With regard to all federal contracts awarded between 2019 and 2023 to suppliers of the federal government, reporting departments, organizations and agencies, federal offices and any other federal entity that received funds from the Public Accounts of Canada: (a) which contracts required essential knowledge of the English language, both with respect to the spoken or written language of suppliers in the workplace and the language of deliverables; and (b) what are the details of each contract in (a), including the (i) contract number, (ii) name of the supplier, (iii) name of the federal department or agency responsible for the contract, (iv) amount awarded, (v) date of the contract, (vi) languages required for the work, (vii) languages required for deliverables, (viii) justification for requiring only English as the language of work or deliverables? With regard to all federal funding committed to the creation and maintenance of housing stock in Nunavut, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what is the total amount committed; (b) what is the total amount spent; (c) how much new housing stock was created in Nunavut; and (d) what are the government's projections for the number of housing units that will be built in Nunavut by 2030? With regard to the Cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers youth programs, in the 2022-23 fiscal year: (a) how many staff, broken down by employment status (i.e. full-time, part-time), were employed at the (i) Regional Headquarters, including the Northwest Region, Pacific Region, Central Region, Eastern Region, Atlantic Region, (ii) National Headquarters, (iii) Corps/Squadron level; (b) of the staff in (a), what were their roles, responsibilities, and job descriptions; (c) what was the salary range of those in (a)(i) and (a)(ii); (d) what professional and special services were used, how often, and for what purpose, and how much did each of these items cost; (e) how much money was spent on advertising by the (i) National Headquarters, (ii) Northwest Region, (iii) Pacific Region, (iv) Central Region, (v) Eastern Region, (vi) Atlantic Region; and (f) what is the breakdown of (e) by type or platform of advertising (e.g. Meta, Google, local television, local newspapers), how much money was spent exclusively on recruitment efforts, and what did those efforts include? With regard to the federal public service, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how many public servants are employed in each department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity; (b) what is the breakdown of the employees in (a) by (i) branch of each department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, (ii) directorate in each branch; (c) what is the breakdown of the employees in (a) and (b) by level (i.e. at the executive level or higher, below the executive level); and (d) what is the breakdown of employees in (a) through (c) by employment status (i.e. full-time, part-time)? With regard to government programs that provide funding for roads and highways, including both regular and non-traditional highways or roads, such as those in northern or remote areas: what are the details of all funding agreements that are currently in place, including, for each, the (i) amount of federal funding, (ii) type of agreement, (iii) partners of the agreement, (iv) cost-sharing arrangement, (v) name of the agreement, (vi) program under which the funding is provided, (vii) project description, (viii) specific geographic location of the roads receiving the funding, including highway or road numbers, if applicable? With regard to contracts awarded since the 2009-10 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) KPMG, (vi) Ernst and Young, (vii) GC Strategies, (viii) Coredal Systems Consulting Inc., (ix) Dalian Enterprises Inc., (x) Coradix Technology Consulting Ltd, (xi) Dalian and Coradix in joint venture? With regard to Health Canada’s approval of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines (modified with N1-methylpseudouridine) for pregnant women: (a) what specific research data supported the claims that (i) this product may be safely administered at any stage of pregnancy, (ii) this product protects pregnant women from SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease, (iii) the vaccinated mother is less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to her newborn after delivery compared to an unvaccinated mother, (iv) the modRNA vaccine, and consequently the spike protein, do not excrete into breast milk, (v) the modRNA, and consequently the spike protein, do not cross the placental barrier, (vi) all modRNA is destroyed in the human body within about two days, (vii) there is no possibility that the modRNA vaccine contents will enter the cell nucleus and modify the human genome; (b) with respect to the claims in (a), has Heath Canada modified these claims based on updated scientific research, and if so, which claims and how; (c) what is the real-world data indicating that this product presents no safety concerns for the pregnant woman or the developing fetus or newborn; (d) what is the quantitative threshold for a concerning safety signal for these cohorts; (e) how has the monograph for the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines been updated in relation to pregnancy and