Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Leslie Church

Liberal on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-28

147 words · 6 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Grant Jackson (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has been listening to some of the speeches of my colleagues who have spoken on the bill, and Conservatives are questioning why so many of the details on the powers of the commission would be left to regulation. Why cannot that be outlined in Parliament so that parliamentarians, duly elected members of this place, can have a say in the powers of a commission that would ultimately have significant authority over the lives of Canadians online? I wonder if that member can say whether she has heard those concerns. Does she think that the government will address them?”

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.

Claims 29%Reasoning 67%Positioning 4%

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

Madam Speaker, Claims · 6 wordsI have heard those concerns raised, Reasoning · 98 wordsbut where I come down on this issue is believing we need action today. We need a commission that is going to be flexible, that is going to be able to adapt to the way technology is changing in front of our eyes right now. If we wait to get that just perfect, if we wait to hammer out all of those details, the technology, the platforms will continue to move and there will be gaps we do not anticipate today that are going to be on our children’s screens tomorrow. This is why this framework is necessary, Claims · 37 wordsand we are not alone in the world in pursuing this course. There are countries across the EU, across the G7 and G20 that are pursuing this as well, that are looking towards this type of framework. Positioning · 6 wordsWe are on the right track.PositioningUnearned certainty

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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We are on the right track.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. 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 · 94

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 “We are on the right track.”This statement expresses a subjective conclusion about the correctness of a path without presenting objective evidence or metrics to verify the claim.

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