Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hold up the business of the House with my questions, but it is nice to know where one is going.
With respect to Motion No. 4, the principle that the federal government does not interfere in matters under provincial jurisdiction without first gaining the co-operation of the provinces is a well-established Canadian custom.
I do not see any harm in spelling this out by insisting on the word "shall" in paragraph (1)(a). It appears to belabour the obvious but since the motion will be voted on with Motion No. 6, in order to support Motion No. 6, I will support Motion No. 4.
Motion No. 6 is an amendment that would restrain the federal government from entering into forest protection and management agreements with private entities. I hope the object of this amendment, although the mover did not spell it out, would be to restrain federal porkbarrelling. Certainly it will have that effect if passed. Therefore we support the motion.
The object of Motion No. 5 seems to be to prevent the federal government from acting on purely technical matters without a unanimous request by the provinces. In a federal state this is absurd. The 10 provinces of Canada can never agree on anything. We are not talking about policy. We are talking about simple technical decisions.
An excellent case can be made for reduced federal government in technical activities under provincial jurisdiction but this is a matter of policy. It requires no changes to the act. It only requires a change to the government.
Therefore I will have to oppose Motion No. 5 because it is so couched that it would hamstring or put into a straitjacket the functioning of this department.