All of that is the kind of information we'll need to bring forward when we propose—if we propose—changes to our cost recovery regime. There are different costs to different parties, and we have to look at that. I think Mr. Easter raised this too, in terms of the impact on the growers themselves of our cost recovery regime.
Costs for registrants have in some respects gone down, because as I said, they can now submit exactly the same data package to Canada and the United States. We've heard from them that because they can submit it to us electronically, that saves them potentially a couple of hundred of thousands of dollars.
Some of our costs have changed because of things like joint reviews, but they haven't really gone up or down. For example, the pre-submission considerations that go into a joint review are now very complex. You're working with four, five, six different countries and discussing who is going to do what part of the review. For example, Richard and people are travelling, often to Paris, where other countries and registrants are, and they're spending a whole day simply discussing a submission and which country will review what part of the submission.
We haven't had enough experience at the global level yet to really be able to say what the cost of doing that kind of work is versus the cost of doing a distinct Canadian review. We have started doing some of the international comparisons and have had discussions with, for example, the U.S.—I don't know whether we've now had them also with the U.K.—to discuss what their practice is and what their costs are for their parts of the system so that we can also compare the costs in Canada to the costs in the United States and the costs in Europe. I think Australia is also one of the countries we'll be looking to compare costs with.
All of that is the kind of material we'll need to bring forward if and when we talk about changes to the cost recovery regime.
