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.
Those were the kinds of reports we were receiving. Some information from police forces in that region, for example, were recommending that we move away from that. It was an Agriculture Canada decision at the time. I'm quite confident from the information that I have that it was based on those two factors: a highly toxic liquid substance and these dog poisoning incidents.
With respect to other products available, even in those early 1990s there were ready-to-use products available, but they were not effective for a whole series of reasons. Later on, we tried to address that. The manufacturers worked with us to address that issue by producing a ready-to-use bait that could be manufactured quickly and delivered on time so that there were fresh products available to producers, certainly at a higher cost, I'm sure.
The re-evaluation of strychnine itself has concluded that even the existing ready-to-use products do have significant environmental issues with them that we need to address.
So there is significant information there that would have prompted those decisions.