Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Shannon Miedema

Liberal on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-28

106 words · 6 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Garnett Genuis (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, my hon. friend clearly put a lot of time, research and thought into sharing her ideas. I want to ask about one aspect of the concept of the age restriction. When this bill was initially tabled, I think the general impression of the bill had been that it would establish a required minimum age for access to social media, but upon subsequent review, it seems that the bill would not actually do that. It would require social media companies to incorporate certain design features in order to be able to offer youth accounts. Effectively, it would not really be an age ban. Rather, it would require certain design features before companies can offer youth accounts. I wonder, in the interest of clarity for members of the House and the public, if the member can clarify whether she considers that the bill would be an age ban or not.”

Statement grade

B–

Average 70 / 100

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

Thanks 15%Claims 32%Reasoning 22%Promise 31%

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

Madam Speaker, Thanks · 16 wordsI congratulate the hon. member on his upcoming additional child, number seven.¹ It is fantastic news.Thanks Claims · 26 wordsMy understanding is that we are looking at age 16 and over as the appropriate age for being responsible and mature enough to navigate social media.² Reasoning · 23 wordsThe more important thing would be requiring the platforms profiting off our youth to do the work to make sure they are protected. Promise · 33 wordsIn whatever ways that needs to happen, we need to make sure we are providing a safe online environment for our children, whether they be 10 years, 16 years or five years old.Partly on pointVague promise Claims · 8 wordsIt is is really important and worth investigation.Off point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 81

2 of 7 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I congratulate the hon. member on his upcoming additional child, number seven.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “It is fantastic news.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 42

4 of 7 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 “My understanding is that we are looking at age 16 and over as the appropriate age for being responsible and mature enough to navigate social media.”The statement suggests an appropriate age for social media navigation but does not clarify if the bill is legally defined as an age ban or a requirement for design features.
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 “The more important thing would be requiring the platforms profiting off our youth to do the work to make sure they are protected.”The clause emphasizes platform responsibility for protection rather than addressing the specific question about the bill’s age restriction mechanism.
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 “In whatever ways that needs to happen, we need to make sure we are providing a safe online environment for our children, whether they be 10 years, 16 years or five years old.”The statement broadly calls for a safe online environment across different age groups without clarifying the nature of the bill’s age provisions.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “It is is really important and worth investigation.”The clause is a general expression of value and offers no specific answer regarding the bill’s mechanisms.

Respect · 100

0 of 7 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 · 59

1 of 7 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 “we need to make sure we are providing a safe online environment”The commitment states a necessary goal without specifying the actions, measures, or timeline required to achieve it.

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“upcoming additional child, number seven”Garnett Genuis is expecting a seventh child.search
2“age 16 and over as the appropriate age”The member said the age threshold being considered under Bill C-34 is 16 and over for navigating social media.search

Analysed on 2026-10-30