Thank you, Mr. Da Pont.
First, you should know that everyone around this table supports Bill S-11. Second, nobody's questioning any of your commitments to food safety in this country. It's not so much what's in the bill as it is what might not be in it. Sheila Weatherill, in the report, recommended a third party independent audit. All sorts of successful companies—private, public—have third party audits, an outside look-see at the total resources.
I have four questions for you.
One, do you see the merit of a third party audit being undertaken every five years? Somebody outside of the CFIA would come in and look at it so parliamentarians and CFIA are informed on what exists, what may be needed, and how efficiencies can be achieved.
Two, you heard the minister say that CFIA could have been a lot more hard-nosed on getting the material from XL, rather than being nice. That tells me they had the authority. It might be a matter of culture in a particular plant where the authority wasn't exercised, whereas it is exercised in other plants. I'm still troubled with this seeking refuge behind some lack of authority under the existing legislation. Do you not feel they actually had the authority and it was a question of culture?
Third, I'm concerned that clause 27 doesn't authorize the inspector to require a specific format in which information is delivered, so time could be lost between delivery of information and the interpretation of that information.
Fourth, would you, Mr. Da Pont, undertake to provide within a week the names of all inspectors at CFIA, their job descriptions, and where they are located?