Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Elizabeth May

Green on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-28

82 words · 5 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Natilien Joseph (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are parents and grandparents in the House this evening. I listened carefully to my colleague. She said that some improvements are needed. Can my colleague clarify what changes she would like to see to improve Bill C‑34?”

Statement grade

Average 91 / 100

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

Promise 33%Claims 54%Reasoning 13%

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

Mr. Speaker, Promise · 27 wordsyes, I have a lot of ideas and I hope to be able to propose amendments in committee, especially when it comes to punishing social media platforms.Vague promise Claims · 44 wordsFurthermore, there are precedents. I want to mention quickly that if we look at what we do with anti-spam legislation in Canada, that is attaching to directors their behaviour.¹ If they are aware of this conduct and they direct it, they are personally liable. Reasoning · 11 wordsThat is the kind of thing that really gets their attention.

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 · 100

0 of 1 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 100

0 of 1 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 1 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 · 63

1 of 1 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 “I have a lot of ideas and I hope to be able to propose amendments in committee, especially when it comes to punishing social media platforms.”The speaker mentions having ideas and hoping to propose changes without setting specific measures or conditions.

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“what we do with anti-spam legislation in Canada, that is attaching to directors their behaviour”Canada’s anti-spam legislation holds corporate directors liable for conduct they are aware of and direct.search

Analysed on 2026-10-30