Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jenny Kwan

NDP on The Budget 2026-11-06

119 words · 7 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Elizabeth May (Green)

“Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. colleague from Vancouver East. She raised many good points. One thing I was surprised by was from earlier today. One of the Liberals who were speaking to the budget said that it was really committed to robust cost-benefit analysis. However, there is no cost-benefit analysis anywhere, neither robust nor otherwise, for the proposed and now approved Pacific link pipeline. The government is moving ahead with it as a major project of “national interest” with no cost-benefit analysis. I wonder if my hon. colleague is as troubled by that as I am, since we are paying for it.”

Statement grade

A–

Average 88 / 100

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

Thanks 13%Claims 87%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 15 wordsI thank my good colleague for her advocacy, always, for the environment and the people.Thanks Claims · 104 wordsShe is exactly right. There is no cost-benefit analysis.¹ The other thing that has been pointed out is that businesses are not required to do an impact assessment on the environment with their businesses. Less than 1% of businesses actually do that work.² I asked the minister directly at COP17 whether the Liberal government will impose this regulatory requirement so that we know what the impacts are.³Partly on point Not only is the government not doing a cost-benefit analysis, but it is not making businesses do impact assessments, which is absolutely essential when the government wants to build a pipeline that will absolutely decimate our environment.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 83

1 of 4 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I thank my good colleague for her advocacy, always, for the environment and the people.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 67

3 of 4 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.

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 other thing that has been pointed out is that businesses are not required to do an impact assessment on the environment with their businesses.”About businesses’ environmental impact assessments generally, not the pipeline’s lack of a cost-benefit analysis.
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 “Less than 1% of businesses actually do that work.”A statistic on businesses doing impact assessments, not on the question of the pipeline’s cost-benefit analysis.
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 “I asked the minister directly at COP17 whether the Liberal government will impose this regulatory requirement so that we know what the impacts are.”About asking the minister to require business impact assessments, not the pipeline’s cost-benefit analysis.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 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 4 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 · 3

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“There is no cost-benefit analysis”No cost-benefit analysis has been done for the proposed Pacific link pipeline, which the government has approved as a major project.search
2“Less than 1% of businesses actually do that work”Less than 1% of businesses conduct an environmental impact assessment for their businesses.search
3“I asked the minister directly at COP17”Jenny Kwan asked a minister at COP17, the UN biodiversity conference, whether the Liberal government would impose a regulatory requirement for businesses to do environmental impact assessments.search

Analysed on 2026-11-07