MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Jenny Kwan

Follow by RSS

Kwan presses for affordable, non-market housing—demanding targets and accountability for billions in housing dollars—and for a fairer immigration system, sponsoring bills on citizenship for former children in care and an immigration ombud. She argues by peeling back what bills actually contain, asking “who gets power, who gets certainty and who bears the risk”. She also defends workers’ rights against back-to-work laws.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
86 / 100 over 48 statements
Signal 81 / 100
Relevance 78 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 97 / 100
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 48 of 63 statements graded so far.

Statements 63

Oral Questions ·

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

“I asked the immigration minister to evacuate 130 Palestinian students from Gaza. She promised their visas would be processed in 10 days, but that is not true. She either lied or is bad at her job. I want the Prime Minister to fire her.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I asked the immigration minister if she would do what France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany had done and evacuate 130 Palestinian students with university acceptance and scholarships with deferred biometrics and grant them emergency travel documents. The minister said, “we have directed officials to accelerate the student visa processing for people in Gaza, and I can confirm the decision will be made now, and in fact all...will be completed in the next 10 days.” I am now learning that is not true. Either the minister was deliberately misleading, or she is inept and has no clue what is going on. Will the Prime Minister just fire her already?

Oral Questions ·

Foreign Affairs

“Canada signed a secret police deal with China, and the RCMP says we cannot share the details without Beijing's approval. China has used shared intelligence to target people before. Did the minister ask China if we can make the deal public?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada signed a police co-operation agreement with China behind closed doors. The RCMP reportedly revealed that Canada cannot publicly disclose details of the MOU without Beijing’s approval. The foreign affairs minister said she spoke frankly with the Chinese foreign affairs minister about human rights abuses, foreign interference and transnational repression activities last week. China has a history of weaponizing shared intelligence such as Operation Fox Hunt. Will the minister be frank with Canadians and tell us whether she asked China’s permission to release the MOU, yes or no?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The minister has spent seven and a half minutes failing to answer a single question. How long will it take to process all these immigration applications?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, it is no wonder the Conservatives are calling for that minister’s resignation. She cannot answer one question in seven and a half minutes. Since the immigration levels plan has put all three of these groups under the H and C and other category quota, how long does the minister think it will take to process all these applications?

“I want the minister to answer my question. I asked for the backlog numbers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I am getting a migraine. I am actually asking for the backlog numbers. Will the minister answer the question?

“How many backlogged immigration applications are there for people from Hong Kong, Ukraine, and Sudan?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the minister is having trouble answering questions, so let me try a different tack. Can the minister advise us on how many applications are in the backlog for the special immigration measure for Hong Kongers for stream A and B and for the special immigration measures for Ukraine and Sudan?

“Will the minister offer other ways to verify people's identities for this program?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, will the minister offer biometric solutions and alternatives for this program?

“I want the minister to answer my question. When did the government last submit names, and how many have been processed since the ceasefire?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister not to waste my time, I only have seven and a half minutes. I would like her to answer the question. What was the last date the government submitted names, and how many have been processed since the ceasefire?

“That did not answer my question. I want to know how many names were sent to officials in Israel and Egypt.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, that was not my question. I am asking how many names have been submitted to the Israeli and Egyptian authorities. Maybe her officials can help her.

“How many names has the government sent to Israel and Egypt to help people leave Gaza under this program?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, with the special immigration measure for Gazans to date, how many names has the government submitted to the governments of Israel and Egypt to request official exit clearance?

“130 Palestinian students have waited two years for Canadian study visas, but war makes it impossible to meet the requirements. Other countries let their students arrive first and do the security checks later. Will the minister do the same?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, 130 highly qualified Palestinian postgrad students have waited for two years for their study visa with no decision or timeline. Many face requirements that are impossible to meet under the war conditions, including biometrics and extended security screening. France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany successfully evacuated students who received university scholarships without pre-departure biometrics. They granted emergency entry travel documents and deferred standard biometric collection. Will the minister do the same?

