Debates of March 24th, 1995

Agriculture

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Motion No. 314 sponsored by the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

I will use my time in the debate to discuss how the federal government has been working closely with the provinces, municipalities and industry to develop a new Canadian food inspection system responsive to consumers and industry.

We set out to achieve common standards in legislation and delivery for food safety and quality at all levels of government. At the same time we are committed to maintaining the high safety standards Canadians have come to expect. Our high national standards and systems have ensured that Canadians from coast to coast enjoy a food supply among the safest in the world.

The standards earn Canada a quality reputation that often provides Canadian industry with a competitive advantage in international markets. Our current food inspection systems involve all levels of government and their regulatory organizations. As a result, there is some evidence of duplication of inspection services.

For someone in the food industry there is nothing more irritating than to be visited by two or three inspectors from different levels of government, and worse still from different departments of the same government.

This is what the federal and provincial governments, in conjunction with industry, are trying to correct with the Canadian food inspection system.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has already entered into pilot projects for sharing inspection responsibilities with a number of provinces. The department is negotiating with other provinces, and arrangements will provide for one agency to be responsible for inspection in any given plan.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada and other federal departments involved in food inspection are working with provincial agriculture and health officials, representatives of municipal authorities and agri-food industry representatives to develop a new Canadian food inspection system, a system with common approaches and standards and an emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness.

The benefits of a Canada food inspection system would be to streamline delivery of inspection services and to enhance market performance and industry competitiveness. Progress is being made in eliminating duplication in food inspection and we expect to have a fully integrated system in place in the near future.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before we resume debate, I note that the hon. member for Jonquière would have liked to participate. But we must go back to the opening statements on Motion M-314, on February 13, 1995. The hon. member for Lotbinière asked for unanimous consent and said: "I will be the only speaker during the three-hour debate". I then replied: "-as the only spokesperson from the Bloc Quebecois on this bill-"

There might have been some confusion, but since the House gave its unanimous consent to the hon. member for Lotbinière, in all justice, I must also request unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Jonquière to participate in this debate.

Are there any questions? At this time, I clearly state that I must ask the question to the House and obtain unanimous consent before I grant leave the hon. member for Jonquière to participate. There had been a commitment and the House had given its unanimous consent.

If I may explain more clearly, for government members, unanimous consent was requested by a Bloc Quebecois member who had prepared a twenty-minute speech and wanted to deliver it in full, even though the time limit was ten minutes. The House

gave its unanimous consent to the Bloc member and, at the same time, according to me, the hon. member for Lotbinière stated clearly that he would be the only member to participate in the three-hour debate on that motion.

Therefore, the House must give unanimous consent for the hon. member for Jonquière to participate in this debate today. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be part of the debate on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Center and to support it.

The hon. member suggests in his motion that the government immediately pursue negotiations with the provinces in order to re-assign jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture and eliminate overlap. I support the motion because since I have been in politics, I have always been very critical of overlap in various areas in Canada.

The Reform member has realized that overlap is harmful to agriculture and probably to the whole Canadian economy, then I am happy to see that he has woken up, at least in that area.

On the other side, it is ironic that a member of the Reform Party-which often claims to support Canadian federalism and refuses to see that there is an urgent need for a change in federalism, if it were possible-would introduce such a proposal. This is the kind of speech we have heard for a long time in Quebec, whether in the 1950s under Mr. Duplessis, in the 1960s under Mr. Lesage, and Mr. Lévesque who was a minister under the Liberal administration of Mr. Lesage in the 1970s. All nationalists in Quebec have opposed jurisdictional overlap in Canada and have used that argument to defend the idea that Quebec should become sovereign. Jurisdiction would then be clear and everyone would know exactly who is responsible for what.

I find ironic that a member of the Reform Party, which stands as a supporter of Canadian federalism, would present such a motion. Perhaps it means that it is possible that the Reform Party can one day reassess Canadian federalism. At the same time, I think it shows the Reform members' naivety. We have learned from experience in Quebec that, in matters of jurisdiction, the federal government never gives in.

