House of Commons Hansard #192 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was interference.

Topics

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of ParliamentPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

11:35 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, there were four specific issues in the opposition motion that was voted on today. Those measures involved the expulsion of diplomats and the creation of a foreign registry. These are common-sense measures that all members should support, like having a national public inquiry.

The government voted against that motion. It did not really provide any explanation for what it is not prepared to do. On the issue of a national public inquiry, the government would rather have people from the Trudeau Foundation, in spite of all that the Trudeau Foundation has been implicated in, be the ones doing this investigation.

I wonder if the member has reflections tonight on why the Liberals opposed our motion and would not explain why, and why they would rather have people from the Trudeau Foundation investigate foreign interference than the people who are genuinely independent and have the confidence of all parties.

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of ParliamentPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

11:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will start by pointing out that given the normal practice of the House, the normal routine, it would have been time for a Liberal question, but a Conservative got up and asked a question instead. Again, I would implore the Liberals to actually take part in this debate, take a productive role in the debate and try to understand what people—

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of ParliamentPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

11:40 p.m.

An hon. member

Don't tell me what to do.

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of ParliamentPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

11:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled again. I cannot tell them what to do. I am imploring them. I am not telling them what to do; I do not have that power. However, I think the debate would be better if members from all parties were participating wholly and fully in it.

To the point of the question, I think there is a real question on Canadians' minds as to why we are even having this conversation right now and why this stuff is not hard-wired into our democracy at this point in time. Again, it is all the more reason that we need a full public inquiry.

Intimidation Campaign Against Members of ParliamentPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

11:40 p.m.

Conservative

Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, I join this debate tonight with a bit of a heavy heart. I look back at being elected in 2019 and wanting the full opportunity to represent the people of Regina—Lewvan. This is the second debate where we are talking about the foundation of our democracy and what the people of Canada sent us here to do.

The first debate was around the Emergencies Act in February of 2022. The second one is this evening, where we are talking about the fact that a member of Parliament and his family, because of a vote in this place, have been harassed by a foreign diplomat, who tried to create foreign interference by the Communist Party in Beijing. We need to look back to see how we got here, first of all.

I was always told as a young kid growing up is that if one does not learn from one's history, one is bound to repeat it. On the very important debate we had on the Emergencies Act, the NDP supported it and the Liberals invoked it on Canadians. On this one, it is about an MP being harassed, but it is not just about an MP. Throughout the Chinese diaspora in Canada, lots of people have faced the same things the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills has. He is not just standing up for himself, he is standing up for all Canadians who have gone through harassment.

I started to talk about learning from our history. My friend from Perth—Wellington started down this path a little. I also brought up some of the debate from the House of Commons when the War Measures Act was invoked on October 16, 1970.

There are some words by the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker I would like to put on the record that run parallel to the discussion we are having this evening.

Mr. Diefenbaker said:

All over the world, Canada has a black eye. And now what is the government doing? It has recognized Communist China. Well, I can just imagine the deluge of communist spies who will come in here attached to the Chinese embassy, when it opens. They will all masquerade as diplomatic representatives. With the United States alongside us, we have not yet seen anything of what will happen when this group comes to Canada and begins its active responsibility which is to destroy Canada from within and, as well, undermine the United States.

Mr. Diefenbaker goes on to say:

The minister said yesterday that what Canada has done will have great influence in the United Nations. Well, and I think this expression is to be ascribed to Mao, for anyone to suggest that communism and the western world can coexist side by side is as ridiculous as endeavouring to fry an iceberg. And that is the situation. They are coming and we have seen happening up to now will be as nothing.

This was a speech given in this very chamber in 1970. The discussion we are having now as parliamentarians is how we can expel foreign influence not only on our elections but on our government as well. It is something every Canadian should be taking very seriously because it is affecting our lives on a daily basis.

This particular motion, which my colleagues have been talking about all evening, is part and parcel of our opposition day motion delivered a few days ago. This House voted to pass our opposition day motion and had support from the other opposition parties.

