Debates of April 30th, 2024

Employment Insurance Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to inform members that the notice requirement in respect to a royal recommendation has not been met pursuant to Standing Order 79(2). Consequently, the question will not be put on the motion for third reading of this bill.

Accordingly, the order for third reading is discharged and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

Respect for the Authority of the Chair

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I gave notice to the table regarding this point of order following what we witnessed this afternoon and the Speaker's decisions, which were good decisions.

I want to start by saying that the rules have to apply to all in the House of Commons, and what we saw today was the Speaker enforcing the rules of the House of Commons. We have the Standing Orders, and we chose, together as members of Parliament, a Speaker. The Speaker's job is to ensure that the Standing Orders are respected.

I will read what a former Speaker, who is now the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the Conservative House leader, said. He spoke to this issue, which I am going to raise, on September 24, 2014. I was in the House, so I remember this. He said, “Another of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker.” He then quoted from O'Brien and Bosc:

Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.

The former Speaker then continued:

I wish to conclude with an appeal to members on all sides. Needless to say, the kind of unsavoury language or expression that we heard yesterday does little to assist the Chair in managing question period proceedings, and I urge all members to be judicious in the expressions they choose to use.

This is the former Speaker of the House of Commons, who is currently the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the current Conservative House leader, stating that reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker, for example, an allegation of bias, could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.

I want to submit for your attention, Madam Speaker, two posts that have come out on social media.

One is from the member for Carleton, which says, “Today the Liberal speaker censored me”, before going on to provide deliberately misleading information in his Twitter post. This is very clearly challenging that ruling from 2014 of the former Speaker and current member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the current Conservative House leader.

The second tweet is from the member for Lethbridge, who also has shown a wanton disregard of the rules of the House of Commons. She stated: “How did partisan hack, [the Speaker] respond?!” These are unacceptable terms and warrant a full apology from those members.

I will read, for the record, what we have in our House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which is the procedural bible of the House of Commons. These are the rules that Canadians expect us to live by. When they elect us in ridings across the country, they expect members of Parliament to abide by the rules to ensure that there is decorum in the House and that we are doing the job that Canadians have sent us here to do. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice says, concerning the impartiality of the Chair:

The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.... Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker (an allegation of bias, for example) could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly.

There are a number of examples where that rule has been breeched. For example, in 1981, when there was clearly a question of privilege being raised, the leader of the opposition at that time withdrew his remarks, and that settled the matter. In 1993, there was a similar attack on the dignity of the House, an attack on the Speaker. Again, the member rose in the House and withdrew the remarks.

It is very clear that the rules of the House, which are put in place to ensure that our democracy functions properly so that we can have orderly discussions and debates, were violated. It is very clear that these two social media posts do not abide by those rules.

In my opinion, both members should have to apologize and withdraw their remarks before returning to the House.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, briefly, on the same point, the member knows very well that the comments he cited are outside the jurisdiction of the House. The precedence he cited are examples of statements that were made in the House and that have nothing to do with his apparent desire for the Speaker to go about policing what people say in conversations far beyond.

I do want to draw the attention of the House to something that occurred on June 13, 2022. The NDP House leader was giving a speech in the House and he said, “We have had absolutely wacko claims by Conservatives.” I will note that the NDP House leader was not called to order at the time. With false indignation, the NDP House leader wishes to call, on the carpet, people who have said words that he himself has said in this chamber and was allowed to say.

The point is that the Speaker did not call the NDP House leader to order at the time, and a precedent was established. If the NDP House leader is outraged by what has gone on, he needs to reflect and to consider the state of his own conscience and whether he has some words he needs to withdraw in the future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I think that most Canadians would be very concerned about what took place earlier today. It is the first time I have ever seen the leader of an opposition party be asked to leave the House and then the entire caucus leaving the House. It was in response to something the Speaker was saying. It is interesting that the Speaker was applauded for his actions, even by members of the Bloc.

I quickly looked up the Twitter feed. I think it is exceptionally offensive. The member for Lethbridge said, “How did partisan hack, [Speaker] respond?! He kicked [the Leader of the Conservative Party] out of the Chamber.”

I think it is a very serious issue when members start going out and tweeting that sort of response when all members in the House are respectable, honourable members. I think there is an obligation for not only the member for Lethbridge but also the Leader of the Conservative Party, when they do eventually return to the House, to actually apologize to the Speaker for their efforts. Failing that, I would suggest maybe it is something the procedure and House affairs committee should look into.

We will wait and see what happens, and if there is no apology given, then we would reserve the right to come back and revisit the entire issue as something that PROC might have to look into.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to thank everyone for their interventions. There are a couple things I am going to speak on before we continue.

