Mr. Speaker, when I looked at some of the briefing notes, one area caught my attention, and maybe the member could enlighten the House.
It says when the proposed ban was announced by Quebec, Quebec's own internal documents actually indicated the absence of a scientific basis for the ban. That is a pretty strong assessment for why there should not be a ban.
The province stated that the ban was based on a precautionary approach, which I had indicated earlier in a question, pending the outcome of reassessments on the safety of 2,4-D. The assessments were conducted, and they found that 2,4-D did not pose a significant health risk.
Most people would say that if there is no evidence and the assessment shows no particular health risk, then carrying on simply because we believe doing so is precautionary does raise some interesting questions.
Almost none of the NAFTA chapter 11 disputes have been successful. Now I understand that other Canadian cities like Toronto and Halifax have implemented pesticide bans on 2,4-D.
First of all, if there is no health assessment that says there is a posed risk, why has no chapter 11 case been filed against the bans that have been made in other cities? There is something wrong here. I do not understand.
Maybe the member could enlighten the House as to the basis for the conclusion of the committee's majority report.
Second, why has a chapter 11 case not been launched against Toronto and Halifax?