lactation to convey this safety research data; and (f) when were these updates made? With regard to Health Canada’s (HC) approval of mRNA vaccines for pregnant and lactating women, and children, youth, and adults of reproductive age: (a) what is the cause of the reported menstrual irregularities in vaccinated women; (b) what is the safety data on any single exposure and repeated exposure to lipid nanoparticles (LNP) for (i) pregnant women, (ii) unborn fetuses; (c) do LNPs, spike protein encoding mRNA, or spike protein pass through the placenta; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, does this present a safety concern to the unborn fetus, and how was this determined; (e) where are LNPs, mRNA, or spike protein distributed in the fetus; (f) what are the potential genetic effects of the COVID-19 vaccine with respect to the epigenetic effects on germ cells; (g) what are the specific references confirming that mRNA is not integrated into the genome or genetic material of the oocyte or the sperm; (h) how, and for how long, does HC actively monitor or plan to actively monitor the impact of the dose-dependent effect of the vaccine on future fertility in (i) vaccinated women and men of child-bearing age, (ii) vaccinated children, (iii) children exposed in utero to the COVID-19 vaccines following maternal injection; (i) does HC actively monitor or plan to actively monitor the adverse effects of the mRNA vaccination, and for how long, in the (i) pregnant mother, (ii) fetus; (j) if the answer to (i) is affirmative, does this or will this include miscarriages, uterine deaths, possible illnesses and birth malformations; (k) with respect to studies analyzing various components and products of COVID-19 vaccination, including spike protein, what have been the findings comparing placental tissue and breast milk from vaccinated and non-vaccinated mothers, and what are the specific references; (l) based on available research and real-world data, what updated written guidance has HC provided to provinces and territories regarding information which is given to pregnant women prior to and after vaccination, their doctors (neonatal doctors, paediatricians, fertility doctors, obstetricians), other medical staff (including midwives), and vaccinators with respect to (i) the potential adverse events to monitor post-injection, (ii) their duty to report adverse events and where; and (m) does the guidance in (l) include the updated mRNA vaccine monographs and where to find them? With regard to Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nations land, since December 7, 2022: (a) what are the details of all consultations for the purposes of this legislation, including the (i) date of consultation, (ii) name of the First Nations rights-holder or organization consulted, (iii) details of the feedback received; (b) how many engagements did the government receive (i) through the mail, (ii) by phone, (iii) by email; (c) did the government receive any requests to extend the consultation period; and (d) what changes were made to the draft proposal sent to First Nations rights-holders and organizations on February 17, 2023, that were reflected in the version of Bill C-61 that was introduced and read the first time on December 11, 2023? With regard to penitentiary farm and agriculture and agri-food operations at the Joyceville Institution and the Collins Bay Institution: (a) what funds have been spent on Public Services and Procurement Canada fees and disbursements and professional project management services, including, but not limited to, concept design, project leaders, tender packages, geo-technology, hydrogeology, engineering, and architectural consultants, broken down by fiscal year since 2018; (b) what funds have been spent on feasibility studies, public consultations, online consultations, and contracts with Goss Gilroy and Monachus Consulting during the feasibility and consultation phase of the penitentiary farm project, between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018; (c) prior to the reinstatement of the penitentiary farm program, what revenues were earned by Correctional Service Canada from rental agreements for the penitentiary farmland at the Collins Bay Institution and the Joyceville Institution, broken down by year for each year from 2013 to 2018; (d) of the revenues earned from penitentiary agriculture programming since 2018, what is the breakdown by source and year; (e) how many offenders are currently employed in penitentiary agriculture programming, broken down by location; and (f) of the offenders who have been employed in penitentiary agriculture programming since it was reintroduced in 2018, how many have been released, and, of those released, how many obtained jobs in the agriculture sector? With regard to funding for research at universities and associated organizations: (a) what amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, is provided directly by the various federal government departments; (b) what amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, does not come from the granting agencies, used to fund research projects (i) in universities, (ii) in research organizations affiliated with universities, (iii) by researchers affiliated with a university, (iv) in total; and (c) what is the distribution of this amount in (a) and (b) between (i) U15 universities, (ii) small and medium-sized universities? With regard to funding for research at universities and associated organizations: (a) what is the amount of funding, in Canadian dollars, that is provided directly by the granting agencies and is used to fund research projects (i) in universities, (ii) in research organizations affiliated with universities, (iii) by researchers affiliated with a university, (iv) in total; and (b) what is the distribution of this amount between (i) U15 universities, (ii) small and medium-sized universities?