Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Danielle Martin

Liberal on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-28

65 words · 4 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Elizabeth May (Green)

“Madam Speaker, I have been struggling with Bill C-34 since it was first introduced. I think the minister is terrific. I know the intent of the bill is great, but it is a lot of blank space. One part that really worries me is clause 85, which I will read. It is short. It says, “The purpose of a penalty is to promote compliance with this Act and not to punish.” In the case of criminal responsibility and people who have fallen on hard times, I do not think our criminal justice system should focus on punishment. In dealing with these corporations, I want to kill them. I would like to pull their corporate right. I am not acting as a policy wonk here. I am an enraged mother. I want to punish them. Why does this bill not suggest strict liability? Why does it not suggest that a CEO whose company engages in a proven harm, such as Amanda Todd’s death, go to jail?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 83 / 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%Positioning 32%Reasoning 46%

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

Madam Speaker, Claims · 14 wordsI think the member’s enraged state reflects how many parents in this country feel.Partly on point Positioning · 21 wordsOf course we want to see tech giants held accountable. Particularly where catastrophic outcomes occur, there have to be appropriate consequences.PositioningVague promise Reasoning · 30 wordsI do not know if we need to necessarily go as far as that, as killing the CEO, or whatever the member said, but the purpose of any regulation is—

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 64

2 of 4 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 “Of course we want to see tech giants held accountable.”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 “Particularly where catastrophic outcomes occur, there have to be appropriate consequences.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 87

1 of 4 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 the member’s enraged state reflects how many parents in this country feel.”About the member’s feelings and parents’ feelings, not the bill’s penalty provisions asked about.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 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 · 80

1 of 4 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 “there have to be appropriate consequences”The statement asserts that appropriate actions will occur in response to catastrophic outcomes without defining what those actions are or how they will be implemented.

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