I just want to remind the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby that there are rules in the House. I appreciate him bringing this matter to our attention. However, he did use the procedures book in his hand and pointed to it, which is a document that the hon. member is using as a prop. I just want to remind him that he is not to do that.

To the hon. member who spoke about the word that was used by the NDP leader, I just want to say that it was not a personal attack on someone in particular and that is the difference compared to what happened today. As Speakers, we are not here to win brownie points; we are here to ensure that the House is functioning and that members are respectful of the Standing Orders and of the polices and procedures of the House.

Having said that, I do want to remind members, and this was said before, that sometimes members can become impassioned when making remarks in the chamber, but the content of their comments and speeches must always conform to the Standing Orders and the practices of the House. Standing Order 18 states, “No member shall...use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.”

The other entity that was brought to the attention of the Speaker was the fact that statements are being made outside of the House by a member. The Speaker has no authority to rule on that, as the hon. member has indicated. However, the respect for those who chair in the House should be, first and foremost, respected.

I will take all the information under advisement, and I will come back to the House if needed. I thank everyone for their interventions.

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

Public Services and Procurement

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have seen a consistent pattern of corruption from the government, that is, of trying to get contracts to well-connected government insiders. The government has quite the choice of friends, by the way. At the government operations committee, we have been studying the favouritism that the government has shown toward McKinsey. The government's contracting watchdog has come up with a damning report about that favouritism, about how rules were changed and structured to work to the advantage of McKinsey. That is in the context where we know about the friendship between the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Dominic Barton, who was the managing partner of McKinsey at the time.

To be fair, Dominic Barton went to the committee and said he was not a friend of the Prime Minister, that he barely knew him. If Dominic Barton's testimony is to be believed, then the government funnels contracts not only to its friends but also to people it wishes were its friends. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister talked lot in fact about this and made lots of claims about how there is a friendship. Rather than delve too far into the extent to which they are friends or not, we know that the government had a passionate, perhaps unrequited, love for McKinsey and did everything it could to send contracts McKinsey's way.

In particular I am following up on a question about the arrive scam scandal, about how we know now that systems were created and designed to maximize the benefit for GC Strategies, as well as Dalian, and that contracts were sent to those companies. The Auditor General reported that members of the government actually sat down with people at GC Strategies, who advised the government on what it should be asking for in a contracting request. GC Strategies subsequently got the contract. The government was rigging the process with the bidder that eventually got the contract, whether it was McKinsey or Dalian, the principal of which was a government employee at the same time as he was getting government contracts.

There are multiple instances of corruption, of the NDP-Liberal government's working to get contracts to its well-connected insider friends. It is a government that is working for insiders and not for Canadians. In that context, we have seen incredible growth in spending on contracting. While the public service has been growing in size, the government has also been spending more than ever on outside contracting.

Then when we talk about having problems with the budget deficit, the Liberals come back to ask what could possibly be cut or where savings could possibly be found. Let us cut back on the spending on outside consultants. Let us stop shovelling money to McKinsey. Let us stop shovelling money to GC Strategies. Let us stop paying useless insiders who simply receive contracts and pass on the work, or who are paid to provide advice that the public service is perfectly competent to provide. It is the well-connected NDP-Liberal friends and consultants who have gotten incredibly rich under the government. GC Strategies' founders became millionaires on arrive scam alone. Let us cut out the spending on well-connected NDP-Liberal insiders and provide those savings to the budget.

I asked this before and will ask it again: Was the scheme to reward well-connected insiders due to incompetence on the part of the government or to outright corruption?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on a question of procurement.

I want to remind my hon. colleague that it was not a Liberal government that told Canadians an outright lie, if I can say so, that the F-35 procurement project was going to cost $10 billion. It cost triple that. Who said that? It was Mr. Harper and the current leader of the official opposition who told Canadians that in 2011, and I would argue that is how they won the election. It was not a Liberal government who lied to Canadians and told them that a pay system would work and function well. It was a Conservative government, so let me set the record straight.

Let me first say that I am very proud of the public service. I am a member of Parliament who represents a lot of public servants who worked so diligently to ensure the government could deliver services and programs to Canadians during the pandemic. At the same time, it is clear that something went wrong with the procurement of professional services related to ArriveCAN. Nobody is hiding that fact, and our government is extremely concerned about the issues that have come to light. I want the member to know that we have taken and are taking action to improve our procurement processes, and we are holding companies accountable for misconduct while protecting federal expenditures.

