Debates of March 12th, 2010

Wayne Easter Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member put forward this motion. I agree very much with his summary.

Does the motion require any legislative changes in order to get the job done? Health Canada and two agencies, PMRA under Health Canada and CFIA under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, are involved.

Does the motion require any legislative change that would force the government to do what he wants to do? He is a backbencher in the government, and I do not trust the government. Any time the government says it will do something, it really does not do it. What is here to pressure the government to do what the member wants it to do? We know the minister has said he is putting farmers first, but he has never done it. What is here to force the government to do what the member is asking?

Bev Shipley Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Malpeque and I sit on the ag committee together. Though we do not always agree on the approach, in the end, we agree there needs to be as much done in a co-operative manner on how we can get to the end to help our farmers be productive and competitive in a world market.

This motion does not require legislative or regulatory changes from those ministries at this time. However, it would allow us to continue, with the support of Parliament, to give the support to those agencies and ministries, to move ahead at a faster rate, to help promote the process we have in place through this motion and to help address the issues I have talked about in terms of competitiveness.

Why did this come forward? Quite honestly, I have farmed all my life. It was an issue when I started farming and it is still an issue right now. We can do something about those competitive issues very quickly and easily. I appreciate the support, I hope, of my colleague from Malpeque.

Jim Maloway Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for bringing forward Motion No. 460. I know he has consulted widely on this, but can he tell us whether the Dairy Farmers of Canada support this motion at this time?

Bev Shipley Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have done consultations for almost seven or eight months now. Quite honestly, there has not been any agriculture commodity group or organization that does not support it.

I was in dairy as part of my profession. We are talking about veterinary medications. We are talking about pesticides and insecticides. All those things have been affected by our lack of ability to move through a system and still protect the Canadian standards in a way that as agriculture producers need to have. It is about the duplicating process.

This is about being able to develop a parallel system in which we can expedite and approve products that are used by our competitors and that we need to use in this country to be competitive in a world market.

Wayne Easter Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and I support it. I will repeat the motion so it is on the record again:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I support the motion, but it should be understood that the motion does not really change anything. On the positive side, it might give a little more impetus to moving it a little faster to some equivalency, especially with the United States in terms of not total harmonization, because we have to protect our sovereignty as well, but to more harmonization in areas that make sense and that would allow our producers to be more competitive.

As I said, it might move it along. The motion only asks the government to do something. When the House asks the government to do something, the government does not listen very well. The record is, when the House is really strenuous, forceful and taking on a very serious issue, the Prime Minister might just close the place down. We have to recognize this is the reality of the world. This is only a motion, coming from one of the Conservatives' own backbench members, almost pleading with the government to do something, and I can understand that.

Today the chief government whip got up in the House on debate on the budget. When he was asked a question about why there was not a dime for primary producers in the budget, he bragged about there being a little over 100 rural members. That is a wonderful thing, but they are 100 rural members in the backbenches who are not listened to. When they suggest something is falling on deaf ears, that does not do anything for rural Canada. My point is this is a motion and while it is important and I support it, we really need something that will force the government's hand to actually move.

I certainly congratulate the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for providing some leadership on this issue because leadership has been absolutely lacking from the minister. At least we are getting a little leadership from the backbench. Maybe we are getting none from the front bench, but we are getting a little leadership from the backbench and that is a good thing.

What would the motion do? The intent of the motion is to allow Canadian authorities to approve products already used in other countries if their regulatory process and their research methods to produce the data are deemed equivalent to those of the Canadian system. That is a very important point because we need that to happen.

As the member explained, and I will give a little summary of what he said, we have all kinds of instances where a Canadian producer is producing Canadian products. However, because maybe our regulatory system is slower sometimes, maybe the applications have not come in from the companies, or for whatever reason, the product, whether it is a pesticide, a herbicide a veterinarian medicine or whatever it may be, has not been approved in Canada. I believe there is a production plant in the member's riding.

Sometimes these products are even produced in Canada and may be more effective and cheaper. They are for sale in the United States but one cannot buy them as a Canadian producer and they may make that producer more competitive. Therefore, we are waiting for a regulatory system to move and approve the product but while we are waiting our producers are actually in a non-competitive position.

This is something that the government could move on very rapidly in other ways. The interesting thing is that the food, whether it is a crop or whether it is an animal product, produced with using that herbicide, pesticide or veterinarian medicine that is not allowed in Canada because it is not approved but is allowed in the United States, ends up on Canadian grocery store shelves and Canadian consumers consume them and our producers are not competitive. It just does not make sense.