During the 1960s and 1970s-I am not going back to the turn of the century here-, at a time of intense discussions on jurisdiction, the federal government was asked to get out of jurisdictions which are clearly the provinces'. It always refused because it views constitutional matters from its perspective of imperialistic federalism.

The federal government is held, by federalists, to be responsible for everything that goes on in Canada, to be entitled to intervene in any field where Canadians may have interests, no matter who has jurisdiction or what the constitution says. Every time that the Quebec government or Quebecers have addressed the federal government to point out that its jurisdiction had clearly been violated, the federal government, without denying that the Canadian constitution does not give it jurisdiction in a given sector, has relied on its spending power to intervene.

So, it uses its spending power to intervene in education, health, agriculture, manpower, in all fields about which provinces have protested, because Quebec is not alone in protesting against the central government's encroachments. Over the years, various provinces in Canada have defended their rights with the same results. It is always under its spending power that the federal government has intervened in provincial fields of jurisdiction.

In a sense, this was to be expected. Canada was built on a duality, on the fact that there are two peoples in Canada. Over the years, the federal government has grown. Other provinces were created and, in 1982, we found ourselves with a Canada made up of ten provinces, all of them having the same rights. Of course, Quebec rejected this unilateral change in the rules of the game. But the federal government, supported by the Supreme Court, proceeded to revamp the constitution. At that point, Quebec was, I would say, morally excluded from Canadian federalism.

That is why my support for the Reform Party's proposal is in line with the demands and philosophy of the nationalists in Quebec. At one time, in the nineteenth century, many Quebecers saw a future in Canadian federalism based to some extent on national duality. They were disappointed. We saw the federal government encroach on our jurisdictions. We saw Canada define itself without us. And this year, we fully intend to act accordingly.

We want to become a sovereign country, to ensure that our rights are defended as they should be, and that the Quebec government is able to intervene in all areas, in our best interests. In the longer term, we want the people of Quebec who have been around for centuries in Canada, who tried Canadian federalism and were disappointed, we want the people of Quebec to continue as such for centuries to come, to preserve their identity and take their place among the nations of this world.

Proposals like the Reform Party's motion confirm that our analysis of Canadian federalism is the right one, and we are increasingly convinced that the option we have proposed, which is to establish in North America a sovereign, French-speaking state, will mark the end of all these constitutional squabbles that are so counterproductive in Canada and Quebec and create a

political and economic situation that is not in the best interests of the people.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre on jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture.

The federal government shares the view of the hon. member that we must constantly strive to eliminate overlap and duplication between areas of government jurisdiction. We must also ensure the public sector is directing its resources appropriately and for the greatest possible benefit to Canadian taxpayers.

These are priorities for our government. As my colleagues pointed out during debate on this motion in February, we have been working to these ends since the day we took office.

Given the tight fiscal restraints facing all levels of government it is quite clear that the key to the continued success of those and other efforts to support our agriculture and agri-food section will be co-operation; all stakeholders in the agri-food section working together toward common goals. It sounds like a dream in this Parliament but we will try.

We must first define a shared long term vision for the sector. We can then determine the appropriate role for each partner in making these goals a reality and adjust our programs and policies accordingly. That is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has done.

Last September the minister put forward a vision for the future of Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector, where we want to be in the years 2000, 2005, 2010 and beyond. He has invited all agri-food stakeholders to help refine that vision and develop a business plan to bring it to reality.

The vision which has been well supported by agri-food stakeholders across the country is for a growing, competitive, market oriented agriculture and agri-food sector; a sector that is profitable and responds to the changing food and non-food needs of domestic and international customers; one generally less dependent on government financial support and helps sustain a good quality of life in rural communities; a sector founded on farm financial security, environmental sustainability and a safe, high quality food supply. The federal government has built further on that vision in the 1995 federal budget while also ensuring that the agri-food programs and policies are consistent with current fiscal realities.

Under the budget the government will change the western grain transportation system to encourage greater efficiency and more market responsiveness; diminish transportation and other subsidies that distort production and marketing decisions; revamp the safety net system so farmers are less dependent on government dollars for their incomes and so we are not open to countervail by Canada's international trading partners.

