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.
The experience is such that whenever we've participated in a joint review to date, the decision, at least between Canada and the U.S., has been the same, i.e. to register. The use patterns haven't always been exactly the same, because obviously in the U.S. there are some use patterns that aren't the same as in Canada.
On going forward, we're clearly supporting joint review as the best mechanism. It's a good use of our evaluators' time. It provides farmers with access at the same time.
On the issue of data protection, the data protection would then end at the same time, and it really is a win-win for all parties.
There are still a lot of difficulties because of history and the fact that, as both Gordon and Craig have noted, there is an existing technology gap. At this moment in time, and for quite a long period of time, there's been a big difference in how many products U.S. farmers have access to, for how many uses, that Canadian farmers don't have access to.
That is where, for the first time, PMRA has really given thought to how we can address it. The Project 914 that Craig alluded to is to work to address the issue. Instead of taking a use-by-use kind of pattern, which is what we've done historically—as the pulse growers have said this is a priority, or the tobacco growers have said this is a priority, or the apple people have said this is a priority—we have looked at what chemicals give the most number of uses that are of interest to growers in Canada.
PMRA looked at three active ingredients, again with the cooperation of the registrants, because we needed to get their agreement for full access to data. Among those three active ingredients, there are approximately 250 uses associated with those three actives.
We're now at the point where, under our act, we have to consult on proposed new registration. We have said these meet our standard of evaluation. We're now consulting.
It is very unlikely that there then will be any issues. They will be approved, and with three chemicals, you get 250 uses approved. It helps to close the technology gap.
We're also talking with our U.S. colleagues about harmonizing the residue levels that are allowed and being very clear that we want to do it in a way that does not disadvantage Canadian growers. If Canadian growers want a use registered, our preference is to get the product and the use registered and not to set a residue limit that would allow U.S. product to enter into Canada.