Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on an issue that I raised on April 27, 2001. I am not sure how I should put that date considering the debate we just had.
At that time, I asked the Minister of Health a question, one of many I have asked the Minister of Health and his department, about an electronic device that was designed and built near Truro, Nova Scotia. This electronic device makes a noise to scare away birds from oil spills, farms and airports. It can be programmed to address any kind of bird and can be adjusted to any situation. It is currently sold in 26 countries around the world and is a great option to other ways of scaring birds away from oil spills, airports and farms.
However, for some reason, the Department of Health, somewhere along the line, designated this item as a pesticide. I feel it was designated as a pesticide so the department could charge tax on it. This is a burden on a small business that should not be there. It is not a pesticide. It has no residue, no contamination and no problems.
As I said earlier, it is sold in 26 countries around the world and only Canada has designated it as a pesticide. Why would the other countries designate it as a pesticide?
I have raised this question many times and have not been satisfied with the answer. The Department of Health did reduce the amount of tax because it felt it was a cumbersome burden on small business. However it is not a matter of reducing it. It should be eliminated. It makes absolutely no sense for this tax to be charged on an electronic device because it is designated as a pesticide.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will stand in the House and give me the good news that the department will eliminate this electronic device from the list of pesticides.