Thanks, Paul.
Finally, I think it's important to situate Canadian regulatory actions, generally, and the actions that are being contemplated vis-à-vis neonics, specifically, in a somewhat broader and holistic context. To do that, I would make the following comments for consideration.
Comments have already been made about the Dominic Barton report and the opportunity for the Canadian agri-food sector. Implicit in realizing this is support for a research and innovation driven sector, inclusive of significant advancements in plant science that will help ensure we continue to make great strides in crop production for years to come. Neonics generally and thiamethoxam specifically are excellent examples of such advancements, advancements that we want to encourage and continue to bring to Canadian agriculture and Canadian farmers in order to sustain their productivity and competitiveness in a globalized economy.
Second, as part of the various evaluations and special reviews and the various actions that may or may not result from them, there is considerable speculation, and we are asked about replacements for or alternatives to neonics in the event that one or more of them were to be restricted or removed from the marketplace.
To our knowledge, there are no one-for-one replacements for this technology. While there are other active ingredients that control some of the pests on some of the crops with some of the uses that neonic products do, there are none that are as broad spectrum, that are registered for as many crops and uses, or that are as effective as neonics.
Furthermore, restrictions or removals on their uses would result in more reliance on fewer modes of action, which would increase resistance risk and, even more important, drive more use of foliar sprays based on older chemistries with risk profiles that are less favourable than neonics.
It is also critically important to keep in mind that decisions about the development of new or alternative products won't be made in Canada or just with the Canadian situation in mind. Plant science innovations, as was referenced earlier, are generally developed and registered largely on a global basis. To think that somebody or some organization would develop a Canada-specific solution does not reflect the reality of the years of intensive research, development, registration, and commercialization, and the financial resources required to do so.
Finally, as the majority of crop production agriculture in Canada is destined for export, it is critical that Canada be at the front end of the innovation and adoption curve, to keep our growers competitive and our status as one of the world's largest agricultural exporters. This need not and should not happen at the expense of or in place of human health and the environment, but in concert with it. We should be working to make sure that our regulatory system finds the right balance to achieve this.
Thank you.