“The answer is still no. Is the minister tracking whether people sent back to the U.S. under our border deal are being sent to other countries, which breaks that deal? Has the minister asked the U.S. for proof that this is not happening to detainees?”
Official Hansard

And the answer is also no. Mr. Chair, is the minister monitoring the use of ACAs for individuals returned to the U.S. under the safe third country agreement in violation of the safe third country agreement? Has the minister requested assurances from the U.S. authorities that ACAs are not in use for detainees?

In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab

“I want the minister to answer my question. Does the government track whether people Canada sends to the United States end up in immigration detention?”
Official Hansard

That is a no, then. Mr. Chair, is the minister maintaining data on ICE detention for individuals Canada transferred to U.S. authorities?

In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab

“I want the minister to give me a yes-or-no answer. Did the cabinet review this, or did they pass the decision down to someone else?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, all the minister has to say is that, yes, they have reviewed it or no. If the cabinet has not, and it is a requirement of cabinet, can the minister confirm that the government has delegated it down with it going to cabinet when the circumstances warrant?

“Cabinet must keep reviewing our border agreement with the United States. Has cabinet reviewed it since the U.S. started locking up many returned refugees without a judge, and deporting them to other countries?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, there is a requirement for cabinet to ensure an ongoing review of the safe third country agreement. Has cabinet reviewed the safe third country agreement since the U.S. implemented mandatory detention without review by a judge for large categories of the refugee claimants returned to the U.S., third-country pass-through deportations and deportations under the dubious asylum co-operative agreements?

Oral Questions ·

The Environment

“The Prime Minister meets with oil and gas lobbyists, but not environmental groups. He has cut climate policies and helped the fossil fuel industry instead of taxing its huge profits. What else does that industry want from him?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the fossil fuel lobby had at least 17 direct meetings with the Prime Minister and environmental groups had zero. The Prime Minister axed the carbon tax, abandoned the emissions cap, killed the EV mandate, signed a deal to build a new pipeline, stepped up on greenwashing, took a sledgehammer to regulatory reviews, created a $25-billion wealth fund that will no doubt benefit the oil and gas industry and refused to impose an excess profit tax when companies are poised to make over $90 billion in profit this year alone. Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians what else the oil and gas industry wants?

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“The NDP supports workers. We will not force them back to work or make big changes to labour laws without truly consulting them, like the Liberals are doing.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 0 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, of course the NDP supports workers. We are not the party that will legislate them back to work. We are not the party that will run roughshod over workers. We are not the party that is pretending to engage in a consultative process about major changes to the Canada Labour Code without the meaningful participation from labour. This is what the Liberals are doing.

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“The Prime Minister is ignoring Indigenous rights. His economic plan also gives two-thirds of the $140 billion for housing to private companies through tax breaks. Very little money will go to building homes for the people who need them most.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that I am deeply disappointed and deeply concerned that the Prime Minister has abandoned the indigenous community. He is riding roughshod over and sidelining their indigenous rights, as have been enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. On the housing side, the government, in the economic update, actually ensured that the private sector would be the biggest beneficiary of the spring economic update. Of the $140 billion for measures toward housing, two-thirds is actually targeted toward the private sector in the way of benefits, tax incentives and so on. Only a small fraction of the money would actually be invested in building housing. So much for building faster and more for the Canadians who need housing the most.

