Agriculture committee  It has to make a difference. It can't just be that surfactant A and surfactant B are different. Materially, identically, we've said it has an impact. So it's not just an insignificant change. We've said it has to have some impact, but we have to know about it. The issues you rai

Agriculture committee  Okay. I think there was, and I think that's why in Canada there's been such interest in own use import. The United States has also been working on a U.S. own use import program. I think there was real frustration with any progress on NAFTA, cynicism about a NAFTA label ever comi

Agriculture committee  The issues you list about GROU are all equally applicable to own use import. The U.S. registrant and the Canadian registrant can do all of those same things and take away access to an own use import product. So between those issues you raise, all of them are applicable to own u

Agriculture committee  No, no--anywhere. The own use import needs, as a prerequisite, a Canadian-registered product. If you do not have a Canadian-registered product, there is no possibility of own use import. If the Canadian registrant alters something, then the product coming in is no longer equivale

Agriculture committee  I don't recall, but there was obviously a predecessor product.

Agriculture committee  No, a specific registered product. There are all sorts of different formulations and registered glyphosate products. There has to be specificity. One of the issues from the get-go with own use import was how it was thought a non-registrant was going to show equivalency. Certain

Agriculture committee  Then it would no longer be equivalent, it would no longer have an equivalency certificate under own use import, and nobody would have access to it. One of the advantages of GROU is that you do have the support and collaboration of the registrants. They are working in tandem. As

Agriculture committee  I can say a couple of things. Certainly most developed countries have also prohibited the use of concentrated strychnine as a pest control product now. So Canada wasn't alone. In 1992, when the decision was made, it was the responsibility of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Agriculture committee  We've started those discussions, or at least I myself had some discussions on that. I was in B.C. in the spring, both right around Vancouver, in the southern mainland, but also in the Okanagan Valley, and you can see around Kelowna orchards and vineyards interspersed with suburbi

Agriculture committee  It's not our information. It's from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, because it's their responsibility to monitor products. I know that it's publicly available.

Agriculture committee  Thank you for the question. The registration of strychnine was cancelled in 1992 due to concerns about its high acute toxicity and the high potential for non-target poisoning. I understand that farmers are interested in using it to control Richardson's ground squirrel, but a

Agriculture committee  In our re-evaluation, which specifically looked at the ready-to-use bait, which is a diluted and formulated fashion of strychnine, there were still concerns about the effects of that level of strychnine both on human health and on non-target species. If a 0.4% ready-to-use bait p

Agriculture committee  Yes. There is the Pest Management Advisory Council, which is multi-stakeholder. It includes registrants, it includes users, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has a seat on it, the Canadian Horticulture Council has a seat on it, there are now three or four representatives of

Agriculture committee  Absolutely.

Agriculture committee  We certainly have a strong link because we have to work together in several areas. As a result, every year, the agency provides us with information about its compliance program, and we provide them with residue-detection methods of analysis. When they detect situations of concer