We must emphasize adaptation, trade, marketing and rural development to ensure continued growth in all regions of the country. We must involve the private sector more directly in government research and inspection activities.

In addition, as a result of the recent budget decisions, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's budget will be reduced from $2.1 billion in this fiscal year to $1.7 billion over the next three years, a net reduction of 19 per cent.

The department will be implementing new ways of organizing activities to improve efficiency and maintain the level of service to the public. It will amalgamate and privatize a range of programs to save costs and improve efficiency. The department's workforce will decline by about 18 per cent over the next three years, a reduction of over 2,000 positions.

The staff reductions to be carried out at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are substantial. It is very important to make sure they are viewed in the proper perspective.

In introducing Motion No. 314 last month, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre stated that in Canada at this time there is one public sector employee working in agriculture for every 14 farms, or one person on the public payroll for every 19 farm operators.

I would not argue with the hon. member's arithmetic, but it is important to note that the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food is not solely devoted to supporting Canada's primary agriculture sector. The department and its employees are involved in nearly all aspects of agri-food business, from farm inputs such as machinery and fertilizer to processing and packaging to inspect and retail.

This is an extremely large and complex industry, accounting for some 18 per cent of Canada's GDP and directly and indirectly employing 1.8 million people, or some 15 per cent of the Canadian workforce. All 27 million Canadians benefit from our inspection systems to ensure the safety of the food we eat.

In considering the future, I do not think it is useful to compare apples and oranges or to consider one sector of the industry in isolation from others.

It is critically important that we ensure that the changes ahead help build toward our overall vision for the agriculture and agri-food sector. Industry stakeholders must move forward together in a co-ordinated and co-operative manner so that we

can take full advantage of our unique strengths and we do not waste our limited resources by duplicating each others efforts.

To those ends, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food has extensive consultations planned or already under way in areas such as marketing, safety nets, grain transportation and the use of the new adaptation funds announced in the budget.

We will also be continuing our efforts with the provinces to amalgamate services in areas such as farm lending, trade and market development, inspection and industry adaptation.

The conclusion of the new GATT agreement last year and the announcement in last month's budget have resolved many longstanding uncertainties for Canada's agri-food sector and have helped to set a more definitive course for its future. As well the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food has been working to develop shared long term goals for the sector and a plan for how to achieve them.

It is moving ahead with those efforts in a co-operative, forward manner and not by initiating a new process to completely reshuffle the jurisdictional deck, as proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, that we can best ensure the future growth and security in the agri-food sector and the most effective use of taxpayers' dollars.

For those reasons I must vote against this motion and encourage other members to do the same.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion that should be addressed by every natural resource in Canada, how to eliminate the overlap among three major forces, namely industry, and provincial and federal governments.

I have given this matter considerable thought due to my role as forestry critic for the Reform Party of Canada. Today I want to address my remarks primarily to what I believe should be the federal government's unique role regarding agriculture.

Agriculture is important in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap, employing nearly 6 per cent of the workforce in the north Okanagan regional district and 4.5 per cent in the Columbia Shuswap regional district.

Central and northern Okanagan has 2,252 farms, producing last year 21,000 pigs, plus 3.46 million chickens and 2.3 million dozens of eggs.

In addition to B.C. cattlemen, we have dairymen producing milk from some 5,850 dairy cows. Part of the milk goes to the major brand name cheese in my neighbouring town of Armstrong. Chicken processing is also important with Colonial Farms handling five million chickens in 1994. We also have local hatcheries, seed companies and feed mills.

Small scale and home business suppliers are becoming the mainstay of farmers' markets like the one at Vernon with 180 members drawing big crowds every Tuesday and Thursday, excluding the winter months.

Perhaps the most obvious agricultural aspect of life in the Okanagan and our entire region of British Columbia are the 2,000 tree fruit growers that employ over 5,000 people on farms plus 2,500 in packing houses and support industries. Direct returns to the B.C. fruit industry include annual sales exceeding $140 million, generating over $700 million in B.C. economic activity. Even at the north end of the commercial tree fruit activity, the Vernon area has 3,270 acres of orchards, mostly in McIntosh and Spartan apples.

