Jenny Kwan
Vancouver East, British Columbia · NDP · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table three petitions today. The first petition is signed by electors of Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby and Vancouver Quadra, who brought their petitions to their local MPs but had to ask for my assistance to table this in the House.”
“Communities know what they need, municipalities know what they need, indigenous housing providers know what they need and frontline organizations know what they need, yet funding decisions remain concentrated in Ottawa while people on the ground continue to experience delays, uncertainty and shifting eligibility rules.”
“They see that the Prime Minister is abandoning the provinces and territories that did not sign the pharmacare agreement prior to the last election. People do not care about talking points. They care about whether or not they can afford their medication. They care about whether they must choose between prescriptions and groceries.”
“Phase 2 funding under the federal community housing initiative will sunset. This subsidy support is critical to co-op housing members whose household incomes would cause them to pay more than the current 25% rent geared to income. If this program is not renewed, more than 14,400 families across the country will lose their homes.”
“In fact, for 30 years, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous people harmed by Canada's colonial systems, the sixties scoop, the ongoing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ crisis, and more, yet despite repeated commitments to reconciliation, despite having been told by Indig…”
“It determines staffing, curriculum and infrastructure. It determines whether first nations children have stable access to education. It is in effect the backbone of educational stability for first nations students in this province.”
The complete record
Every one of 508 lines we hold for Jenny Kwan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 11.
“If luxury units generate higher returns, that is what will be built. If speculation drives higher prices, that is where capital flows. This is how the system is designed, but it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the system serves the people, not just the profits. Right now, it does not serve the people. Where in this bill is the bold commitment to non-market housing? Where is the large-scale investment in co-op housing? Where is the expansion of public housing that remains affordable for generations? Where are the protections for renters facing eviction and unaffordable rent increases? Where is the action to stop the financialization of housing? The housing crisis is not separate from inequity. It is a direct result of it. When wealth is concentrated, it flows into assets like housing and drives prices out of reach.”
“We cannot simply build more units and assume they will meet the needs of people with disabilities. This is not simply an outlier situation. It is a warning. It shows us exactly what happens when we rely on a market-driven approach without strong public leadership and targeted investment. We get gaps, we get inequities, and people are left behind. This happens because it leans on the same idea, which is that if we incentivize developers, reduce barriers and speed up approvals, affordability will follow. However, we have tried that for decades, and what has it delivered? It has delivered luxury developments instead of affordable homes, record profits for investors while renters struggle, and housing treated as a commodity, not a human right. The private market builds for profit, not for need.”
“Over the years, it helped hundreds of people find stable homes, and yet despite its success, and despite a growing wait-list of people in desperate need, it lost federal funding as of April 1. That means that in the middle of a housing crisis, we are not just failing to build enough homes but failing to ensure that the housing we have is accessible to those who need it most. It is not happening. This is not just a policy failure; it is a moral failure. It exposes a fundamental flaw in the government's approach. The Build Canada Homes act focuses heavily on supply, but it is not asking a critical question: a supply of what, and for whom? Accessible housing is not interchangeable with market housing. This is a bureaucracy being built without adequate affordability targets.”
“They do not really want Canadians to know the facts. Here is the truth. Building more housing, on its own, will not solve the crisis. If we do not address who the system is built for, we will simply produce more housing that people still cannot afford. When we do not set affordability targets, it is déjà vu all over again. There is a profound lack of urgency and priority by the Prime Minister to build a new supply of truly affordable housing for everyday Canadians. What is worse is that we will leave the most vulnerable even further behind. The Minister of Housing once had the ambition to end homelessness. Now that he is the minister, where has that ambition gone? The Right Fit program did something very simple and very powerful. It matched wheelchair users with accessible housing.”
“(1255) At committee, I proposed something incredibly basic: an amendment to Bill C-20 calling for transparency, measurable targets and a clear definition of affordability rooted in reality, which is that people should not spend more than 30% of their total income just to keep a roof over their head. The amendment demanded data and required outcomes on how many homes are built, where they are, who they serve and whether they are actually affordable. At a time when millions are one paycheque away from losing their homes, Canadians deserve more than announcements and market incentivization. They deserve accountability and clear affordability targets. The Liberals and Conservatives, by voting down the amendment, send a clear message that they are not interested in transparency and accountability.”
“The Liberals have a choice: stand with working people crushed by rent and unaffordable housing costs, or protect a system that keeps housing unaccountable and out of reach. Sadly, they choose the latter. Liberals are continuing to approach the affordability crisis through market incentives rather than building affordable housing directly with non-profit partners that guarantee affordability. That is the world view of the Conservatives as well. The NDP takes a very different approach, and that is why the NDP is calling for development of one million public homes over five years. That is the scale of ambition we need, to ensure that everyone has a safe, affordable place to call home.”
“Why are families forced to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table? Why has this affordability crisis gone on for so long? This did not happen by accident. This is the result of decades of political choices that have allowed housing in Canada to be transformed from a human need into a vehicle for profit. During the election campaign, the Liberals said they were going to have a wartime intervention in building affordable housing. What we see in reality is a program focused primarily on market incentives. History has shown us that true affordable housing, social housing and co-op housing, can be built by government with non-profit partners, and they know how to do this well.”
