Agriculture committee  It could do it with the cooperation of the registrants. Again, we need to have the labels be the same. I don't know if that's been an issue. I don't think so. We know eight of the 13 products have already met our standard in terms of eligibility of the chemical under GROU. So we've got eight products ready to go under GROU.

Agriculture committee  Do you need to reverse it?

Agriculture committee  If I'm understanding you correctly, since the task force recommendations, we've recognized that it's a very legitimate concern of farmers. What is the continued pressure to keep them actively participating? We have said there is a possibility of keeping the program on the books, having it at the ready, keeping that regulation as a possibility, but saying we will not entertain any products under own-use import as long as there are products that are under GROU.

Agriculture committee  The way I would summarize it is that own-use import was addressing price, not access. A concern from a lot of growers is that if you continue with own-use import, you are actually hurting the possibility of getting access. Both own-use import and the proposed GROU, grower requested own use, require that there be a Canadian-registered product against which you are making a comparison.

Agriculture committee  On your first point that farmers haven't benefited from GROU, there's no way farmers can benefit from GROU until we let a product be identified as eligible for GROU with a label and it can move across the border. It can't now. We've only gone through a pilot stage. The registrants have been clear that they don't want both programs operating at the same time.

Agriculture committee  As far as near-perfect harmonization is concerned, the answer is yes. At the national level, the answer is yes, probably. We have to take account of our Endangered Species Act whereas our colleagues in the US have to take account of their Endangered Species Act. So we know one of the concerns about strychnine is around two endangered species that are present in the southern Saskatchewan area.

Agriculture committee  I just raised it as an example of looking at species at risk, where you'll see differences likely in Canada versus in the States. There will continue to be some use patterns where there are crops and pests in the States where we just don't have those crops and pests in Canada. But the intent is really that whenever you see a potential Canadian use, that Canadian farmers or other sectors are getting that use.

Agriculture committee  That's the re-evaluation that we did of current uses of strychnine, so that is available on our website. That's a proposed acceptability for continuing registration. There has also been a follow-up note on I think the status of strychnine. It does not deal directly with the liquid concentrate.

Agriculture committee  There continue to be two pressure points. We are very successful on joint reviews. As I mentioned, we're now participating in the first global joint review. One date of submission has gone from DuPont to all of those countries. We're at the table with the U.S., the U.K., and our other colleagues.

Agriculture committee  I'll start, and I imagine Craig will have more details. I don't know about Gordon. Glyphosate is a generic name for an active ingredient. A large number of products that are registered have glyphosate as the active ingredient. In Canada, under the current data protection regime it's been almost impossible for a generic glyphosate to be registered, because the current data protection scheme continued to give extended data protection as we asked registrants--or registrants even just volunteered--to give us modern data.

Agriculture committee  In our discussions with farmers over the last month and a half or so, since Christmas, it's been clear that access to ClearOut 41 Plus, which is the only product now approved under GROU, is something they like. It is now available, and farmers can have access, as we said, because it's at least equivalent, until the end of June.

Agriculture committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very pleased to speak to you today to give you additional information about the import program and to update you on the progress achieved with the implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force and on the use of strychnine. I want to start with the last first.

Agriculture committee  I will go back and I will look at what we do have and check what information we provided, in terms of your papers. What was the date for that motion?

Agriculture committee  But, again, as I said, we have done a re-evaluation of strychnine, which has continued to raise concerns. We'll certainly be open to receiving information from farmers about the issue. We have had discussions, as I said, with the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and agreed to look at a very promising alternative, Phostoxin.

Agriculture committee  The product is available. It's registered in Canada.