That is just a summary of what this motion would really do to help Canadian farmers if the government listens to the member's motion and does something.

If the truth be known, the move toward bringing some equivalency and assisting our farmers in being competitive has been a long time coming. It started as long ago as 2002 when the global joint review was brought in by the PMRA, Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

We have had many battles, as the member knows, with PMRA at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food trying to convince it to get rid of the backlog, get products approved and through the system so that they are available to producers.

However, I will say, in fairness to Health Canada and the PMRA, that I think they are getting rid of the backlog. I do not know if it is completely gone but they have moved some distance in getting rid of that backlog. I congratulate them on that.

What really needs to be done? Pesticides, herbicides and veterinarian drugs that are available in the United States really need to be available for Canadian farmers on a competitive basis.

I do not believe the member mentioned the whole area of seeds, seed registration, fertilizers and so on. Although we like to think we are the bread basket of the world, and we are great producers and efficient producers of high quality products, when a big company is looking at producing a seed, a herbicide or a chemical, it tends to produce it where the big mass market is which is often the central and western United States. A big company is not willing to invest money in research to get into a smaller market like Canada.

What this motion would do, if the government moved on it, is put our producers at a more competitive advantage. As a result, it would not put the companies through the same huge costs in order to register a product in this country, which would be a good thing.

A number of other things could be done and I want to mention a couple beyond this motion. CFIA needs more inspectors. One of the problems that is not allowing our producers to be competitive is that the products that come in from all over the world do not meet the same requirements that Canadian producers must meet but it ends up on our grocery store shelves. The government needs to spend money to hire inspectors to ensure that products that come in here do not disadvantage Canadian producers and come in under the same standards as Canadian producers must meet.

It is the same in terms of security measures that are being imposed on our Canadian agriculture retailers. We are imposing a cost on them that is actually paid for by the Americans in terms of their fertilizer and chemical suppliers. Those costs go back down to primary producers. The government could be doing the same as the U.S. and paying those costs.

The government could be doing a number of things beyond this motion. My only problem with the motion is that there is no way of forcing the government's hand. To date, without the Conservatives' hand being forced, they have absolutely failed the farm community. It is a good motion but their failure speaks for itself.

Roger Pomerleau Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex has introduced Motion M-460, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The Bloc Québécois does not support this motion.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle underlying the motion, which aims to avoid duplication and to harmonize the registration process, which could be done without violating Canadian standards, in order to promote the competitiveness of Canadian farmers. That is the intention.

However, given that the issue has been presented in the form of a motion and we must vote strictly on its wording, the Bloc Québécois must oppose it, because compliance with Canadian standards is not explicitly mentioned in the wording of the motion, and the member refuses to amend it in order to include a guarantee that Canada will not lower its standards. Furthermore, the vocabulary used is too vague and the motion itself leaves room for interpretation.

Parliamentarians were given a briefing session yesterday to give us the opportunity to ask questions of representatives of Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

It was strange that the briefing session was held the day before our debate on the motion, especially since the member did not really provide us with adequate information to allow us to offer an informed opinion.

It was even more unusual that the representatives—there were 15 of them—from the various agencies had prepared such a session for a simple private members' motion, rather than a bill.

The problem is that the motion is very broad and offers no reassurance regarding full compliance with Canadian standards. The motion leaves room for interpretation. We wish to avoid supporting the potential misuse of a motion passed by Parliament.

The member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is motivated by the competitiveness of Canadian farmers, who must compete against foreign producers who have access to commercial agricultural products that are banned in Canada.

The member claims that this motion is the result of consultations with many farming organizations and research into scientific procedures.

The problem is that the member has not provided any information about this research or consultation to the parliamentarians who must vote on the motion. Hence, they must do their own research and trust the member's motives in order to understand the intention behind this motion.

All the documents sent to parliamentarians by the hon. member indicate that the suggested harmonization process will be undertaken while respecting Canadian standards. That is true.

In a memorandum that we received, the Library of Parliament indicated that the purpose of this motion is to improve the competitiveness of Canadian producers by allowing them to use commercial agricultural products similar to those used by producers in competing countries, while respecting Canadian standards.

The following very clear statement is found on the website of the hon. member who is moving the motion:

I am requesting through my motion that we consider using the equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes of other trading nations, provided that the results are consistent with Canadian standards.

The intention is very clearly stated on his website, but there is no mention of it in the motion.

