Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Aucoin, in your description of the act it seems to me you stressed a couple of things. One is that it's a kind of scientific rigour and that it's very much science- and data-driven. The other aspect is the practice of international cooperation and exchange with the science.
I want to look at the issue of neonics and test how science is used under the act. It seems to me that although the science is pretty well known—and I'm sure there's more developing all the time—I'm sure everybody knows what the state of play is in the science with these international efforts, and yet different jurisdictions have responded to that science with different actions. We see the European Union doing a two-year ban and I think South Korea is following a two-year ban. Australia has its own response. The U.S. has a federal strategy on pollinators and neonics, as I understand it. Even within Canada, Ontario is removing neonics from 80% of corn and soy crops. If it's all about the science and the data and the international exchange, how is it that all these jurisdictions have responded to this issue in a way that is different from the way the federal government here in Canada has responded?