With respect to the reports by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman, Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, as the central purchaser for the government, has already taken several steps to implement their recommendations and improve processes. For several years now, the department has been making progress in its plan to modernize procurement, which has long been a priority for our government. Right now, the government is firmly focused on improving and further strengthening processes, especially when it comes to IT procurement. We have been working for months to do just that. This includes strengthening guidance and training for those involved in the procurement process.

Public Services and Procurement Canada has also improved evaluation requirements to ensure resources are properly qualified and is requiring increased transparency for suppliers around their prices and their use of subcontractors. In addition, it is improving documentation when awarding contracts and issuing task authorizations. It is also clarifying work requirements and activities, and specifying which activities and which projects are worked on by contractors.

In addition, PSPC is updating its guidance to help other departments and agencies in procuring responsibly when using their own procurement instruments under their own authorities. We know that fundamentally improving IT procurement requires us to ensure that those processes are clear and transparent, and that the roles, responsibilities and rules are understood, respected and adhered to. To that end, the department is going even further to strengthen integrity in procurement by creating a new office of supplier integrity and compliance, which we now know will help the government better respond to misconduct.

We owe it to all Canadians to preserve the integrity of federal government procurement. That is why we are taking action now to strengthen and improve procurement, so that what happened in the case of ArriveCAN never happens again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that he cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly. I again want to caution members to make sure whatever language they use does not move in that direction, as the member's comments clearly did at some point.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, everything is broken, but the Liberals are refusing to take responsibility. It is somebody else's fault all the time. This is typical of the responses we get from the government.

Emblematic of it was the member's reference to Phoenix at the beginning. He said it was the Conservatives' pay system. Yes, the work on the Phoenix pay system started under Conservatives, but it was launched under the Liberals. It has been nine years, and the system is still failing public servants, and of course it is Stephen Harper's fault.

There is endemic corruption within the procurement system, and it is somebody else's fault. There is out-of-control inflation, a broken economy, crime, drugs and disorder, but it is not the fault of the people who have been running the place for the last nine years.

When will the Liberals take responsibility for their many failures?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can tell the member has no experience in procurement. I can tell by the language he is using that he has zero experience in procurement. I have been on the government operations committee for eight years of my life in this place. By the way, I have worked in procurement before and, though I respect him, I can tell he is just a junior in this place. He has zero credibility when it comes to advancing the issues of IT procurement.

If politicians make decisions on IT procurement, there is something wrong. We do not make them. We obviously set the governance rules, but somebody broke the rules within that department and we will hold them accountable. We have called in the RCMP, not the frantics on the other side. The CBSA referred the matter to the RCMP. Those who will be held accountable will be held accountable, and if money was misused, we will recuperate that money.

Emergency Preparedness

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, this adjournment debate stems from a question I asked earlier about how we deal with wildfires in Canada: When will the federal government create a national wildfire-fighting force?

As we all know, last year was the worst year ever for wildfires in this country. This year, all predictions point to an even more disastrous fire season. We have already had evacuation orders in British Columbia and Alberta in April. Last year, we had fires all across the country, from Halifax to Yellowknife and Vancouver Island.

I want to pause here to pay tribute to all the firefighters and other first responders who worked so hard to keep Canadians safe during last year's firestorms. Eight firefighters in the prime of life lost their lives in last year's battle against those fires, and I attended the memorial service for one of those young people in Penticton.

It is clear that local and provincial wildfire-fighting services were overwhelmed last summer. Even in British Columbia, where we unfortunately are very accustomed to catastrophic fires, the BC Wildfire Service, one of the best in the world, had to bring in crews from all over the world to help out. Indeed, thousands of firefighters from Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, South Africa, Costa Rica, Chile, Spain, Portugal, France, Brazil and the U.S.A. came to Canada last summer to help us deal with that crisis.

We are grateful for that international help, but it comes at a cost: the cost of paying the crews, the cost of bringing them to Canada and, perhaps most of all, the critical cost of time lost in making those arrangements. Provincial and municipal forces become overwhelmed and costs are exploding. B.C. spent about a billion dollars last summer fighting fires, last year alone.

We need to have a homegrown response that is both timely and cost-effective. In response to this accelerating crisis, experts have been calling for the formation of a national wildfire-fighting service.

Dr. Mike Flannigan, from Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, is Canada's foremost expert on wildfire behaviour. While firefighting is normally a provincial area of authority, Flannigan points out that the last few years have put us in uncharted territory. He has suggested a national wildfire service of a few hundred well-trained members divided into teams that could be deployed to parts of the country that face clear and imminent fire threats.