In response to a question from Warren Steinley

“People are struggling to afford life while the rich get richer. The Prime Minister's choices caused this. I want the government to tax companies that make huge extra profits.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the affordability crisis is hitting everybody. In my riding of Vancouver East as well, people are struggling to get by. What the NDP cannot accept is an economy where wealth continues to concentrate at the top, where opportunity narrows for too many and where public policy moves in ways that risk reinforcing that divide. This is not inevitable. It is the result of the political decisions of the Prime Minister, and it is within our power to choose a different path. The NDP chooses a different path. We say, let us levy an excessive profit tax for those who are making billions of dollars at the expense of Canadians who are struggling to get by.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want the government to tax the extra profits of oil and gas companies. That money should go to clean energy, a national wealth fund, and people struggling with the high cost of living.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what the NDP stands for. The NDP stands for calling on the government to actually impose an excessive profit tax on the oil and gas companies, which are poised to make over $90 billion just this year alone in profits. That money should go into the sovereign wealth fund. That money should go into green energy initiatives. That money should be going into supporting Canadians who are struggling with the affordability crisis.

“I do not support the government's economic plan. It cuts money for health care, transit, and public services while spending billions on the military and private companies. We should tax the record profits of big oil and gas companies to help Canadians instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières. Let me start with a quote that says, for all my life, I have been a Liberal who believed in rights, equity and an independent foreign policy. Since 1982, the charter gave us something that transcended party...courts that could check governments, refugee protection as obligation, reconciliation as shared responsibility. “The story is being re-written. The language hasn’t changed. Ministers still invoke the Charter, the ‘rules-based order’.... But...what’s actually happening....” Asylum seekers are cut off before they reach a hearing, immigration detention is relocated into a federal prison, climate architecture is quietly dismantled, indigenous funding is eroded by inflation and international law is treated as optional when inconvenient. “The Liberal convention in Montreal confirmed the direction...security, defence, and major project....” Election reform was rejected. “Small-l liberals...are running out of political space. Their values haven’t disappeared. The party that used to carry them is just moving on.” Those are the comments of the Hon. Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal foreign affairs minister. I think he is reflecting the views of many progressives in Canada. After the tabling of the spring economic update, the headline of Althia Raj’s opinion piece in the Toronto Star, which names the Prime Minister, reads, “[He] has forgotten who helped get him elected”. Her article opens with this, “If one thing is clear from [the Prime Minister’s] economic update this week, it’s that he’s taking progressive voters for granted.” Indeed the months since the fall 2025 budget have confirmed a hard truth. The Prime Minister is governing like a centralizing conservative. The warning signs were already in the budget itself: public service cuts, reduced immigration targets and a growing emphasis on sovereignty spending including defence. The NDP flagged it as an austerity-leaning framework at a time when Canadians were struggling with unaffordability, unemployment and rising costs. Since then, the direction has only hardened. This government has overridden labour action, forcing striking workers back on the job, drawing fierce backlash from unions. It has pursued international trade and so-called nation-building legislation with Conservative support while sidelining indigenous rights and environmental standards. It has cut or constrained programs in areas like science, foreign aid, community support and public services, all while expanding military commitments and giving big corporations significant tax incentives and benefits as they continue to make record excessive profits. Day by day, it is becoming clearer that this is not progressive governance, but the consolidation of power, decision-making and priorities that tilt toward the market, megaprojects and militarization over people. It is a government that asks its working people to tighten their belts while opening the fiscal floodgates for defence and corporate-led growth. That is not balance; it is a political choice, and one that looks increasingly conservative by the day. The spring economic update saw health care spending cut as Canadians continue to struggle to find a doctor. The provinces and territories that did not sign on to the pharmacare deal that the NDP forced the Liberals to move forward on before the last election will likely not get an agreement. Meanwhile, mental health funding will not be renewed. The chronic underfunding for mental health and addictions continues. The highly touted dedicated funding for transit has been axed. Support for many critical