Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Tamara Kronis

Conservative on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-28

120 words · 5 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is simple. If she supports the objective of this bill, will she support sending it to committee so that members of Parliament can thoroughly examine it, or will she oppose it at second reading? Will she support the bill at second reading, yes or no?”

Statement grade

75 / 100, held down by Relevance

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

Claims 82%Reasoning 18%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 61 wordsthe very first thing I said when I started my remarks this evening was that I support the goals of the bill.¹ There is no one in this chamber from any party who does not support protecting kids or is not concerned about what is happening with kids online. The question here is whether or not the bill is clear enough. Reasoning · 22 wordsThat is something that I expect would get debated at committee and something that witnesses would be able to provide information on. Claims · 37 wordsWhat is somewhat distressing to me is that the government did not do these consultations upfront or did not incorporate the feedback it got into the bill so that these questions did not have to be asked.²Partly on 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 · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 45

5 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 “the very first thing I said when I started my remarks this evening was that I support the goals of the bill.”Says she supports the bill’s goals, but not whether she will vote for it at second reading.
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 “There is no one in this chamber from any party who does not support protecting kids or is not concerned about what is happening with kids online.”About general agreement on protecting kids online, not her vote on the bill.
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 question here is whether or not the bill is clear enough.”Raises the bill’s clarity as the real issue without saying how she will vote.
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 “That is something that I expect would get debated at committee and something that witnesses would be able to provide information on.”Points to committee debate as a possibility without stating her position at second reading.
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 is somewhat distressing to me is that the government did not do these consultations upfront or did not incorporate the feedback it got into the bill so that these questions did not have to be asked.”Criticizes the government’s consultation process, not the vote asked for.

Reasoning · 87

0 of 5 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 · 1

Conclusion“What is somewhat distressing to me is that the government did not do these consultations upfront or did not incorporate the feedback it got into the bill so that these questions did not have to be asked.”

Because“The question here is whether or not the bill is clear enough.”

“That is something that I expect would get debated at committee and something that witnesses would be able to provide information on.”

Reason given

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 · 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“the very first thing I said when I started my remarks this evening was that I support the goals of the bill”At the start of her remarks on Bill C-34 earlier this evening, Tamara Kronis said that she supports the goals of the bill.search
2“the government did not do these consultations upfront or did not incorporate the feedback it got into the bill”The government did not consult on Bill C-34 before introducing it, or did not incorporate the feedback it received into the bill.search

Analysed on 2026-10-30