Those orchards of blooming trees every spring transform the rolling hills of the 200-kilometre long Okanagan valley into a kind of beauty one must see to believe. It is a big tourist draw.

In round figures, the Okanagan valley supplies 100 per cent of Canada's apricots, 39 per cent of its plums and prunes, 38 per cent of its sweet and sour cherries and 34 per cent its apples.

Of course Canadian consumers also buy fruit originating outside Canada. On the west coast during Christmas holidays people eat tons of Japanese oranges. That was one of the surprises of my coming to Ottawa, finding Christmas oranges called Clementines coming from Spain and Morocco.

I mention these points to lead into the fact that agriculture today is experiencing an earthquake in changes regarding the very foundations of trade.

The Minister for International Trade gave a speech March 14 in Australia. He mentioned the many recent developments, including the birth of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization.

The Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Forum has agreed to reach free trade among its developed economies by the year 2010 and free trade among its developing economies 10 years later. The countries of the entire western hemisphere have set the year 2005 as their target for free trade. Therefore 10 to 15 years from now, Canadian farmers will be marketing their products in a totally free trade environment.

When the movement of goods, of capital and ideas was limited to the speed of a sailing ship or a camel caravan, individual rulers could hope to run their countries in whatever fashion their local people would tolerate. Today, technological innovations are rebuilding the world of trade from the bottom up. Children in our schools are logging on to the Internet and learning to communicate almost instantly with people all across the planet.

If a supplier cannot get the desired product quickly, reliably and at a reasonable price from one farmer, he not only can ask the neighbouring farm, he can even phone or fax the neighbouring country or even the neighbouring continent.

As an illustration of what is happening in international trade, the March 10 issue of "Export News" listed some coming agricultural events: Foodaworld `95, the third international food processing systems fair; the 11th international ice cream show; the third international bakery show. None of these international events in agriculture or in agri-food is taking place either here, in Europe or North America. China, Turkey and Argentina are the places.

International trade in agriculture is a far cry from the day when Sir Walter Raleigh told Queen Elizabeth I of England that natives in the new world were growing a peculiar leaf so they could roll it up and smoke it.

The Reform Party supports free trade and has supported it for many years. However, we also demand that free trade mean fair trade. The federal government must work for a level playing field.

During these transition years there will be many international disputes involving natural resources; some because of short supply like the current fish war with Spain. Many other trade disputes will involve claims like the apple dumping dispute last year in which many Canadian growers faced bankruptcy because the dispute settlement mechanisms involved a delay far too long for something as fragile as apples.

No body but the federal government can straighten out these international trade disputes and ensure that dispute settlement mechanisms built into all our free trade agreements provide adequate protection for Canadian growers.

The federal government must assign top quality people to handle all agricultural trade disputes which certainly lie ahead for our nation.

I see this international trade expansion as being the primary and permanent role of the federal government regarding agriculture.

A second federal role derives from the first one. In recent years the dismantling of the Berlin wall has become a symbol of what will happen to our farm marketing boards. Quotas, tariffs and subsidies to farmers will certainly soon become as rare as grand-daddy's pocket watch. International free trade will require them to come apart brick by brick just like the Berlin wall.

Farmers must be assisted in making the transition from Canada's old supply managed economy to the fast paced world of free trade. Farmers' voices must be the ones heard when government asks how to proceed. Monopolistic and non-democratic groups made up of government appointees such as the Canadian Wheat Board will become as outdated as the old steam thresher parked at Three Valley Gap's ghost town in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap.

Therefore, the federal government must not only negotiate well to start with, it also must provide gradually reducing income support for farmers being hit by these changes.

It has been the position of the Reform Party that Canada must move to free and fair trade and that policies and programs to support the agricultural sector during this transition must be developed by the federal government.

A third role for the federal government in agriculture flows from the unpleasant probability that worldwide free trade may reduce suppliers to the least common denominator. By that I mean that if agricultural workers in any one nation can be forced to handle toxic agri-chemicals, agricultural workers around the world will suffer.

