To address the first part of that question around requiring the PMRA to consider food security and economic impacts in its regulatory decisions, we do feel that there's room to be more ambitious in that regard. As far as the means to accomplish this, I think that there are different ways to achieve this, and ultimately it's for the government to decide how to proceed.
From our perspective, achieving the outcome, which is requiring the PMRA to consider food security and economic impacts in all of its regulatory decisions, is more important than the means to arrive at that outcome. We think there's still work to do there in ensuring that, as we said earlier, we find the balance between regulating for risk and regulating for growth. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
To your second question around the work to leverage reviews and best regulatory practices from other trusted and risk-based jurisdictions, we think that there have been some positive steps in that direction. You referenced joint reviews. We feel that there can be more ambition to do more in that regard, as we really feel it would remove duplication.
The benefits are twofold there. It would be an efficiency driver for the agency that has constrained resources and capacity. Second, it would ensure that Canadian farmers have access to the same tools as farmers in competing jurisdictions. There have been times in the past when we've had a divergence of regulatory decisions on similar products. I think more definitely needs to be done in that regard.