The motion talked about four things:

(a) create a foreign agent registry similar to Australia and the United States of America;

(b) establish a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference;

(c) close down the People's Republic of China run police stations operating in Canada; and

(d) expel all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible for and involved in these affronts to Canadian democracy.

Lord only knows what the reason was, but it took until this afternoon after question period for the government to finally make the Chinese diplomat from Beijing persona non grata for the harassment of a member of Parliament because of a vote he made in this House.

That vote was on the motion that we brought forward on the Uyghurs in China and the genocide happening to the Uyghurs in that country. All of us voted in favour of that motion to make sure that that was recognized, and that those human atrocities could be talked about on the floor of the House of Commons, where they should be talked about.

The disappointing thing about that was that the Liberal front benches did not even pick a side or even get in the game. They abstained from the vote, which is shameful. We should always be on the side of right when it comes to human rights. That is something Conservatives have always been proud supporters of. It is one of the principles we extol across the country and around the world, making sure that we support people in their time of need.

Another thing I would like to put on the record is the fact that this is not just about the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills. This is about so many people in the 2019 and 2021 campaigns who felt bullied into not being able to vote for the person they wanted to vote for, which is fundamental to our Westminster system of democracy. It is one person, one vote, and the freedom to chose who governs them. That is something we should all stand up for and continue to push for. When we ask for a foreign agent registry, it is so that we can have a free and open democratic process. As a member of Parliament and as a former MLA, it is something that is close to my heart. That is what we do; we try to earn support.

I remember our leader talking to a lady at one of his rallies. She was just amazed, because in the country she came from, people never got that close to a politician. People never got close to the people who were elected. In other countries, politicians are insulated from the people they represent. A great thing about Canada is that we are not insulated from the people we represent. It is a point of pride for us. We do not need a big security detail to go out in our riding. We do not need to have security systems installed in all of our homes, because this is the House of Commons. It is for the common people to come and make decisions on behalf of everyone else in our country. It is a point of pride for us to not be seen as above everyone else.

On our side of the House, Conservatives take this to heart each and every day. We make sure we stay grounded, not out of touch. We believe the Liberal government has fallen out of touch with everyday, hard-working Canadians, whether it be in the oil and gas sector or the agricultural sector. It is because we stay in touch with the people we represent that we are able to bring their concerns to the chamber.

So many different times today, I heard the member for Kingston and the Islands say that people take it for granted that every person in this place is going to be telling the truth. We said that people should take the member for Wellington—Halton Hills at his word when he said that he was never briefed on the specifics of what was happening to him through the Beijing diplomat who was harassing him and his family. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that if we take the member for Wellington—Halton Hills at his word, we should expect the truth from the member for Papineau.

I served with a lovely lady in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. Her name is Doreen Eagles, and she was a long-serving member for Estevan. She had one of the best quotes I have ever heard, either here or in the Saskatchewan chamber. She said, to the Speaker in the Saskatchewan legislature, that the best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour.

We can be forgiven, on this side, if we sometimes do not take the member for Papineau at his word, because we have heard, time and time again, that a reporter experienced it differently, that he did not mean to elbow the NDP member during a ruckus in the House of Commons, that there was nothing to see with SNC-Lavalin, that Jody Wilson-Raybould got it wrong, or that Celina Caesar-Chavannes did not understand the conversation they had together. There are so many situations that we could put forward from the member for Papineau's past behaviour that would perhaps indicate that his future behaviour may not be on par with what we think likely happened in this situation.

Over the last week, we have seen the government change its story several times. First of all, we had a couple of members say that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills knew what happened and should have brought it forward sooner, over the last two years, which we know is categorically false. Second of all, at the Liberal convention this past weekend, we saw the current Minister of Public Safety say that CSIS should have brought it forward, and it is not the government's fault that CSIS did not bring it forward to them. I say “current” because I think he is in some trouble. That, once again, came to be categorically false; the security adviser to the PMO said that they got the briefing. I wonder if the Minister of Public Safety thinks it is actually CSIS's job to go and read the briefing to the Prime Minister or to him.