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: It being 6:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The hon. member for Kenora is not present to move the item as announced on today's Notice Paper. Accordingly, the item will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, just this morning, my office was in communication with a local food bank, which confirmed that food bank use continues to go up. Barrhead and District Family and Community Support Services, in a town of fewer than 5,000 people, saw 184 new families using the food bank in 2023. This was a dramatic increase from 2022. It has seen seniors who are embarrassed to come and use a food bank for the first time. The Westlock & District Food Bank has already added 140 families just this year, for an increase of 30%. The Salvation Army food bank in Peace River has seen a 30% increase since 2021 and is adding an average of two families per week. Most people who are starting to come to these food banks are young families. After paying for their utilities, gas and rent, they cannot afford to put food on the table. This is because, when we tax the farmer who grows the food, tax the trucker who delivers the food and tax the person who sells the food, Canadians cannot afford to buy food. Very soon, a farmer with a 5,000-acre farm in Canada will be paying $150,000 a year in carbon tax. The carbon tax is stopping Canadians from being able to afford to live. Back in December, I asked the government House leader whether the Prime Minister would put aside his ideological position on the carbon tax and remove it for all family farms across the nation. Here we are, four months later, and the government continues to be relentless in its pursuit of making life more unaffordable for Canadians. Instead of putting a spike in the hike on April 1, the Prime Minister has chosen to increase the carbon tax yet again by 23%. It is no surprise when we see large numbers of people protesting. Farmers and families are angry and frustrated with the government, and 70% of Canadians and 70% of premiers have called on the Prime Minister, but he has refused to listen. When asked why he will not meet with the premiers, he said that he had already met with them back in 2016, eight years ago. In very few of those provinces, if any, is the same person still premier. Whether it is the trucker who opposes the Prime Minister's radical mandates or the farmer who opposes his radical carbon tax, the Prime Minister has shown Canadians his true colours. He cares more about advancing his radical ideology than he does for the Canadians he is supposed to represent. Common-sense Conservatives understand how hard it is for Canadians to survive in Canada, whether they are hard-working farmers, young families or seniors. We have stood with the farmers by putting forward Bill C-234 to give farmers relief from the carbon tax, so they can help put affordable food on Canadian tables. We stand for the families who are trying to feed their children, fill their car with gas and pay their rent. We have taken every opportunity to get the government to axe the tax, voting non-confidence in it 135 times and voting against the Liberal budget. Provided that it continues to support a carbon tax, we will continue to vote non-confidence in the government. Conservatives will not stop fighting for Canadians. Again, I want a clear answer for all Canadians: When will the government stand up, remove the carbon tax from farmers and rural families, and axe the tax for all Canadians so life can be affordable in Canada once again?

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member across the way. He must live in some alternate reality. Alberta is one of the most affordable provinces to live in this whole country. Housing is relatively affordable in Alberta, compared to the rest of the country. No matter what he says, affordability is less of an issue in Alberta, particularly when it comes to housing. Most of my question was about food costs. We know that, no matter what the minister says, Canadians are seeing the impacts of the carbon tax on their food budget. The price of groceries is up significantly. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what Conservatives have been saying the whole time. Canadians are worse off because of the carbon tax. We need a government to take leadership seriously when it comes to helping Canadians and doing what is best for them, for the future, and the prosperity of this nation. The government is well beyond its expiry date. Canadians have seen through the smoke and mirrors of the Liberal government and are ready to vote in a majority Conservative government that would axe the tax. We would bring home affordable housing, axe the tax, and bring it home.

