I may be playing devil's advocate, but Mr. Lemieux's suggestion, that I agree with completely, is to broaden the mandate and to deal in general with food safety and food security. However, if we establish a subcommittee with a broader mandate than that of the listeriosis issue, and if we undertake the type of investigation that Ms. Weatherill did not carry out, then we may lose sight of the issue. Witnesses will speak to us about everything but listeriosis and we may end up having to meet more frequently than if we had concentrated our efforts on that specific issue.
Personally, I see our work as a follow-up to what I began last August, when we had union officials and Canadian Food Inspection Agency officials speak to us about the changes the government wanted to make. We are always being told that extra officers and inspectors are being hired, that we have realized that there has been a move—and this is happening with pilot projects—to privatize these inspections more and more, etc. What happened was the whole listeriosis crisis.
I think this specific issue will be work enough. We should not increase the scope of the mandate by much. I also think that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food could have other meetings to deal with food safety in general. Perhaps I am wrong, but it is my feeling that if the mandate becomes to broad, our study will go on for too long. I do not mind having several meetings. I, myself am particularly interested in an investigation. Quite frankly, I would like to do the investigation that Ms. Weatherill will not do into listeriosis.