“In addition, there could be the loss of up to 300,000 units of already built social and co-op housing if the government does not renew housing charge subsidies that are set to expire. Miloon Kothari, the former UN special rapporteur on housing, visited Canada on a national fact-finding mission and wrote a report in 2007 with recommendations. The point is that every government, Conservative and Liberal, has ignored his advice since. The report called for a continuum of housing to be built, including non-market affordable housing on scale, so that it could push the market into more affordable terrain. What are we seeing today, more than 30 years later? Why are seniors being renovicted from communities that they helped build? Why are young people working full-time and still unable to afford rent?”
“The Liberals are continuing to bank on the private sector to solve the housing crisis. We have seen that show before. It did not work 30 years ago, and it will not work now or in the future. The legislation contains no affordability or supply targets, no performance benchmarks and no regular reporting requirements beyond infrequent statutory reviews. To date, the government has announced just six sites that would meet affordability criteria. Without binding requirements, there is no assurance that future projects would do the same. This lack of ambition is especially concerning given that total federal housing spending is projected to fall by 56% by 2028-29. Funding for existing affordability programs is set to expire, and CMHC is facing cuts of $860 million per year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.”
“Behind the hype and the Prime Minister 's rhetoric of re-establishing the federal government's direct role in building homes at speed and scale to address the housing crisis is just another repackaged intervention that reserves most of its funding for the private sector. As shown in the spring economic update, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would build more housing faster to address the housing crisis, but instead of investing in the development of public community housing, over $93 billion, or two-thirds of the $140 billion in housing measures, would be gifted to real estate developers through special treatment and low-interest loans with minimal affordability requirements to help Canadians. Only one-third, less than $10 billion a year over five years, would be spent directly on building homes.”
“Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands . I rise today on behalf of the people of Vancouver East, and on behalf of millions of Canadians, who are asking a very simple question. In one of the richest countries in the world, why is it becoming harder, not easier, to afford a place to live? What an opportunity this is to do the right thing and to build truly affordable housing, once and for all. The government has a chance to step up to the plate and finally deal with the crisis of runaway housing costs. Instead, it is just tinkering at the edges.”
“Madam Speaker, my constituent suffered a debilitating vaccine injury. He is in constant pain and permanently disabled. Oxaro approved his $26,000 medical and home support costs back in February. He has yet to be reimbursed. He is now broke and being evicted. The health minister says to contact the Public Health Agency of Canada. PHAC says it is in transition and will not even look at the file until July. This is unacceptable. My constituent will be homeless and may not survive if he does not get help now. Will the minister immediately put in place a system to address urgent cases?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of very important points and amendments that should have been considered but were not, at the committee. I wonder, because she was running out of time to finish her comments, if she could further elaborate on some other issues that she thinks members of Parliament should hear.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has sidelined Bill S-2 as amended, despite a court-ordered deadline to end sex- and race-based discrimination and the second-generation cut-off in the Indian Act. The UN has called on Canada to fix this by adopting Bill S-2 as amended. The majority of first nations agree and do not want more consultation. Officials and ministers say it is up to the Prime Minister . Will the Prime Minister stop the delay tactics, meet with first nations women leaders, as requested, and pass Bill S-2 as amended, now, to end the discrimination and violations of the charter and international law?”
“In the middle of an affordability and climate crisis, Van East constituents want people's rights to housing, quality of life, water security and affordable home power supply to come first, ahead of tech giants.”
“Mr. Speaker, people in Vancouver East want the federal government to stop the “invest now, regulate later” approach of the Prime Minister 's AI data factory strategy. People are deeply concerned that the proposed AI data centres in dense residential neighbourhoods would bring constant air pollution from on-site diesel generators, 24-7 noise and impacts on water. It makes no sense to have water-intensive AI data centres on valuable land near their homes while historic drought conditions and water restrictions loom. People in Virginia, home to the largest concentration of data centres in the world, learned that industrial-scale data centres are incompatible in residential neighbourhoods. In Ireland, 22% of the power supply is now reportedly used by data centres, adding hundreds of dollars to home hydro bills.”
“The integrity of our proceedings depends on the accuracy of the information provided by ministers when answering questions from members. Accordingly, I respectfully submit that there is a prima facie case of question of privilege. If you so find, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the following motion: That the matter of the statements made by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole proceedings on May 28 concerning the processing of study permit applications for Palestinian students from Gaza be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study and report.”
“Rather, I submit that the circumstances raise sufficient concern to warrant further examination by the House. Members must be able to rely on ministerial statements when carrying out their parliamentary duties. When a minister provides a specific assurance to Parliament and substantial doubt subsequently arises as to its accuracy, the House must have confidence that the matter will be examined. The privileges of members are engaged when our ability to perform our parliamentary functions is undermined by information that may be inaccurate or misleading. In this case, I relied on the minister's response in exercising my responsibilities as a parliamentarian. The House was entitled to rely upon that information.”
