Health committee  These limits are normally established in the context of manufacturers applying to us for registration of that pesticide for use in Canada. That entails a full environmental and human health risk assessment. One of the outcomes of that risk assessment is the establishment of a residue limit for all the uses of that pesticide on the crops for which they're going to use it.

Health committee  Part of the proposal is that we would look at the current U.S. MRLs or tolerances for just specifically those ones that are below 0.1 parts per million. The proposal is that we would adopt those lower tolerances in the United States for those very specific pesticide and crop combinations.

Health committee  There's no proposal to do that.

Health committee  The 0.1 parts per million was originally or historically established, I believe, based on the kinds of detection limits analytical equipment was capable of. So it would basically be able to detect any pesticide residues at all.

Health committee  Our risk assessment approach essentially is the precautionary approach. It's inherent in everything we do. We do an extensive risk assessment—

Health committee  The risk assessment approach we take is essentially the precautionary approach. It's inherent in how we assess a pesticide, pre-market, before it's allowed for use or sale in Canada. It takes into account all the potential hazards that pesticide might pose, the kind of exposure that people might have, the environment, etc.

Health committee  Certainly, in the context of pesticide regulation, health does rule the day—not trade.

Health committee  I'm not really a spokesperson for the security and prosperity partnership. I don't know if my colleagues are able to shed any light on it.

Health committee  Thank you for the question. On the subject of the residue limits themselves, whether we're raising or lowering the limits, I do need to emphasize that there have been no decisions made with respect to raising or lowering limits. This is part of an international discussion that's happening in terms of where those limits are set, how they're set, and the potential issues they may have for international trade.

Health committee  I can't speak specifically to MMT, but I am familiar with that gasoline additive issue. I can only emphasize that Canada will make its own decisions, and we will not do anything that compromises or changes our current high human health standards.

Health committee  Mr. Chair, Health Canada has been working for more than ten years with its counterparts in other countries, such as the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the United States, toward greater cooperation in pesticide regulation. By cooperating internationally, Canada and its partners can achieve many benefits.

Health committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee. I'm Dr. Richard Aucoin, chief registrar of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada. I'm very pleased to be here today with my colleague Dr. Peter Chan, director general of health evaluation at the PMRA.

Agriculture committee  We recognize that it's a serious problem.

Agriculture committee  I have a little bit of history around the strychnine issue. My understanding is that the reason it was taken away in 1992 was at least twofold. First, you had a very highly toxic liquid product that in itself posed some inherent hazards. Second, there was a significant amount of information during that period of time with respect to non-target poisoning incidents, a frequent series of information notes from western provinces with respect to dog poisonings, as an example, where the assessment was clearly that it was strychnine that had been used to poison dogs.

Agriculture committee  The information that we have always received from provincial specialists is that this newer version of the ready-to-use products is as effective as when the liquid product was mixed by the farmer with their own grain to make the product. That's the information we have been basing....