Yes, it is story time. We know because we have experienced this. We saw that the government hired storytellers a couple of years ago to actually tell Canadians a story about how well they are doing. Perhaps the Liberals thought CSIS was supposed to tell them the story of what happened with the national security breach, because they did not have time to read their briefings.

The Toronto Sun, which I do not quote often, has an article that brings up some questions. Every Canadian should think about this over the next couple of days when we are discussing the foundation of democracy and whether people can make free choices without harassment from foreign governments. The reporter ends with this:

The report was sent to the government as they were gearing up for the 2021 election, making this issue public at that time could have created sympathy for the Conservatives. It’s easy to imagine Canadians being outraged at China targeting a Canadian MP for voting to condemn China’s genocide of the Uighurs, a clear stand for human rights.

Did the Liberals opt not to deal with this report for partisan reasons? Were they so focused on beating the Conservatives that they ignored attacks by a foreign government on our democracy?

These questions should be unthinkable. We should expect that all politicians would put country over party.

It’s not clear, given what we’ve learned over the last week, that we can assume that anymore. Asking whether the lack of action was partisan in nature is entirely acceptable given the circumstances.

Canadians should take that and mull it over for a bit. What if a government had a harassment claim with respect to a member of Parliament because of a position he took on the side of human rights, and it sat on that for another couple of years for partisan reasons? I hope that would never happen in this country. However, it is an interesting question that the reporter from the Toronto Sun puts forward in his article today. For this, we really have to understand how far we have come in the divisiveness of politics in this country.

I started by saying that there are two times when I stood in this chamber thinking about what our democracy would look like not 10 or 15 years from now but in two or three years. We have had people come to Ottawa asking for their voices to be heard only to have the other side actually create a division, where it treated them as second-class citizens and then invoked the Emergencies Act to make sure it could deal with them swiftly. Is that the right word? I am not quite sure.

I remember standing in this House giving a speech about Tommy Douglas. I know the NDP supported invoking the Emergencies Act, and I remembered something Tommy Douglas said in 1960. When the elder Trudeau invoked the act in 1960, Tommy Douglas said it was like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. I would suggest that many New Democrats would have felt the same way, but the group that they have in the chamber today decided to support it. Then the government went on to freeze people's bank accounts as well, which is something I never thought I would see in this country.

If we fast forward to now, I do not think we have learned many lessons on how to perhaps cradle democracy and keep it a bit safer. We are talking about a ruling by the Speaker that a prima facie case was found that a member of Parliament was harassed to the point that his family overseas was threatened because he was doing his job. Many Canadians have gone through this, from B.C. and across the country, in Toronto and Quebec. What has happened in 2023 in this country is really unimaginable.

Another item in the Conservative motion that was passed by the opposition parties talks about Beijing-run police stations in Canada. I remember when the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood stood up to talk about there being one close to his riding as well. We asked him if he had brought that forward to the minister. Obviously, he said yes.

The minister stood up and said that these Beijing-run Communist police stations in Canada were going to be closed immediately. The member for Kingston and the Islands stood up and said that the government was going to close them immediately. I asked him if he knew what the definition of “immediately” was, because the government seems to move a bit slower than some Canadians would like. The fact there is a foreign country running police stations in Canada is unacceptable, full stop. They should be shut down immediately. Not one person should be detained in these police stations because they should have no authority in our country.

I remember one of the first emails I got on this was a couple of years ago. At first, I thought people were joking because, from my standpoint, being a provincial politician, policing is a big part of provincial jurisdiction. Then, when moving into the public service federally, I did not understand how a foreign country could even, first of all, start and then operate a police station on Canadian soil. What kind of jurisdiction would it even have? Then we learned more about certain people with origins in different countries being targeted and harassed to make sure they are doing what their home country thinks they should be doing.