The problem raised is that, although there is a desire to protect Canadian standards and to establish equivalent processes, this is not clearly and explicitly stated in the motion. In addition, the creation of equivalent processes consistent with Canadian standards must be better documented in order to prove that any differences in the two systems, although deemed to be equivalent, do not circumvent Canadian standards.

Approval and marketing of production management tools is a highly complex matter that involves a number of laws and a number of different sectors including international trade, the environment, agriculture, research and development, and scientific and business ethics, etc. There are quite a few aspects to study and consider.

The consequences of a motion that is too vague and open-ended could be quite serious for the long-term health of humans and animals and even for the environment. It is odd to choose to take such important steps by presenting a simple motion that, on top of everything else, contains extremely vague terms.

A number of laws would have to be changed in order to make this motion effective: the Pest Control Products Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, and many others.

If the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex were serious about his harmonization plan, he should have worked together with officials and law clerks in order to deliver a real bill that would clarify the process standards and the real consequences of his request. We could have worked with that.

The problem is that, because he is simply moving a motion, parliamentarians have to make their decision based on the information available at time the motion is moved since, unlike a bill, the motion will not be debated in committee with the expertise of witnesses. What is more, the opposition parties have no opportunity to amend the motion.

The decision has to be made based on the parliamentarians' interpretation of the motion, as they look at the original wording.

The purpose of harmonizing the standards and rules for the analysis and approval of certain agricultural inputs, what we call production management tools, is far from being something new. In fact, with the creation of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA, NAFTA set up a technical working group on pesticides in order to harmonize the regulatory process for this type of product.

In 2000, the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development studied the issue of pesticides, their approval and their trade. The committee's report is very interesting.

It sheds light on the positive points of harmonizing approval standards, namely, and a few have already been mentioned: greater coordination of the pesticide approval process, elimination of trade barriers, a common labelling system, and competitive access to products that are manufactured on both sides of the border or in a number of locations.

In committee, most witnesses agreed that harmonization would make the process far more efficient, thereby improving the productivity of farmers in general and our farmers in particular.

However, a number of experts told the committee that harmonization could have a negative impact by weakening standards overall.

For example, Dr. Kelly Martin of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said:

To me harmonization has great merit. It is sharing information. Why are we re-inventing the wheel? I think harmonization in fact is pushing us in risk assessment upward. I think, in general, it probably pushes us upward... Of course Americans will always have a bigger weight. So if we think we want something greater than they have, it will take a lot of political will to do that.

Here is one last point to consider: even though many witnesses supported harmonization, most of them feared that the process could result in less rigorous Canadian standards. Some standards could even end up being eliminated. That is the Bloc Québécois' number one concern.

This is what the committee recommended:

The Committee recommends that a clause be added in the operative sections of the new Pest Control Act requiring that protection of human health and the environment according to the precautionary principle be the sole objective of any action to harmonize Canadian standards with those of other countries, and that such standards not be weakened in any way.

With the precautionary principle in mind, the Bloc Québécois will not support this motion.

Alex Atamanenko British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words with respect to Motion No. 460 brought forward by the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. As members may or may not know, we sit on the agriculture committee together, and I know that he is a champion for farmers and agriculture.

It is no secret that Canadian farmers often experience frustration at not being able to have access to the latest technology the way their competitors do. Therefore, the intent of this motion is correct. However, in its present wording it is vague and does not underline the fact that any harmonization of production management tools must meet Canadian standards.

In speaking with the hon. member, I am assured that the intent is there. However, it is not reflected in the wording of the motion. It could potentially see products available in Canada that do not meet our standards. In other words, I believe that applying a precautionary principle here would be a prudent approach that should be taken.

As it stands today, equivalent research is already being considered in our scientific and agricultural regulatory approval processes. This does not mean, however, that such research will always satisfy all of our safety criteria. The federal government should not be given a formal blessing by Parliament to relax our economy in this regard.

According to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, CFA, there currently exists a pesticide technology gap, which has a significant impact on the competitiveness of Canadian producers. This is largely a result of one key factor: pesticide companies often do not see the economic value in registering products in the smaller Canadian market. According to the CFA, there are ways of addressing this inequality.

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA, must continue to harmonize its practices with other countries and encourage pesticide companies to enter into joint or multinational review processes. The PMRA must also continue to modernize the review process so it can increase the reliance of acceptable foreign reviews to make the pesticide registration process as efficient and fast as possible, while maintaining high Canadian standards for health and safety. This wording does not appear in Motion No. 460. Also, maximum residue limits need to be harmonized at a faster rate to ensure that the required pesticide products are registered and trade irritants are eliminated.

