked.
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 cannot ask young people what they want,”It argues that young people should not dictate policy, which is related to governance but not directly about parental support.
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 “because they are the ones we are trying to protect.”It provides a justification for the position stated in clause 10.

Respect · 100

0 of 13 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 13 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 · 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“according to the Angus Reid poll, 75% of people agree that legislation should be passed to protect our children online”According to the Angus Reid poll, 75% of people agree that legislation should be passed to protect children online.search
2“so roughly the same number, said they want to retain control”Roughly the same number of people referenced in the poll said they want to retain control.search

Analysed on 2026-10-30