← Back to the statement
Statement grade
The average of Signal, Relevance, Reasoning, Respect and Clarity is 87. The grade is held to 74, 30 above Relevance. Reasoning rests on 2 conclusions, too few to hold the grade down. 74 / 100, held down by Relevance
Signal
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
44 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Reasoning
93 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Respect
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Clarity
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 89% Reasoning 11%
Structure · 4 steps
Claims · 4
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 93 words the bill would put in place obligations, which would be very clear, to have online safety plans.1 It would put in place a digital safety commission, 2 which would oversee and monitor things, look for any infractions and understand that there are obligations for platforms to take down or make inaccessible images that are harmful.3 The bill would also codify the types of online harms in many ways.4 From multiple perspectives, it would create a framework that would be useful in regulating online platforms. These platforms are innovating, developing quickly and continuing to evolve, Reasoning · 14 words so I imagine we would have to continue amending this legislation in the future. Claims · 24 words However, it is a significant step forward from where we are at today, where I fear for young people’s safety online every single day. Partly on point
At a glance
Lost points for Partly on point ×10 Didn't answer None 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 · 100
0 of 10 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 · 44
10 of 10 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.
Partly on point 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 bill would put in place obligations,” Describes the bill’s obligations generally without addressing how they would apply to smaller platforms.
Partly on point 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 → “which would be very clear, to have online safety plans.” Details the bill’s online safety plan requirement without addressing small platforms or influencers.
Partly on point 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 → “It would put in place a digital safety commission,” Describes the bill’s commission without addressing how the obligations reach smaller platforms.
Partly on point 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 → “which would oversee and monitor things, look for any infractions and understand that there are obligations for platforms to take down or make inaccessible images that are harmful.” Describes the commission’s monitoring and takedown role without addressing small platforms or influencers.
Partly on point 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 bill would also codify the types of online harms in many ways.” Describes the bill’s codification of online harms without addressing how it applies to smaller platforms.
Partly on point 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 → “From multiple perspectives, it would create a framework that would be useful in regulating online platforms.” Summarizes the bill’s regulatory framework without addressing the small start-up and influencer question asked.
Partly on point 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 → “These platforms are innovating, developing quickly and continuing to evolve,” About platforms’ rapid evolution, not how the bill would apply to different sizes of platforms.
Partly on point 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 → “so I imagine we would have to continue amending this legislation in the future.” About future amendments to the legislation, not the application to small start-ups and influencers asked about.
Partly on point 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 → “However, it is a significant step forward from where we are at today,” Praises the bill as a step forward without addressing how it would apply to smaller platforms.
Partly on point 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 → “where I fear for young people’s safety online every single day.” Returns to personal fear for young people’s safety, not the asked application to small platforms.
Reasoning · 93
0 of 10 deductions are Reasoning
Reasoning checks for sound logic and solid support for any conclusion. A low score means the speaker made unsupported leaps or used weak arguments.
Nothing lost points.
Conclusions found · 2
Conclusion “From multiple perspectives, it would create a framework that would be useful in regulating online platforms.”
Because “the bill would put in place obligations,”
“which would be very clear, to have online safety plans.”
“It would put in place a digital safety commission,”
“which would oversee and monitor things, look for any infractions and understand that there are obligations for platforms to take down or make inaccessible images that are harmful.”
“The bill would also codify the types of online harms in many ways.”
Conclusion “However, it is a significant step forward from where we are at today,”
Because “the bill would put in place obligations,”
“It would put in place a digital safety commission,”
“which would oversee and monitor things, look for any infractions and understand that there are obligations for platforms to take down or make inaccessible images that are harmful.”
Respect · 100
0 of 10 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 10 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 · 4
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 “have online safety plans” Bill C-34 would require regulated online platforms to have online safety plans. search 2 “put in place a digital safety commission” Bill C-34 would establish a Digital Safety Commission of Canada. search 3 “obligations for platforms to take down or make inaccessible images that are harmful” Bill C-34 would place obligations on platforms to take down or make inaccessible harmful images. search 4 “codify the types of online harms” Bill C-34 would codify the types of online harms in legislation. search