The CFA also emphasizes that in addition to the availability of products, the other issue facing farmers is the price of these products. The fact remains that producers continue to pay up to 60% more than their American competitors for pesticide products. This needs to be corrected if Canadian producers are to have a level playing field.

The PMRA is now in the process of finalizing regulations that will outline the process for registering generic pesticide products in Canada. It is important for Canadian farmers to gain access to these important pesticide products.

My understanding is that the current system needs some fine-tuning to streamline the process. For example, as of last September there were something like 55 to 60 generic product applications still under review by the PMRA. Some of these have been there for several years. There is a need to ensure that as many of these products as possible are registered in time for the 2010 growing season, which as we all know is just around the corner.

The current grower requested own use import program was developed to assist Canadian producers to access the same products as American producers. Canadian farm organizations, such as the Canadian Horticultural Council, act as a nomination committee to propose pesticide products that should enter into this program. Farmers can purchase approved products in the U.S., apply a Canadian label to them, and bring them into Canada. Unfortunately, this program has not been as successful as hoped for because the rules that restrict the eligibility of products have made it difficult to get useful and important pesticides on this list.

Motion M-460 is about recognizing as equivalent to our own the scientific research and regulatory approval processes of Canada's principal trading partners, such as the United States, for products used in the agriculture sector.

I understand that the purpose of the motion is to make Canadian farmers more competitive by giving them access to commercial agricultural products similar to those used by producers in competing countries, subject to Canadian standards. However, the motion as written does not mention that last part.

It seems to me that the purpose of the motion is to enable Canadian authorities to approve products used in other countries if the scientific research and regulatory approval processes used in those countries are deemed equivalent to Canada's.

There are already agreements enabling product promoters to submit scientific data produced for the purpose of assessment by other authorities to Canadian authorities, but the system still requires promoters to submit a request for approval in Canada, and the data have to be assessed by appropriate Canadian authorities.

Some people have suggested that Canada should automatically approve any product approved in the United States. Judging by the wording in Motion M-460, we can assume the author would support such an approach. Even though he said the opposite, that is how we can interpret the wording.

That is why I cannot support Motion M-460.

Pierre Lemieux Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I would like to take a few moments today to voice the government's support for private member's Motion No. 460 advanced by my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

This motion seeks to assist Canadian farmers in gaining access to many of the production management tools that are currently available to producers in other countries. Agricultural inputs are regulated in our country to protect Canada's animal and plant resources, our environment and the health of Canadians.

While we all agree that this measure of protection is very important, we also need to be sensitive to the agricultural sector's need to compete in the international marketplace. If the approval process for these regulated items does not keep pace with innovation and leading-edge science, our producers will suffer an economic disadvantage.

Agricultural inputs are, quite simply, production management tools or tools that improve the yield, health and quality of an agricultural product. Such tools could include: fertilizers, seeds, feeds and veterinary biologics regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They also include pesticides governed by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which is part of Health Canada. Veterinary drugs are also considered production management tools and they fall under the jurisdiction of the veterinary drugs directorate of Health Canada.

The Pest Management Centre of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada produces data and prepares submissions to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency on behalf of Canadian growers for review and approval of new and effective tools for protecting crops.

In consultations, focus groups and value chain round tables, people in the agricultural sector have said that Canada's regulatory system sometimes hampers their competitiveness. They believe that the registration process is slow and overly bureaucratic.

At the industry-government task force on livestock in 2007, representatives from both the beef and pork industry groups remarked that the approval rate of veterinary drugs was lagging in Canada. Furthermore, Agriculture Canada's Growing Forward consultations identified pre-market approval processes for agricultural inputs in Canada as being behind the rest of the world.

In its 2009 policy manual, the Grain Growers of Canada encouraged the development of a joint registration process for crop protection products in the U.S. and Canada. Also, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association website indicates that it also supports ongoing efforts to harmonize pesticide standards with the U.S. and beyond North America to ensure farmers continue to have access to the newest and safest pesticides.

It has been clearly stated by many in the agricultural sector that our regulatory framework can be an impediment to their ability to compete in international markets. One issue that is raised with some regularity is the perception that the Canadian government does not consider research and submissions conducted in foreign jurisdictions when it considers agricultural inputs for approval. The Canadian agricultural sector and the businesses that serve it wish that the regulatory approval process used in foreign countries could be leveraged to a much greater extent to expedite approvals for products here in Canada.