It is a sad fact that agricultural workers in the United States today suffer from the highest incidence of skin cancer in North America. They have the highest exposure to toxic industrial chemicals used as herbicides and pesticides. Agricultural workers need protection. Treaties must be negotiated to ban toxic agri-chemicals and encourage environmentally safer controls. Therefore, the federal government must do essential testing, precommercial research and regulating regarding chemicals.

Consumers around the world also must be protected regarding honest labels accurately listing all agri-food ingredients. Therefore, the Canadian government and all national governments must strive to achieve international agreements about safety in the agricultural workplace as well as consumer protection standards and enact the needed regulations to support the treaties.

These areas should summarize the federal government's long term role in agriculture: negotiating treaties and settling conflicts arising from the movement toward worldwide free trade; negotiating and legislating necessary protection both in the agricultural workplace and in the production facilities, advertising and labelling for agri-food.

I see a temporary role for federal income support for farmers and growers. It would assist them in adjusting to moving away from the supply managed protectionist kind of trading, and I do mean temporary.

First and foremost, according to the Constitution natural resources fall under provincial jurisdiction. My personal wish would be to greatly downsize the federal role in all natural

resources and therefore reduce the burden on the people caused by excessive regulation and taxation.

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak against Motion No. 314.

Let me begin by reminding members of this House that according to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, and I quote: "Motion No. 314 is based on the premise that it is time to examine not only how government works but also what government does". I agree with him because our budget of February 27 represents perhaps the most fundamental rethinking of how government can work better for Canadians.

The motion presented to the House also proposes that the government pursue negotiations with the provinces and the agri-food industry in order to reassign jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture and eliminate overlap and duplication. I also agree with that. I agree with him because the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has in fact worked effectively with his provincial colleagues over the past 16 months to reduce overlap and duplication in the inspection and financial services for the agri-food sector. Those are just two examples among many others.

It is ironic that the proposals in Motion No. 314 to reduce overlap and duplication themselves duplicate to a certain extent the work this government has already initiated since it took office. If the hon. member's proposals were to be implemented, federal spending would be increasingly directed to price support and income stabilization.

While the government recognizes that stabilization is very important to Canadian producers, spending on research and market development have been shown to generate significantly higher returns on investment. We have clearly demonstrated in the last few months and with the 1995 budget that this is the road we have taken and intend to follow for the benefit of Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector.

Stabilization measures are important to agriculture, but we are finding that stabilization is most effectively done in a cost sharing partnership with the provinces, not by one level of government alone. It has not resulted in overlap and duplication but instead has led to a co-operative approach which better meets the needs of producers.

Thus, I strongly believe that Motion No. 314 is irrelevant at this time. I must urge the members of this House to reject it. It would only duplicate what this government, the provincial authorities and the industry are already doing together.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to address the motion before us by my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Before I get into the things I plan to say, I would like to take a few seconds to address my hon. colleagues, particularly those in the Bloc party.

I listened with interest to the speech given by the member for Jonquière. He expressed surprise that the Reform Party was promoting a motion such as this. I assure him this should come as no surprise.

I believe the issue we are facing with respect to the federal government in Ottawa is probably very similar for three groups: those in the west where the Reform Party is now the strongest; those in the province of Quebec; and those farther east. Because of their geographical location and special circumstances, they feel somehow left out of the federal government except when the federal government intrudes where we do not want it to intrude.

I say to all members and particularly those from the province of Quebec and the people they represent that the difference is that they have given up on federalism. I am so sad about that. They have decided that Canada is no longer a place where they are welcome and they want out. That is the message I think I hear correctly from them. The difference between them and us is that we want in. We want to be part of the Canadian federation, but we do want it to work better.

During the 1993 election campaign a number of people in my area were sporting bumper stickers on their cars which read: My Canada includes Quebec. We think of the people across this entire country as our fellow citizens, as our brothers and sisters. We invite them to try once again to make Confederation work, to work together with us rather than trying to separate and divide the country.