What I would say to people now is that we need to stand up for democracy in our country. We need to make sure that the things that happened to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills never happen again. That starts with going forward with our motion, having a public inquiry to get to the bottom of everything that happened over the last couple of years, and making sure that we have this motion go to PROC, which I hope the Liberals will vote for. If the Speaker has found a prima facie case, it would be unheard of for the government to vote against it and, quite frankly, ridiculous. We need to make sure this goes to PROC so it can be fully studied. We especially need a public inquiry into foreign interference in our elections so Canadians can have faith in our democratic system.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

May 9th, Midnight

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the brave women and men serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I asked the defence minister why 700 soldiers, including the base hospital, at Garrison Petawawa were left without heat or hot water. She did not have an answer. She could not answer, because she never bothered to find out why hot water was not deemed essential. Her job is to be accountable to Parliament. When something goes wrong in a department, the minister is responsible. That does not mean she was the one turning off the hot water. It just means it is her responsibility, her sworn duty, to come to this House and give an account of what went wrong.

Being responsible and accountable when we make mistakes is how we avoid making the same mistakes again. However, instead of being responsible, the minister retreated to her safe space and just started listing off spending announcements as evidence of the Liberal commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces. It is a crass and vulgar way to go through life thinking commitment can be measured in dollars and cents. Imagine someone telling their loved ones that they measure their commitment by how much cash they spend on them.

Of course, the irony is that the Liberals do not even spend the cash they have committed to the military. The Liberals cannot procure new equipment. They cannot even process payments for per diems when soldiers are stationed overseas. The minister claims they are committed, but the Prime Minister tells a different story behind closed doors. Privately, the Prime Minister claims there is no political will for Canada to meet its commitment to NATO. Building political will to do the right thing is what real leaders do, but the Prime Minister would rather go surfing.

The truth is that there is no support for the military in the Liberal Party base. The Canadian Armed Forces is currently under an unprecedented reconstitution order. Recruitment is cratering under the Prime Minister because Canadians know the truth. Why should they put their lives on the line in defence of Canada when the Prime Minister will not even defend the idea of Canada? How can we have a “national” defence if the Prime Minister believes we live in a post-nation state?

The Liberals believe Canada is a racist colonial oppressor state. When radical extremists pull down statues, the Prime Minister sides with the vandals. He strips historic names from buildings while a taxpayer-funded foundation named for his father takes donations from dictatorships. He would rather apologize for the country than celebrate it. This country strips out symbols of our heritage from the Crown and replaces them with a snowflake. What message do we think that sends to potential recruits?

The minister left our recruits out in the cold. The Prime Minister treats our military like a phallic joke. Why would people lay down their lives to defend this country when the government does not even seem to like this country?

The Liberal Party has become so hostile to democratic accountability and freedom of speech that it passed a resolution requiring government approval to publish unnamed sources. Defending freedom and democracy used to be the best rallying cry to join the Canadian Armed Forces, yet the illiberals seem hell-bent on persuading Canadians that believing in freedom and democracy is an unacceptable view. Nothing symbolizes the “illiberal party” contempt for the military than its leaving our women and men in uniform out in the cold and dressing them up in snowflakes.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

May 9th, Midnight

Cambridge Ontario

Liberal

Bryan May LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the identification of essential staff at Base Petawawa was negotiated with the Union of National Defence Employees and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, in consultation with the Canadian Forces Housing Agency. When strike action temporarily shut down the base's central heating plant, staff at the base moved quickly to ensure additional shower facilities with integral heating were opened up and alternative heating sources were brought in. The Department of National Defence, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Union of National Defence Employees also worked together to deem additional staff essential so that the central heating plant could resume operation, which it did.

This also gives me the opportunity to highlight some of the ways we are supporting the members of our Canadian Armed Forces on the bases and wings where so many of them live. Base Petawawa has seen a number of new investments in recent years, investments that are not only improving the daily lives of our military personnel, but enhancing their operational readiness as well. That includes a new $60-million health services centre, which opened up last year. This new facility has improved supports for the physical and mental health of our forces' members at Petawawa. It consolidates medical, dental, physiotherapy and mental health services into one centrally located facility, making it easier for members to access the help they need.