We have the modelling power and the expertise now to know where fires are likely to become problematic in the coming days and even weeks. We should have teams on the ground so that they are there when fires ignite and can be extinguished. Fires not caught in those first few hours can become the catastrophic firestorms that destroy huge areas of forest, as well as homes and livelihoods. Getting those crews to the fires quickly is essential, and we can do that with a national force.

That force could work year-round. The fire season is growing longer and longer. It is already year-round in California. We could put this force to work in the Canadian winter, working to thin forests in the interface with communities across the country, doing FireSmart inspections or being mobilized to other countries that are facing a wildfire crisis.

The government is proposing training local residents to fight interface fires. That is important and useful. We already rely on volunteer crews to cover structure protection. However, a national force would be a game-changer, and we really need to change the game on wildfire fighting in this country.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, the government stands with the hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country who are affected by wildfires, floods and other extreme weather events year after year.

It is worrisome when we look at the science. Experts are clear: Climate change means wildfires, floods and hurricanes, and they will increase in numbers and intensity. Every month of the past 10 months has broken heat records. Many provinces are experiencing a period of drought. We are not even in May, yet more than 100 fires are already burning in British Columbia and Alberta.

This is paving the way of what might be, yet again, a difficult summer for Canadians. However, the member can rest assured that we take climate change seriously; we are working with our partners in the provinces and territories to make sure we are ready to face the challenges to come. We did the work and put in place the long-term funding they needed to procure firefighting material.

That is $256 million in wildland firefighting equipment to the provinces. We are also making sure that our partners have the necessary human resources on the ground. We have funded the training of 600 wildfire fighters and 125 indigenous fire guardians. These firefighters are ready to work now, and they will be on the ground this summer to protect our communities. The training program is still recruiting, and we are on pace to reach 1,000 new wildland firefighters before the end of the year.

We are also making sure that the current firefighters feel our support and appreciation. We are grateful for the work they do and the risks they take. This is why we announced that we will double the tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue. We are investing massively in civilian response capacity by investing $166.9 million in the humanitarian workforce program. We have allowed them to develop capacity, mobilize more quickly and deploy critical on-the-ground support to local governments. These organizations can leverage different capacities across jurisdictions and provide Canadians with the reliefs they need during any large-scale emergencies that follow.

Our government is also determined to tackle the effects of climate change before they impact Canadians and pose a threat to their security. With the national adaptation strategy, we are addressing local vulnerabilities and investing proactively to increase resiliency. The strategy advances significant investments in disaster-resilient infrastructure projects and in wildlife prevention. Our climate is changing with every passing year, but we will remain focused on keeping people safe while strengthening our capacity to support Canadians.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the funding put in to help volunteer firefighters and the training of firefighters, but the real point here is to create a deployable force that could go to where the firefighting is needed.

A recent Abacus Data poll found that 70% of Canadians are in favour of a national wildfire fighting force. The public is ready for this. They know it would be a good investment, not only to save money fighting fires but also to stop fires before they become the catastrophic monsters that consume vast forests and communities and to save the human cost of evacuations and the loss of homes. Yes, having a national firefighting force would save money and valuable time. It would save forests, livelihoods and lives. We need one in Canada as soon as possible.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know there are a lot of communities in my hon. colleague's province that go through these fires. In my neck of the woods, I do not have to go through that, but I want to assure the hon. member that our government takes this issue seriously. We are working to build local capacity.

On what he is proposing, the government has not necessarily said no. However, right now, we are focused on building local capacity, and we are providing the funding to do that. In the future, if a national firefighter force is necessary, then I am sure we will get there.

Carbon Pricing

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the carbon tax tonight with my colleague across the way. We have had a discussion before.

I have a couple of definitions of rebate, just to get that out of the way first: From Cambridge, a rebate is “an amount of money that was returned to you, especially by the government”; from the Oxford dictionary, it is “a partial refund to someone who has paid too much money for tax”.

We know the flavour of The Hill Times. There was a Hill Times cartoon recently where the Prime Minister was holding a wallet and handing some cash back to a citizen; the citizen looked at it and said, “Isn't that my wallet?” That cartoon spread out, and I have had a lot reaction to it in my constituency. People ask, does the government not understand that it is their money it is giving back, and not all of it? The government took the money from them to begin with; if it did not take the money from them in the first place, it would be of benefit to them. The understanding of a rebate is giving money back that was theirs. It is an interesting concept.

One challenge with carbon tax is some of the issues it has created. People will talk about the cost in agriculture, and we have talked about this before. It is a huge part that agriculture producers face. I have irrigation in my riding, which my colleague knows about well. It is costing huge amounts in the agriculture sector, and there is no rebate back for large producers, which I have in my riding. We are talking about a lot of money.

