Thank you, Mr. Longfield, and thank you, witnesses.
I get a spot, so I'm taking off my chair hat and putting on the NDP member's hat. You can time me, too. I'll be honest and I have
the clerk, who will help me.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their participation at this study. It's a start. We had government officials earlier today. We had Health Canada and we had Agriculture.
This is a complex issue. It's been going on for quite a few years. Neonics have been approved since, I think it was, the 1980s, 1990s. Over the last few years, I think farmers have been using these pesticides and certain other products. There have been studies. There have been a lot of questions by Canadians and environmental groups and I think yesterday brought it to the forefront, talking about the study that is being done at the ag committee and the interest, not just from Canadians but from environmental groups.
I think this is a study that we're starting. We're in our second hour. We're going to have another meeting later on. I think that if there's interest to delve into this a little bit deeper, it would be important that we consider making sure that we have—not all voices heard, that's going to be impossible—a great and deep study on this issue.
I know it was brought up that you don't have very much confidence in PMRA and the evaluation. There was a lot of speculation about the problems with flexibility and transparency.
Mr. Thiel, you were talking about the water samples, 22 studies that were submitted to the PMRA. I asked this question of the previous witnesses: is Environment Canada taking a leadership role in testing waters and doing the real-world data? It's not happening. What would you like to see come forward? I know we're talking about maybe science that will help reinforce mitigation measures that could be adopted. What are you hoping to see in this consultation period that is going on until the March 23?