services, including the Right Fit program for people with disabilities, will sunset. Canadians are worried about their future and are facing an everyday emergency to keep costs down. Instead of taking bold action that would actually make a difference in people’s lives, the Prime Minister is relying on the private sector to save us. In fact, the spring economic update ensures the private sector is the biggest beneficiary in this affordability crisis. With the creation of a $25‑billion sovereign wealth fund, Canadians will see public funds shuffled into privately owned projects that will make a few wealthy investors and CEOs richer than they already are, including big oil and gas companies that are poised to reap over $90 billion in profits this year alone. The Prime Minister’s approach is to take public tax dollars to subsidize private projects all while income inequality is at a record high. Canada’s wealth inequality report by Oxfam Canada cited that in 2025, there were approximately 89 billionaires in Canada. The report further noted that the richest 1% have a net worth of $7 million and above, and they hold nearly $3.9 trillion in wealth, almost as much as the bottom 80% combined. This is just plain wrong. The Prime Minister invoked the example of Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, and the banker PM is doing the mirror image of what Norway did. In contrast, Norway’s success is built on state-led development. It directed its resource revenues into a sovereign wealth fund that is now worth over $2 trillion U.S., investing in green energy and initiatives and securing Norway’s social safety net. Canada once had a similar opportunity with the state-owned Petro-Canada, but the Conservatives began the privatization process and the Liberals finished it off, costing Canadians a vital source of national wealth. Instead of filling the pockets of big oil and gas companies, the NDP wants to see a windfall tax on oil and gas companies that are projected to make over $90 billion in profits this year alone because of Trump’s illegal war in Iran, and use that money to grow the sovereign wealth fund to benefit Canadians. This past week the Prime Minister told Canadians at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, “We don’t want to hear what people are against. We want to hear what they’re for. And if you’re for something, we will get behind [it].” He is delegitimizing the work of environmental groups and climate defenders who have been calling for green energy and infrastructure for decades. He is also threatening provinces and sidelining indigenous rights at the same time. Is it a wonder that the former minister of environment, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, resigned from cabinet? Now 14 Liberal MPs have written a letter anonymously, raising their concerns. If the Prime Minister can make such a comment to the Canadian public, one can only imagine how his cabinet is treated behind closed doors if any of them dare to voice their opposition. The Prime Minister was the UN special envoy on climate action and finance, which championed integrating climate risks into mainstream financial decision-making. He called for faster decarbonization. In 2015, Canada played an important role in the signing of the 2015 Paris Agreement. We agreed to lower emissions by 45% by 2030, a key deadline and organizing principle for the climate strategy. To achieve this, the main pillars of Canada’s pan-Canadian framework for climate change included carbon pricing, an EV mandate, an emissions cap on the oil sands and clean energy growth. The consumer industrial carbon pricing was to reach $170 per tonne by 2030. The EV mandate was to see that 60% of vehicle sales were EVs by 2030 and 100% by 2025. The emissions cap on the oil sands was to be 45%. Those targets have all been cancelled or delayed by a decade. Clean energy growth was watered down. Deadlines were pushed back. Instead of faster decarbonization, the Prime Minister signed a new agreement with Danielle Smith to build a new pipeline that would emit 160 megatonnes of carbon dioxide, 10 times more emissions than with its carbon capture project. Canada will not meet its climate goals by 2030. The Canadian Climate Institute is saying Canada will not get to net zero by 2050. The Prime Minister has abandoned climate, plain and simple, and what did we get for that? It was not unity but a referendum for Alberta to separate from Canada. Moreover, Canada is on a path to significantly increase defence spending to 5% of GDP. We have barely had public debate about this, nor was this talked about during the election. National security matters, but so does economic security. At the very same time as we are considering major increases in defence spending, we are also hearing about fiscal restraint, about the need to limit spending in other areas. Let us be clear. When the government makes these choices, it falls hardest on people who rely on affordable housing, on the health care system, on income supports, on child care, on mental health and on accessible public services. It falls on middle-income and low-income Canadians. It falls on renters and on young people trying to get ahead. In other words, without careful and deliberate policy design, those trade-offs can deepen inequality. We know policy choices can make a difference in people’s lives. This is what the Prime Minister is doing. He is trading off the needs of Canadians for the oil and gas companies, which are already making billions and billions in profits.