Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member with regard to the health implications as they relate to pesticides and their use.
My question has to do with the mechanics of the motion though. I would refer the member to the final proviso under the exemptions. Under part (d) it states:
that should further exemptions be sought to this pesticide ban, then the onus to prove safety shall be placed on the manufacturer to show to the satisfaction of both the Minister of Health and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, through scientific and medical evidence, that an exemption is justified.
Is the member's understanding that if a pesticide is regulated by the Pest Control Products Act, its efficacy for the stated purpose would have been established? It would have either been approved for a specific use and would be safe to do so. It seems there may be a contradiction that the manufacturer somehow has to prove to Health Canada and to the Standing Committee on Health that it is safe when in fact the administration of the Pest Control Products Act has already established whether a product is safe.
The answer may be, and the member may want to comment, that we are talking about the safety in a particular environment as opposed to the safety of the pesticide for use in a specific application.