Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Garnett Genuis

Conservative on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-28

52 words · 5 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Will Greaves (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, I have heard my hon. colleagues mention several times, with a bit of fence-sitting, the question of whether the bill constitutes an age ban for young Canadians under 16. I am curious if the member is able to clarify that. In his view, would it be preferable to have a universal ban for Canadians under 16 on social media platforms, or would it be preferable to have social media platforms fix their systems such that there would be limitations on age-inappropriate content and young Canadians could safely use those platforms, given some of the benefits that we know exist? Which of those two options would the member prefer? I cannot tell based on his remarks this evening.”

Statement grade

D–

41 / 100, held down by Signal

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

Procedure 88%The question 12%

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

Madam Speaker, Procedure · 26 wordsin the point I made, admittedly, I did not comment on that either way. I simply pointed out that the bill is not an age ban.¹Procedure The question · 6 wordsWhat would the ideal architecture be?Partly on point Procedure · 20 wordsI think there will be lots of time to study that question at committee. I am open to the argument—Procedure

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
Little substanceMuch of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 11

4 of 5 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 “in the point I made, admittedly, I did not comment on that either way.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I simply pointed out that the bill is not an age ban.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I think there will be lots of time to study that question at committee.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I am open to the argument—”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 50

1 of 5 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 “What would the ideal architecture be?”Restates the question rather than answering it.

Respect · 100

0 of 5 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 5 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 · 1

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“the bill is not an age ban”Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, is not an age ban preventing people under 16 from accessing social media.search

Analysed on 2026-10-30