Thank you.
We are cognizant of the motion the committee has brought forward. We have already commenced an analysis of the inspection fees in circumstances, as applied by CFIA, in order to allow the minister to be informed and respond to the committee in the most responsible way. So that work has been initiated, and we thank you for providing direction in that area.
As I've tried to stress, we are very cognizant of the significant economic challenges that are being faced by the livestock sector at this time. On the competitiveness elements of that, we have an enormous sense of respect and pride that in spite of these economic challenges, the vast majority of producers in this country remain at the forefront of stewardship in food safety, animal care, and producing livestock of top quality. In spite of these challenges across all the various sectors, whether it be pork, beef, poultry, or others, the reality is that producers in Canada are stewards of animal health and animal care in this country. We applaud them for their continued devotion to that. I think it speaks well of them and helps us in our efforts to continue to give them an advantage in domestic and international markets.
As I indicated at the outset, when the CFIA was created in 1997 there was an expectation on the part of Parliament that we would derive a percentage of our operating revenues from the recovery of inspection fees. It is my understanding that is still the expectation.
There has been a moratorium in place since 1997. The fees at that time were introduced to try to recover approximately 30% of our cost of delivery of inspection programs to industry. That recovery is still being done at the level of 1997 dollars, although our salary and overhead costs are no longer in that ballpark. So the overall percentage aspect of that has certainly challenged us in order to continue those services. In all honesty, in spite of the economic challenges of the industry I don't think we've been increasingly contributing to a non-competitive circumstance through our fee structures.
It does merit a review to ensure that where fees are being charged, if there are opportunities to find alternate levels of service delivery and alternate mechanisms to deliver that service by a third party in a more cost-effective or less costly way than it can be delivered by government, then we are certainly advocates to move in that direction.