Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Michelle Rempel Garner

Conservative on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-28

190 words · 11 sentences · 14 clauses

Replying to Steeve Lavoie (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important speech on this bill, which is also important. I listened carefully to her speech and I noticed that she repeated “why” a lot. I do not know how many times she repeated that word. That immediately made me think of the status quo. People often ask why we are not doing this or why we are not doing that. Some parents are saying that enough is enough with the status quo and that we need to move forward. Parents watching at home, who, like me, have seen how much things have changed in recent years, are concerned. They want the government to make decisions and move forward. Often, when we ask “why” too much, years go by and nothing gets done. Does my colleague agree that the government should be able to help parents? Does she agree that this bill needs to move forward so we can develop guidelines to help parents properly raise their children?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 97 / 100

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

Procedure 4%The question 36%Claims 44%The ask 16%

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

Madam Speaker, Procedure · 7 wordsI will counter my colleague with this: ProcedureThe question · 68 wordsWhy did the government not use my bill, ¹which I wrote as a private member, in spite of it having 800,000 bureaucrats who could have done the job for it years ago?² Why is the government so insistent on putting detail-free bills in the House of Commons? Why does the government presuppose that, in order to protect kids online, Canadians have to go forward without answers to questions? Claims · 84 wordsI put forward a bill almost three years ago that answered the questions I asked today.³ The government could have stolen that bill. I had hoped it would. I have said that many times. The reality is that the government did not, ⁴Unearned certaintyand we are sitting here today because it has put forward bad iterations of legislation that Canadians have opposed. Canadians want their kids kept safe online. They know that the government has dragged its feet in putting forward legislation that does that. The ask · 31 wordsI think it is incumbent upon the government to answer questions on whether or not this bill will actually work and whether it will keep Canadians’ speech and privacy safe online.

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 · 94

1 of 2 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 “I will counter my colleague with this:”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 2 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 2 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 · 93

1 of 2 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “The reality is”The phrase asserts a conclusion as settled fact in place of a source.

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“Why did the government not use my bill”Michelle Rempel Garner previously tabled a private member’s bill on online safety, and the government did not use it.search
2“which I wrote as a private member”Michelle Rempel Garner wrote an online-safety bill as a private member.search
3“I put forward a bill almost three years ago”Michelle Rempel Garner put forward an online-safety bill almost three years before October 2026.search
4“the government did not”The government did not adopt Rempel Garner’s private member’s online-safety bill.search

Analysed on 2026-10-30