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to stress that pricing pollution does not cause financial stress. In fact, the Canada carbon rebate sends more money back, particularly to those families who are experiencing food insecurity and poverty. However, since the member opposite wanted to use food banks as an example, I would like to read the policy recommendations for Alberta food banks from Food Banks Canada. Under recommendations on “Accountability”, it reads: Introduce a provincial poverty reduction strategy While Alberta made significant headway in the reduction of child poverty between 2015 and 2020...thanks to...the federal Canada Child Benefit, the lack of a comprehensive plan with clear goals and indicators stymies the ability of government and stakeholders to work together with a common vision. The second section is “Affordable Housing”. Despite what the member opposite just said, housing is expensive in Alberta. The report goes on to say, “Dedicate 0.5% of the provincial budget every year to affordable rental housing construction”. This is something they have not done. The next section is “Adequate Income Support”, or decent work that pays. They are asking the provincial government in Alberta to help more. Alberta's premier, Danielle Smith, could start by stopping the price hike on gas that she did on April 1, which was more than the price on pollution.

Mr. Speaker, on March 22 I asked the government to level with Canadians on the true efficacy of the mega programs it announced that fall short on the delivery of real and substantive assistance to all Canadians. I referenced the much-touted Liberal-NDP pharmacare deal reached by the governing coalition. However, when Canadians took a closer look, they saw a scheme that is more smoke and mirrors and that would not actually truly help people. Canadians saw the charade repeat in the not-so-glorious dental deal worked out by the coalition. The problem is that it freezes out most of the middle class and makes seniors wait until age 87 for coverage. So much for how the Liberals and NDP care about Canada's senior citizens. I guess seniors under 87 do not have dental issues. The scheme is also not going over well with Canada's dentists. They have indicated they will not accept the government's proposed fee schedules. Canadians have also seen multiple carbon tax grabs. Another one came into effect on April 1, a real cruel April Fool's Day joke. It is just like all the other carbon taxes, raking in billions but doing little to improve Canada's environment and provide an honest and full rebate to all Canadians, especially small businesses, which were promised $2.5 billion by the government and have yet to receive a single dollar. The government then turned around, after reviewing the polls in Atlantic Canada, and gave a carbon tax holiday to the region, forgetting about the rest of the country, the farmers, the truckers, the increased grocery prices and so on. So much for being concerned about the environment. Also, if the Liberals managed by some miracle to pull out another minority victory in the next election, the respite from the carbon tax grab in Atlantic Canada would disappear quickly. Then there was the equally shady national child care strategy. That wonderful plan has led to a net loss of over 100,000 spaces and created child care deserts, especially in rural areas. Even now, there are constituents in my community asking when the spaces are going to become available. What good is $10-a-day child care if there are no spaces to access? Let us not forget the cannabis policy that backfired and led to the growth of a huge black market and increased crime and welcomed the return of organized crime in the cannabis business. Yes, what has been given much fanfare from the government needs closer examination. The proof is indeed in the pudding, and these policies are severely unappetizing. They are devoid of true benefits to Canadians and are just a bundle of smoke and mirrors. Finally, in responding to my initial question, the parliamentary secretary, and I am glad another individual is joining me this evening, tried to defend the indefensible and took a few shots at me. He stated that I had initially campaigned on most of these policies as a Liberal candidate in the last election, and he said that I begged to be a member of the Liberal caucus when I was removed. This was based on a years-old trumped-up charge against me, presumably to defeat me in the later election. However, that charge was conveniently forgotten and withdrawn by a Crown prosecutor, well before that election was eventually held. I want to tell the parliamentary secretary I certainly did not campaign on many of these dubious policies that came out after the election and are designed to pretend real assistance would be given to all Canadians. No, I did not campaign on mismanagement and hoodwinking, and I am glad not to have rejoined the Liberal caucus. It is one that rallies around misleading policies and deal-making with its NDP partner to retain power. Canadians deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of Canadians who deserve better, the constituents of Spadina—Fort York, indeed, deserve better than this show. Regarding this effort to join the Conservative caucus, all I can say is good luck. I do not recall a time when there was a Conservative MP for Spadina—Fort York. While the member prefers to borrow slogans from the Conservatives' empty