In this regard, I had a short conversation with a person not long ago who asked: "What is the matter with those people in Quebec?" I told him that the problem was not Quebec, but that the problem was Ottawa. After talking about it for a bit we decided that was probably true.

The federal government, by overly utilizing its spending power has intruded on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Members here are focusing on a problem that we really do need to address and solve.

Getting back to what we are here for, this private member's motion addresses this question. It says that we want to represent Canadian people in the very best way.

Once again, if I can indulge in a short analysis, I look at it in the following way: We have around 28 to 29 million Canadians. Many Canadians, over 250,000, are farmers. We have a relationship between farmers and the rest of Canadians. Strictly speaking, neither the farmers nor other Canadians are terribly interested in which level of government is regulating their lives, controlling their actions and reducing their freedom.

I get the message over and over again that Canadians want a devolution of power nearer to the people. Too many people feel disenfranchised. They feel powerless to have anybody hear them on any issue. That ranges all the way from taxation, which keeps going up, up, up even with this government, to gun control, which is a very important issue in our area, to agriculture, where the federal government intrudes into an area where there is no jurisdictional warrant for it.

This does not need to be said. We all know how important it is that we have a strong agricultural industry. All one needs to do is to read some history to recognize that any country which becomes dependent upon outsiders for its food supply is extremely vulnerable.

We could all live for a minute or so without air. I agree with the environmentalists who say we should keep our air clean. We could live for maybe a week or so without water. I agree with the environmentalists who say we should keep our water clean and safe.

Depending on who the individual is, I am sure some members here would only live for a week or so without food, but some of us with larger bank accounts might last a little longer. We need to have a safe food supply and that is one thing we can have. It is such a privilege to live in this country where we have a plentiful and safe food supply. That comes from our agriculture and agri-food industry.

If there is anything worth preserving in this country it is the strength of that industry because our very lives depend on it. Our freedom and our independence from other countries depend on it.

How can we best arrange our affairs between the supplier, the producer, the farmer and the consumer, those other citizens who are eating the food being produced? We ought to reconsider and probably reject the premise that the federal government has to have a lot of involvement in it.

The nearer one gets the regulation, the nearer one gets the subsidization if there is that, the nearer one gets the controls to the actual producers and consumers and the further one gets it away from Ottawa the better it is for the industry as a whole.

That is not to say the federal government has nothing to do. That is the purpose of the bill. It asks us to carefully examine the areas where the federal government has a role, and there are some.

To my hon. colleagues from Quebec, their separation is not in any way going to alter the necessity of having a relationship with the rest of North America. They have often said they would like to use our currency and have free movement across our borders. They have even mentioned they would like to use our passports. All they are saying is they recognize the need in our world to live together. They will have to live together in one system or another which will require working together which will solve this.

I am simply submitting in the most emphatic way I can that we need to return to provincial governments those areas of jurisdiction which are best served there. We need to retain in the federal area things like international trade, the rules of trade and the barriers toward movement of agricultural goods back and forth. Those are going to apply whether there is a different government there or not. There is an overriding government which will have to apply to these relationships.

My appeal to the members is to support the bill because it would require us to look at those areas which should be devolved to provincial levels and to the private sector.

One of the large weaknesses or hindrances of our present economy is there has been too much movement toward regulation by government away from the business people. This is very important.

To quote the bumper sticker on my farmer brother's half-ton: "When you complain about farmers, don't talk with your mouth full".

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the private member's bill presented by my colleague from the Reform Party is one we in the farm community feel very strongly about. It is an idea whose time has come.

The federal government over the long haul has been in many areas of duplicity. Some of the areas the provincial government could probably handle better are agriculture, forestry and mining. This bill deals with agriculture but the principles involved would also apply to those other areas.

As my colleague has said, there is also some sentiment in the Bloc for this division of powers and a little less power in our central government. This motion is very worthy of consideration of all of the House. I encourage members opposite to look very closely at this motion and to consider very strongly their support for it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2.30 p.m., pursuant to order adopted on Thursday, March 23, 1995, this House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. on Saturday, March 25, 1995.

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)