In your comments today—taking out neonic; I'm not actually interested in talking about that; that's a different issue for me—you talked about the issue about cosmetic pesticides. I think I know where you're going to go with that one, but can you help me?
To be truthful, I used to be a municipal politician. I watched folks put pesticides on their lawn, and then turn on the sprinkler and watch it go down the sewer grate. It's not a good place for it to go. We're not talking about farmers with cosmetic pesticides. We're talking about residential folks, who quite frankly don't know how to use half the stuff unless they get it professionally applied. We have combined storm and sanitary sewers in lots of older parts of Ontario. You get a flood and that stuff goes directly into the lake and the watershed. A lot of municipalities looked at that piece as to why they were getting rid of it, not because they didn't believe that the science was correct—the stuff was good—but the issue was that it was going in the watershed instead of staying on top of the stuff it was trying to take care of.
Is this part of that supply chain you talked about, that there's a need for that and that's why we should....? I was wondering about the cosmetic use, because to be truthful, it's like cosmetic surgery, right? Some folks may think they really need it, but does anyone really need cosmetic surgery?