On the other side of it, people talk about the different kinds of energy that we have. Regarding Alberta wind farms, for example, I have an article here stating that, on a specific day, November 24, 2023, Alberta's 44 wind farms operated at 0.3% capacity. Alternative energy, when we talk about wind and solar, is a bit of a problem, but we still have the carbon tax moving from $65 a tonne to $80 a tonne and then to $170 a tonne by 2030. The Saskatchewan farm producers association figured out that this is $7.42 per acre in 2023 and $17 per acre by 2030. That is a huge amount of money.

The other thing that scientists are beginning to say is that, with advances in technology, they are figuring out that the amount of carbon absorbed by agriculture is huge. It is at the point that people in agriculture should be getting and selling those credits just as solar and wind power operators do. The technology is showing the amount of carbon that agriculture is absorbing is not recognized. It is beyond being equal; it is above equal, and agriculture should even be credited with the amount that wind and solar energy are. Therefore, a huge shift needs to be made in recognition of what the agriculture sector is doing with carbon and how it is being absorbed; those credits could even be sold. Scientists are now recognizing that.

However, the former Greenpeace founder, Patrick Moore, has made some interesting comments. He said, “The idea that wind and solar are going to replace fossil fuels or nuclear or hydroelectric is absolutely insane.” This is Patrick Moore from my generation. He said that there are other things that we need to do, not depend on solar and wind.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my hon. colleague on the other side. There are too few members of Parliament in this place who defend farmers, and I thank him. He defends farmers, but so do I and others on this side of the House.

I want to correct the record when hon. members say that farmers get absolutely nothing back in a carbon rebate. This is something for which I fought very hard, along with my colleague from Kings—Hants, and other members from P.E.I. and Ontario. We certainly recognize there is an issue regarding natural gas and propane, but farmers are already exempt for upward of 90% of carbon pricing on their farms. They do not pay eight dollars for diesel use on farms, but they do get a rebate for natural gas and propane.

It would be useful for the hon. member to know this because I am sure he wants to share the good news. This year, farmers are eligible for a rebate of $1.86 per $1,000 of expenses on farms. I realize it is not 100% of a rebate. The problem is that the government is not aware of who is using propane or natural gas, but 100% of carbon pricing that is collected by the federal government in that particular province is returned to farmers. All of it is returned to farmers through a rebate, and that works out to $1.86 this year. As carbon pricing increases, that amount will also increase to ensure that farmers get a fair share.

On other issues the member pointed out, we recognize that input costs have gone up on farms. The Government of Canada does not control that. I will remind my hon. colleague that when the leader of the official opposition was in government and was sitting at the cabinet table, none of that was increased under his watch. I was not on the Hill, but I was close to it and watched very closely. I do not remember Conservatives advocating for an increased amount on the advance payments program's interest-free portion when input costs went up, and I will remind the member that they did go up in 2008. We recognized that during the pandemic and increased it. We went from $100,000 to $350,000. Now, we have moved to $250,000. I hope my hon. colleague will support that because he knows it is important for farmers.

Secondly, the member recognizes and understands that technology and farmers are good stewards of the land and that they are capturing carbon. We are working with farmers, and we recognize that they are doing that. Universities are working with farmers to find a proper measurement. The methane protocol that Environment Canada is working on I believe will provide an opportunity for farmers to participate in the carbon economy, which the entire world wants access to.

Lastly, we believe in SMR technology, which my hon. colleague knows. We do not just believe in wind and solar; we also believe in SMR.

The Conservatives want to axe the tax, but a tariff will be imposed because other countries are talking about a carbon import tariff. If we do not have a carbon price on pollution, then other countries will impose a tariff. I do not want to leave our farmers out. We need to act right now.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the information my colleague shares.

There are programs as a result of federal and provincial governments working together. We look at different things that happen in our climate and in our economy, but the challenge is in irrigation. We have talked about this a number of times. It is the electricity that is used, not the diesel and not the natural gas. Irrigation has a huge use of electricity. One farmer who has an operation showed me the bills, and he is up to $100,000 in carbon tax.

There is a small rink in a rural area that supports kids' programs that people are keeping alive. It is costing them $700 a month in carbon tax. They are fundraising with bake sales and hamburger sales to try to keep that rural rink alive, but the $700 a month is killing them. Rinks are important in rural communities.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that we should have a regional approach to carbon pricing. I would hope the member would advocate with his own provincial government to acknowledge that there are regional differences among jurisdictions.

I think the Prime Minister wrote a letter about a month ago and asked provinces to come up with their own plans, plans that respect our Paris Agreement and that ensure farmers do not get slapped with a carbon import tariff.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:26 p.m.)