Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-10 of 10
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Agriculture committee  It sure is.

June 8th, 2006Committee meeting

Peter MacLeod

Agriculture committee  Those haven't been submitted. Those 30 that I was talking about, going from the 130 down to these priority substances that are in the U.S., are ones that are not even in the submission process in Canada. They're yet to be applied to the PMRA.

June 8th, 2006Committee meeting

Peter MacLeod

Agriculture committee  The timeline for a typical new product is a year and a half, and the recent statistics I've seen that were presented this morning are in fact true from our perspective. About 90% of the time for these major new products and new evaluations, they are meeting the standard that they've prescribed of 18 months.

June 8th, 2006Committee meeting

Peter MacLeod

Agriculture committee  There is a system of global maximum residue limits through the Codex, through the FAO. Unfortunately, not every country recognizes that global standard, and in fact that global standard is sometimes not appropriate for each individual country because the use pattern is different.

June 8th, 2006Committee meeting

Peter MacLeod

Agriculture committee  I will take that. That's a difficult question. What was commonly referred to as the backlog occurred at a time in the pesticide regulatory experience when a submission was received by the government, and because of various reasons, resources being one, it was not a complete package and they couldn't finish their evaluation, so it sat.

June 8th, 2006Committee meeting

Peter MacLeod

Agriculture committee  I don't have those numbers for you. I do know that some of the submissions that were removed from the system have since come back in. When enough information was generated they came back into the system, but I don't have those statistics. Perhaps the regulatory agency could provide them.

June 8th, 2006Committee meeting

Peter MacLeod

Agriculture committee  The process we talked about earlier, looking at one package of data, having it evaluated, and using foreign evaluations, is a key part of that. Most, if not all, of these minor-use crops in this technology gap have been registered in the U.S., so they've had sufficient information to have the registration granted by the U.S.

June 8th, 2006Committee meeting

Peter MacLeod

Agriculture committee  A number of the biological pesticides or organic pesticides that growers are looking for are part of this list of 135 we were talking about. There are a lot of these micro-use pesticides, and that is a problem. The U.S. market for biological and organic pesticides is larger than Canada's.

June 8th, 2006Committee meeting

Peter MacLeod

Agriculture committee  There is a lot of activity. I guess the vision for the future, which we've articulated in the brief but not spoken about, is that there will be one package of data, whether it is Canada-U.S. or from a global perspective. There will be one evaluation that can then be shared through various science-based organizations, whether it's in the European Union, the United States, or Canada.

June 8th, 2006Committee meeting

Peter MacLeod

Agriculture committee  The list that I think Mr. Bartley is referring to was created through the Canadian Horticultural Council, which coordinated with other grower groups across Canada to come up with this list. I have seen the list, and we can make sure it's provided to the clerk for distribution. I don't have it with me today.

June 8th, 2006Committee meeting

Peter MacLeod