Mr. Speaker, when I looked at some of the briefing notes, one area caught my attention, and maybe the member could enlighten the House.
\nIt 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.
\nThe 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.
\nMost 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.
\nAlmost 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.
\nFirst 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.
\nMaybe the member could enlighten the House as to the basis for the conclusion of the committee's majority report.
\nSecond, why has a chapter 11 case not been launched against Toronto and Halifax?
", "fr": "Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, j'ai pris connaissance de quelques notes d'information, et une en particulier a retenu mon attention. Peut-\u00eatre le d\u00e9put\u00e9 pourrait-il \u00e9clairer notre lanterne.
\nOn y dit que, au moment de l'annonce de l'interdiction propos\u00e9e par le Qu\u00e9bec, des documents internes du Qu\u00e9bec faisaient \u00e9tat de l'absence de fondement scientifique pour justifier cette interdiction. C'est une fichue de bonne raison pour ne pas imposer d'interdiction.
\nLa province a soutenu que l'interdiction se fondait sur le principe de pr\u00e9caution, que j'ai mentionn\u00e9 pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment dans une question, applicable en attendant de conna\u00eetre les r\u00e9sultats des nouvelles \u00e9valuations de l'innocuit\u00e9 du 2,4-D, lesquelles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 effectu\u00e9es et r\u00e9v\u00e8lent que le 2,4-D ne pose pas de risque important pour la sant\u00e9.
\nLa plupart des gens diraient que, en l'absence de preuves et si l'\u00e9valuation ne r\u00e9v\u00e8le pas de risque important pour la sant\u00e9, le fait de persister dans ses efforts pour la simple raison que l'on croit prudent de le faire soul\u00e8ve des questions int\u00e9ressantes.
\nLes diff\u00e9rends concernant le chapitre 11 de l'ALENA n'ont que tr\u00e8s rarement port\u00e9 fruit. Je crois savoir que des villes comme Toronto et Halifax ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 mis en application une interdiction des pesticides \u00e0 l'\u00e9gard du 2,4-D.
\nAucune \u00e9valuation ne r\u00e9v\u00e8le-t-elle un risque pour la sant\u00e9? Pourquoi n'a-t-on intent\u00e9 aucune proc\u00e9dure en vertu du chapitre 11 dans le cas des interdictions d\u00e9cr\u00e9t\u00e9es dans d'autres villes? Il y a quelque chose qui cloche. Je ne comprends pas.
\nLe d\u00e9put\u00e9 pourrait peut-\u00eatre nous expliquer sur quoi se fonde la conclusion du rapport majoritaire du comit\u00e9.
\nEnsuite, comment se fait-il qu'aucune proc\u00e9dure en vertu du chapitre 11 n'ait \u00e9t\u00e9 intent\u00e9e contre Toronto ou Halifax?
"}, "url": "/debates/2009/9/29/paul-szabo-2/", "politician_url": "/politicians/paul-szabo/", "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/3198/", "procedural": false, "source_id": "2870337", "h1": {"en": "Routine Proceedings", "fr": ""}, "h2": {"en": "Committees of the House", "fr": ""}, "h3": {"en": "International Trade", "fr": ""}, "document_url": "/debates/2009/9/29/", "related": {"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2009%2F9%2F29%2F"}}