I think you're quite correct that no one is in the field looking for this.
The other thing is, as you mentioned, the data isn't there outside of the PMRA itself for people to really realize that the effects they are seeing are actually linked to pesticides. I spoke about data being available in, for example, California. If they start seeing fish die off, they can find out that there was a particular pesticide used in that area in fairly significant quantities, and those connections can be made. If the data isn't actually available, then the provincial conservation officer who has observed a die-off has no basis for knowing that those pesticides might even be in play. So we miss opportunities to make those types of connections.