The motion before this House speaks to that very issue. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that the motion asks that equivalent foreign scientific research be considered. The motion does not ask, however, that a foreign approval allow any such product to be automatically used in Canada. This is an important distinction.

Canada is a sovereign nation. We have a unique environment, climate, flora and fauna. A product approved for use in South America, Europe or Asia may not be appropriate or safe to use in Canada. Our unique makeup of animal and plant resources, climate and geography must be protected. To simply allow a product to be used in Canada because a foreign regulatory authority had already approved it for use in its country would be hasty and irresponsible. However, a great deal of foreign research does have tremendous weight and relevance for our policy-makers and regulators when we evaluate products for use in Canada.

The motion moved by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex has great value for Canadians, as it should unite this House in supporting this as a formal guiding principle. It sends a clear message to the agricultural sector that we support its desire for a regulatory framework which considers foreign data and research.

This motion would lead to meaningful change. It would express the desire of the House that foreign science be equivalent to Canadian science. This would encourage regulatory agencies and departments to accept foreign science in support of regulatory submissions which would expedite approvals. It would also encourage agricultural suppliers in other countries to apply for Canadian approval through this expedited regulatory system.

Other countries' production management tools can be registered in Canada, but they must meet Canadian regulatory requirements. One of these requirements is that decisions must be based on reliable scientific data and conditions of use in Canada, as I mentioned previously.

Registration by other countries' regulatory agencies does not mean that a product will automatically be approved in Canada, but submissions or applications filed abroad are often taken into consideration in the Canadian registration process. For some tools, foreign data and scientific risk assessments can also support regulatory decisions.

Canadian regulatory agencies often encourage foreign manufacturers to submit their products to Canada for review. For example, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada look for innovative new pesticides and work with manufacturers to have their products registered in Canada. However, there needs to be more of this sort of activity.

The Veterinary Drugs Directorate, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada and the feed, seed and biologics areas of the CFIA are continually strengthening international collaboration to facilitate the introduction of foreign agricultural tools in Canada. This motion will encourage Health Canada to consider the work of other countries with equivalent standards and to use this work rather than duplicating efforts whenever possible. They can do this so long as they continue to adhere to Canadian legislative requirements.

There is also an effort to level the playing field for Canadian farmers with U.S. producers with regard to access to new or improved veterinary drugs. The Veterinary Drugs Directorate of Health Canada is working with manufacturers to promote same time filing of submissions in the U.S. and Canada. The directorate has agreed to align its review timelines with U.S. regulators for these types of submissions.

With respect to pesticides, where manufacturers once approached markets sequentially, they now routinely approach several markets at once, taking advantage of new, global joint review processes. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency at Health Canada has been a global leader in establishing the processes that enable these co-operative activities.

The CFIA is also very active in the establishment of international standards for those products that fall under its regulatory authority and mandates. A unified standard adopted by many nations is worthy of our investment and should be pursued aggressively.

The adoption of Motion No. 460 will demonstrate a commitment to supporting the agricultural sector in its desire for a more competitive landscape. The motion asks all members of the House to show their support for an important principle. We will support the motion.

Jim Maloway Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Motion No. 460, sponsored by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. I want to take a moment to read the motion. It says:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

We have heard from several speakers in the House, including the member for Malpeque, the member for Drummond and the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. They have all made some very important points about this motion. My colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, has pointed out that there is nothing in the wording that says we have to meet the Canadian standards.

I know the member for Drummond has pointed out that, while it is not in the wording, it is on the website. However, I appreciate that the member has the correct intention here. It is a lot of work. Anybody who has ever brought a private bill or motion before the House knows it is not simple. There are a lot of hoops to go through. There is a lot of consulting that has to be done. I know the member has done a lot of work.

However, there should be a better process around here. If the member was concerned about getting unanimous consent on his motion, all he would have had to do is check with the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, our party's critic for agriculture, and that would have been pointed out to him immediately. In fact, there is nothing wrong with the wording of the motion except for the fact that nothing in the wording says that we have to meet Canadian standards.

Had he done that before introducing the motion, our member would have agreed to that and the member for Drummond might be a happier man today as well. That is just a bit of advice. Hindsight is terrific. One looks in the rear-view mirror.

I also know the government has power. If this is such an important issue, why is the government not doing it? Why is it leaving it to a member in the House to bring in the motion? Clearly, it is not prepared to act. The member for Malpeque asked a question of the member—

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, but I am afraid that the hour for private members' business has expired. However, there will be seven minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks when this matter next comes before the House.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2:31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:31 p.m.)