“First, the minister made a specific and verifiable representation to Parliament concerning the processing of a defined group of applications with ministry staff at her side. Second, the representation included a precise timeline: completion within 10 days. Third, the statement concerned operational actions that would necessarily have been based on the information provided to the minister by her department officials, who were sitting right in front of her. Fourth, the information that has emerged since the minister's statement calls into question whether the commitment communicated to Parliament reflected the actual status of those files. (1520) Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to determine today whether the minister deliberately misled Parliament. Such determinations are not made lightly.”
“This information shared at this meeting with four members of Parliament, including myself, from the stakeholders suggests that officials are not proceeding in accordance with the commitment communicated by the minister during committee of the whole and that the applications in question may not, in fact, be completed within the time frame of 10 days that she identified. I fully acknowledge that findings that a member deliberately misled the House may be rare and require a high threshold. The authorities establish three conditions: first, that a statement was misleading; second, that the member knew it was incorrect at the time it was made; and third, that there was an intention to mislead. There are several factors that distinguish this matter.”
“Just today, I have learned that officials in the minister 's department are saying that the minister's response regarding a completion in the next 10 days is not the case, as I have been contacted by Canadian advocates for the students who wrote me today to say, “We just met with an IRCC representative this morning and it doesn't sound like they will follow through on this.” The students' advocates told me that officials said to them that there is no 10-day timeline. This was further confirmed by advocates and university professors at a meeting that took place from noon to 1 p.m. today. Therefore, this is my earliest opportunity to raise the matter.”
“As members of Parliament, we are entitled to rely upon information provided by the ministers during parliamentary proceedings. Indeed, our ability to hold the government to account depends upon it. Following the minister 's statement, I understood that decisions on these applications would be forthcoming within the time frame identified by the minister. I communicated accordingly with stakeholders and advocates who have been working tirelessly on behalf of these students. However, information subsequently received has raised serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the minister's statement to Parliament.”
“In response, the minister stated, “we have directed officials to accelerate the student visa processing for people in Gaza, and I can confirm that decisions will be made now, and in fact all...will be completed in the next 10 days.” While part of the minister's answer was delivered off microphone and is not fully reflected in the transcript, it is audible in the video recording of the proceedings. I heard the minister make those comments in the chamber. Given the significance of the statement, I subsequently reviewed the recording and confirmed what I heard. The minister's response was not vague. It was not aspirational. It was not framed as a hope or expectation. The minister informed Parliament that officials had been directed to accelerate processing and that decisions would be completed within 10 days.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning information provided to Parliament by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole proceedings on Thursday, May 28, 2026. During those proceedings, I asked the minister about approximately 130 Palestinian graduate students from Gaza who have been waiting for nearly two years for decisions on their study permit applications. I noted that many face requirements that are impossible to satisfy under war conditions, including biometrics collection and prolonged security screening. I further noted that several countries, including France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany, have adopted flexible measures to facilitate the arrival of scholarship recipients from Gaza. I then asked the minister whether Canada would do the same.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“Madam Speaker, the second petition I am tabling is signed by Canadians from communities including Vancouver, Surrey, Toronto, Ottawa and Gatineau. Petitioners are concerned that Trump's military is bombarding small boats and their crews in the Caribbean and in the Pacific Ocean, claiming without evidence that they are narco-terrorists. Such actions are illegal, they have noted, yet Canadian-made equipment has been used to commit these extrajudicial killings, due to the massive loophole in Canada's arms export laws. Whereas Canada respects the rule of law, the petitioners therefore call on the Canadian government to require the same rules of licensing of Canadian military exports to Trump's military that are applied to every other country.”
“They also call on the government to work with the society, the indigenous community and partners for a stable, long-term framework that reflects the actual service needs.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to table two petitions today. The first is in support of the Indian Residential School Survivors Society. The petition has been signed by more than 2,600 people calling on the Government of Canada to honour the TRC calls to action and the national inquiry for women and girls. Petitioners are calling for the government to respect residential school survivors, their families and their communities. They call on the government to keep its promises to avoid gaps in survivor-centred services. They call for sustained and stable core funding for the Indian Residential School Survivors Society to prevent program lapses, including funding for indigenous-led healing, wellness and crisis support programs related to residential school impacts.”
“They note that international bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council, and independent UN experts have called on all states to halt arms transfers where there is a substantial risk of their use in violations of international humanitarian law. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to enact legislation to close existing loopholes in Canada's arms export laws, including removing exemptions for the U.S., strengthening oversight and ensuring that Canadian arms are never used to commit or facilitate human rights abuses.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from constituents of the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, because the constituents tell me their MP would not table it. The petitioners note that Canada acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019, committing to prevent the transfer of arms where there is a substantial risk that they could be used in human rights abuses, war crimes or crimes against humanity. They also note that a significant loophole in Canada's export laws currently allows Canadian-made weapons, parts and components to be exported to the United States, from where they may be transferred to third countries.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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. (1830) Canada's wealth inequality report by Oxfam Canada cited that in 2025, there were approximately 89 billionaires in Canada.”