Mr. Speaker, we all can be very concerned about the use of pesticides. We all want to ensure that in the future we have a safe environment for our families and our children as well.
I have a couple of concerns and then a question. I tend to concur with my colleague from Selkirk--Interlake with respect to what the ultimate objective of the motion is and where it might go in terms of the thin edge of the wedge.
I also have another concern. The member who spoke previously used words like “I think” when asked about her interpretation of the motion. In anything we introduce in the House, we should know where we want to go with it.
I also have a question on the apparent inconsistency in the clauses which states in paragraph (a)(v):
...customarily used by members of the public as visitors, licensees or in any other authorized capacity for recreation or entertainment, including but not limited to parks and sports grounds.
Then in (c) it says that it does not apply to control or destroy pests that could have caused an infestation. It either is or it is not. If there is infestation in a field, does that mean we can use the chemical or pesticide?
What is the hon. member's interpretation of that.