political rhetoric, I will choose to focus on the work we have done for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Since 2015, our government's economic plan has invested in the middle class, strengthened Canada's social safety net and worked to build an economy where everyone has a real and fair chance at success. From historic investments in child care to quarterly Canada child benefit payments, Canada carbon rebates, enhancements in the Canada workers benefit and tax cuts for the middle class, we have worked tirelessly to make life more affordable for Canadians, ensuring everyone has a fair chance at succeeding. Our government continues to prioritize what matters most to Canadians today by building more housing, taking concrete actions to stabilize prices and delivering more important supports to Canadians. We extended the one-time grocery rebate to some 11 million eligible low- and modest-income individuals and families, who have been hardest hit by rising food prices. We also enhanced the Canada workers benefit by introducing automatic advance payments. We are offering direct tax-free payments of up to $1,300 per child over two years through the Canada dental benefit. We have also launched the Canadian dental care plan; when fully implemented, this will help up to nine million uninsured people access the care they need. These supports have enabled millions of people to buy essentials, such as groceries, and pay the rent, but we know that we need to do more. We are also meeting the moment and tackling housing affordability. We recently introduced new measures to incentivize the construction of new rental housing, protect renters and homeowners and make it easier for Canadians to get those first keys of their own. Canada does not have enough homes, and we need to build more of them at a faster rate. That is why we are unlocking billions of dollars in new financing, money that will go toward supporting the construction of new homes in Canada. This includes $15 billion in additional low-cost financing through the apartment construction loan program, which will help build more rental homes for Canadians. The Canada housing benefit was launched in 2020 and has helped many Canadians since then. By 2027-28, this benefit will have helped make rent more affordable for over 300,000 low- and modest-income households. While the member borrows from the Conservatives, who eagerly gamble with the supports Canadians rely on, we will stand firm in our commitment to the people of Canada. We will continue in our relentless pursuit of economic strategies that work for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the parliamentary secretary for struggling to find a coherent theme. There is such a litany of failures. Where does one even begin? The $10-a-day child care sounds great, but there are 100,000 fewer spaces. What use is affordable child care if there are no spaces to access? On the carbon tax, let us put aside the fact that the independent and non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer says more Canadians are hurt than helped and just focus on the fact that the government had promised small businesses $2.5 billion in rebates, yet has conveniently forgotten this. That $2.5 billion is owed to small businesses, which are the lifeblood and engine of our economy. It is not a personal slush fund for the government to try to buy votes or cover up for the fact that its spending has been out of control. It is not the government's money but Canadians' hard-earned taxpayer dollars. I hope the government will reflect on its actions to date and ensure that it guards, safeguards, protects and invests taxpayer dollars responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, again I extend my sincerest condolences to the constituents of Spadina—Fort York. They had great representation with people such as Adam Vaughan in the federal Parliament, as well as Joe Cressy and Mike Layton, who have done an extraordinary job standing up for their constituents. It is sad to see the member dial it back, but in a couple of years, Spadina—Fort York will be well represented by a Liberal. I am certain of that. A key pillar of the government's economic plan has been a focus on making life more affordable for Canadians. When people have the support they need to thrive, they can contribute to the economy, build better lives for themselves and their families, and play an active role in their community. Inflation is down to 2.8%, and wage growth in Canada has been outstripping inflation for almost a year now. It is important to note that 18 months ago, a lot of economists thought we would be in a recession today. Our economic policies have ensured that this is not the case, and over one million people are employed today compared with before the pandemic. Progress is being made on our commitment to help make life more affordable for people from coast to coast to coast, and we will stick with it because there is more to do.