← Back to the statement
Statement grade
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 86. The grade is held to 75, 30 above Relevance. 75 / 100, held down by Relevance
Signal
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
45 / 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 85% The ask 15%
Structure · 3 steps
Claims · 0
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 94 words these are questions that Parliament should be asking and that parents are demanding answers to. Parents expect their children to be protected. They expect technology companies to be held accountable. What Canadians do not want to see is a new online regime that creates more paperwork and more compliance, and where success is measured through mere compliance with those requirements, as we see in the case of Australia, where the effects have not been wildly positive. As a matter of fact, harm complaints are at the same levels as before the legislation was enacted. The ask · 17 words These are serious questions that should be asked, questions that the government should be able to answer. Partly on point
At a glance
Lost points for Partly on point ×9 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 9 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
9 of 9 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 → “these are questions that Parliament should be asking and that parents are demanding answers to.” Affirms the questions in his speech are important but does not name any amendments for committee.
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 → “Parents expect their children to be protected.” A general statement on child protection, not specific amendments to the bill.
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 → “They expect technology companies to be held accountable.” A general statement on accountability, not specific amendments to the bill.
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 → “What Canadians do not want to see is a new online regime that creates more paperwork and more compliance,” About concerns with the bill’s compliance regime, not amendments to propose.
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 → “and where success is measured through mere compliance with those requirements,” About how success might be measured under the bill, not amendments to propose.
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 → “as we see in the case of Australia,” Raises Australia’s regime as an analogy for the bill’s subject, not amendments to propose.
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 the effects have not been wildly positive.” Comments on Australia’s law as an analogy, not amendments to this bill.
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 → “As a matter of fact, harm complaints are at the same levels as before the legislation was enacted.” Cites harm complaint figures from Australia, not amendments to this bill.
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 are serious questions that should be asked, questions that the government should be able to answer.” Restates that the government should answer questions, not the amendments asked about.
Respect · 100
0 of 9 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 9 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 · 0
This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.
No checkable claims.
