I think as the member may know, under the Pest Control Products Act, there's a requirement every 15 years to go back and kind of re-examine the chemical that's been approved to make sure that there haven't been updates on the science or on the use that might suggest an issue.
We're now 15 years past the passage of that legislation, so one of the things we're seeing as a department is that a lot of the chemicals that had been approved 15 years ago are now coming back in for re-evaluation. I know that some members question why these chemicals are being looked at again and why the PMRA is undertaking this. It's a statutory requirement, and we're doing our best to fulfill the requirements of the legislation.
When we do the review, we do try to engage as extensively as possible with various stakeholders, obviously, including the agriculture sector. It's very important for PMRA, the pest management agency, to understand the usage patterns. There is a real issue of talking to the industry and to the manufacturers to have an understanding of how this stuff is used and to make sure that if restrictions are put in, it's done in a way that's obviously as sensitive as possible to how the product is actually used in the marketplace.
Often an initial proposal, which might call for more extensive restriction, actually will be amended through the consultation process because we get better data from the agriculture sector on usage. I just wanted to make that clear.
The second thing I would say is that we are very well aware that often there may be a lack of alternatives. As a result, when there are restrictions that have to be put in place, there is work to determine an appropriate phase-out schedule so that a transition period is available. The statute really does put an emphasis on health protection and the environment. That's obviously what we follow as a regulator.