As Dennis said earlier, we earmark a one-year turnaround time as being what is easily achievable, given that in our experience, the files typically sit for 12 months of the 24 months before they're opened anyway. If you can reduce or eliminate that backlog, you've already landed a 12-month review. You're just spending 12 months in a queue.
To give credit to the regulators, they're looking at the United States, which has what they call the extension program. If you bring in something very similar to something else, we can make an even faster decision, because we're familiar with the product you've brought forward. They're investigating adopting a practice like that, but that would help only in bringing things to market very similar to what we already have. For what you're talking about, which is bringing new and unique products to the marketplace, that extension program really wouldn't help. We need to get rid of that dead space at the beginning and get right to the file and get it moving.
There are also opportunities within the review where you have Health Canada and CFIA and the two departments all doing the toxicology review. Could they do one and collaborate? Are there efficiencies there? That's a bigger project, but it's something we could look into. That first chunk should be easy to move off the board. Well, easy is probably oversimplifying. It should be movable, to be fair.