In 2021, we opened a 10-building complex on the base to give the Canadian Special Operations Regiment a dedicated place to train and store equipment. Also that year, the Royal Canadian Dragoons moved into a new, renovated facility that will better meet their operational requirements.

Investments like these are not just happening at Petawawa. They are happening across the country. In March, the Prime Minister announced a $7.3-billion investment to upgrade and build new infrastructure that will house Canada's fleet of F-35 fighter jets, as part of our NORAD modernization plan. This new construction will take place at bases and wings across Canada from Goose Bay to Comox, in the north and especially in Bagotville and Cold Lake.

We also continue to upgrade bases and wings through a series of energy performance contracts. These contracts are retrofitting military facilities to the highest standards of energy-efficient design, while guaranteeing savings over time. We have implemented 13 such contracts since 2015, including at Base Petawawa, which are lowering the military's carbon footprint and contributing to Canada's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

We will continue to ensure our people in uniform have modern facilities in which to live, work and train. They deserve nothing less.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

May 9th, 12:05 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spoke for four minutes and still did not answer a simple question: Why were the soldiers left out in the cold by the government?

It is no surprise that woke Liberals would adopt a snowflake as a symbol of Canadian sovereignty. What is a surprise is that they think this will help them recruit people willing to fight and, when necessary, kill people who hate Canada and hate what we stand for. Maybe that is their dirty little secret. The Liberals think that if we do not stand for anything, if we roll over to appease hostile regimes and treat their diplomats with kid gloves, we do not really need a military.

Considering the way the Prime Minister likes to import American culture wars and American political celebrities, maybe he just sees us as a vassal state. The truth is we can only guess because they say one thing in public and another thing in private.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

May 9th, 12:05 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, upgrading bases and wings is just one way we are supporting our people in uniform. We are also helping military personnel and their families day to day through the Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services.

The Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services offer a wide range of vital supports, 24-7 mental health services, resources for parents and children, benefits that help with relocation and more. These are available virtually or in-person across the country.

Canada's defence policy of “Strong, Secure, Engaged” makes it clear that our people in uniform are a top priority. Indeed, they are. As we update this defence policy, supporting the physical and mental health of our Canadian Armed Forces will continue to be job number one.

TransportationAdjournment Proceedings

May 9th, 12:05 a.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak to operational funding for transit in Canada because it is essential.

Transit allows people to have reliable and efficient service. Maintaining the capital assets and upgrading infrastructure such as buses, trains and stations, as well as investing in new technologies and equipment, are certainly important for transit, but for those to function, operational funds are needed. Communities across the country are looking for the government to step up and show leadership with operational funding for transit. Without sufficient funding, transit systems can become outdated and overcrowded, which leads to delays, breakdowns and reduced accessibility for passengers.

I want to share a story from my community, which happened just recently, where transit has not had the operating funds to keep its equipment fully accessible. A resident in my riding recently tweeted that they were stuck at a transit station because the shuttle bus was broken and the wheelchair lift was not functioning. The resident was then forced to get onto a transit bus, and that, too, had a broken ramp. This is about not having the operating funds to maintain the product.

I also want to talk about the fact that so many residents in my communities of Port Moody, Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra are looking for simple bathrooms in transit stations. With no operating funds, the transit authorities have not built the bathrooms required because they cannot afford to keep them operational. This is a human rights issue. There should be bathrooms at transit stations.

In addition to improving these services, operational funds are critical for ensuring that transit remains accessible. Riders rely on public transit as their primary mode of transportation, and without adequate funding, fares are becoming prohibitively expensive, especially in these times times when there is so much inflation and we know that folks are struggling to pay the bills at home.

Next week, the TransLink mayors are coming in from the Lower Mainland in Vancouver, and the TransLink Mayors’ Council is also asking Ottawa to step up with necessary transit funding for operations. This will also help us meet our climate goals.

