Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Marilyn Gladu

Liberal on Safe Social Media Act 2026-10-29

67 words · 4 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Marianne Dandurand (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong for her outstanding work. I was honestly quite touched to hear her talk about her experience. She has been very courageous in all of this. I am very pleased to have her on our team. As I said, she is doing a great job. That said, she mentioned at the beginning of her speech that there were other versions of this legislation that were not as good as this one. I would like her to tell us about the main ways in which this bill improves on them and what she likes most about this version of this very important bill.”

Statement grade

Average 90 / 100

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

Claims 61%Aside 16%Reasoning 22%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 41 wordsthere was something unacceptable in the previous versions. The first two versions said that if somebody thought a person was going to commit a hate crime in the future, that person could be put in prison for up to 25 years.¹ Aside · 11 wordsThat seemed, to me, very much like the movie Minority Report.Aside Reasoning · 15 wordsIt is certainly not charter-compliant, ²so I am glad to see that it was removed.Hidden agency

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 81

1 of 2 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.

A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “That seemed, to me, very much like the movie Minority Report.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 2 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 2 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 · 80

1 of 2 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.

Wording that hides who did something, or who will.What the tags mean “it was removed”The passive does not say who removed the provision from the earlier drafts.

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 first two versions said that if somebody thought a person was going to commit a hate crime in the future, that person could be put in prison for up to 25 years.”The first two versions of the bill stated that a person could be put in prison for up to 25 years if they thought someone would commit a hate crime in the future.search
2“It is certainly not charter-compliant,”The previous versions of the legislation are not compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.search

Analysed on 2026-10-31