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal chair at the environment committee stated, “there is no data specifically stating that the price on carbon resulted in an x amount of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions”. Is this true, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, what was provided to the member, in due course, after his request for some documents, was some modelling on how carbon pricing works, not just in this country, but also in over 50 countries around the world that have implemented a strategy to lower their emissions. The good news is that in Canada it is working. Canada's emissions are down by over 8% since 2015, and that is because of a lot of factors, one of them being carbon pricing. Demonstrated by proactive provinces, like British Columbia and Quebec, carbon pricing works to lower our emissions, and also, with the rebate program we have put in place, it does not cost families. It sends more money back through the Canada carbon rebate than it costs at the pumps. That is because we are making big polluters pay and making sure that families are made whole through the Canada carbon rebate. I will admit that the 31-page report that was sent to the member was a bit confusing. There were some big math words in there and a lot of modelling, and it is very complicated stuff. Reducing emissions is a challenging thing, particularly for an oil-producing nation and a big country like Canada, but we are making it work with an approach that supports affordability and that lowers our emissions. Two hundred economists have also chimed in to make sure that Conservatives hear, loud and clear, that their campaign of misinformation, the “axe the tax” campaign they have started, is based on misinformation. They continually say that carbon pricing is the cause of inflation and that carbon pricing is the cause of financial insecurity and hardship for Canadians, when that has been proven, time and time again, to be false. Carbon pricing does work. I do not have a Nobel Prize in economics. I do not think the member opposite has a Nobel Prize in economics, but William Nordhaus does have a Nobel Prize in economics. He actually earned it for his work on carbon pricing. He says that Canada's approach on carbon pricing is exactly what the rest of the world needs to fight climate change, to lower our emissions and to ensure that the planet our grandkids will inherit will be even more prosperous and livable than it is today. The answer to his direct question of whether it is true that we do not have data to support the fact that carbon pricing drives down emissions is no; it is not true. The fact is that carbon pricing works. It is demonstrated to be true. It is mathematically accurate and based on sound financial, economic and mathematical principles. It has also proven to be true because per capita emissions in British Columbia have fallen steadily since its implementation of a carbon tax over a decade ago. That was also supported by members of the current Conservative caucus who were Liberals in the B.C. government at the time of implementation. It has also been demonstrated by Quebec. There are provinces, like Manitoba, which I had the pleasure of visiting. I went to a Jets game with my father, since it was Parkinson's night with the Jets. Thankfully, the Jets won. I think the member opposite and I can agree on at least one thing, and that is a good thing; when the Jets win, that is a positive thing. Manitoba has a new premier, which is also a really great thing for Canada. Winnipeg is a great city. I love The Weakerthans. It was one of my favourite bands when I was a kid. That great city deserves a great mayor and a great premier, and I am glad that Wab Kinew is considering options to lower emissions in Manitoba, because Manitoba used to have a cap and trade program, just like Ontario, so it is very possible that soon the people of Manitoba will have a new way to lower their emissions. I was glad that the Premier of Manitoba did what the previous premier would not, which is to stabilize gas prices with their provincial excise tax cut. That is something that the Premier of Saskatchewan refuses to do, and it is something that the Premier of Alberta actually did the opposite of. On April 1, she was able to blame the price on pollution for the increased price of gas when she increased the price of gas by 4¢, when the price on pollution went up by just 3¢ and was rebated back to Albertans. The price on pollution works and so does the Canada carbon rebate.

Mr. Speaker, the member has suggested that I was a climate change denier because I opposed his failed carbon tax. Is the member calling the first nations who took the Liberal government to court over the carbon tax climate change deniers?

Mr. Speaker, indigenous people feel the effects of climate change more than anybody else. Farmers, indigenous people and rural residents recognize that climate change is not just a threat to our weather, but also a threat to our economy, to our livelihoods and, indeed, to our lives. Recently, I was up in Kashechewan in northern Ontario to announce some funding for a big conservation project, which the Mushkegowuk Council was thrilled about. It is good news for them. We talked about climate change a lot when I was up there, because first nations, Inuit, Métis, people who hunt, people who gather, people who work off the land and people who work in agriculture all recognize that climate change is an existential threat. Frankly, if someone does not recognize that humans are responsible for climate change and that climate change is the worst existential threat to our species, then they would be a climate change denier, but I did not accuse anybody of that. I am just saying that if someone does not believe that climate change is the biggest threat to us, then they are indeed denying climate change.

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 6:39 p.m.)