As we see the approach of the TransLink Mayors’ Council coming from B.C., I just want to raise tonight that we need operational funds for safety as well. We all know that there has been quite a few horrific stories recently of people who have died or have been severely hurt on transit. This is something that needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed with operational funding. Security and the ability to have conductors on buses and trains are very important.

Lastly, operational funding plays an important role in supporting the growth and development of Canadian communities. Transit systems provide access to jobs, education, health care and other essential services, and help to connect people across different regions and municipalities. By investing in transit, government can stimulate economic growth, improve quality of life and create more resilient communities. Why does the government continue to fail Canadians by avoiding the steady, reliable and meaningful transit operational funds communities have been asking for?

TransportationAdjournment Proceedings

May 9th, 12:10 a.m.

Cambridge Ontario

Liberal

Bryan May LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, public transit and active transportation infrastructure enable Canadians to go places, to get to where they need to be, to connect with friends and family, to travel safely to and from work and school and to take family members to their medical appointments. Our government is committed to helping all Canadians make that journey safely, efficiently and affordably.

Since 2015, we have provided over $20 billion in federal funding to support public transit projects in communities across Canada. This is a historic investment for municipalities and provinces; it is creating jobs, making communities more accessible and improving quality of life for Canadians.

To ensure that Canadians continue to have access to efficient transit, the Government of Canada introduced the permanent public transit program. This program will provide federal funding support to projects that deliver expanded urban transit networks, affordable zero-emissions transit options, transit solutions for rural communities and additional active transportation options. The program provides $14.9 billion over eight years, including $3 billion per year ongoing, starting in 2026-27. It builds on support already available for transit across the country from existing federal programs.

In addition, our government continues to leverage other programs to support communities, transit authorities and other groups providing essential services to Canadians in the public transit and active transportation sectors. The five-year $2.75-billion zero-emissions transit fund advances the Government of Canada's commitment to help procure zero-emissions public transit and school buses across the country. The five-year $400-million active transportation fund aims to expand and enhance active transportation networks in communities large and small, as well as to support Canada's national active transportation strategy. The five-year $250-million rural transit solutions fund addresses unique mobility challenges in rural communities through support for the planning and development of locally tailored mobility solutions. To date, the investing in Canada infrastructure program has approved $25 billion for 5,500 projects, including funding to enhance public transit systems through the acquisition of over 4,200 public transit vehicles, such as buses, subway cars and light-rail transit trains.

Budget 2023 reaffirms the Government of Canada's commitment to advancing infrastructure projects across the country. We have worked diligently with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that the $33.5 billion in funding under the investing in Canada infrastructure program was fully committed by March 31, 2023. With these allocations, we will be continuing to make investments that get results for communities. An update on the program will be provided later this year, including next steps for the permanent public transit fund that will ensure Canadians can get to where they need to be.

TransportationAdjournment Proceedings

May 9th, 12:15 a.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, although I see that the member had a prepared speech, I want to reiterate the fact that if capital investments are being made in transit infrastructure, the operating funds need to be assigned at the same time.

I want to revisit the safety aspect. Will the government support the ATU's call for a Canada national transit safety task force to deal with the surge in violence on transit?

TransportationAdjournment Proceedings

May 9th, 12:15 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to supporting public transit, and that commitment is for the long term. That is why we introduced the permanent public transit program to ensure continuing support for projects that will expand urban transit networks, deliver affordable zero-emissions transit options, provide transit solutions for rural communities and offer more active transportation options to Canadians. The program provides $14.9 billion over eight years, including $3 billion per year ongoing, starting in 2026-27. It builds on support already available for transit across the country for existing federal programs.

The Government of Canada's continued investment in transit will help provide options for Canadians. Our investment in public transit is helping to provide an essential service to many Canadians to generate billions of dollars in economic benefits and help Canada meet its climate change targets as we approach 2050.

TransportationAdjournment Proceedings

May 9th, 12:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:18 a.m.)