Well, I guess it depended on what question you asked.
For example, 3,200 is the total number of a category, a classification known as EG. All of the people in CFIA who are part of the technical category come under that 3,200 number. Whether they're working on soil sampling for golden nematode, certifying log houses leaving the country, or working in a lab somewhere testing seed germination, they all come under that 3,200. So that was where you got that number from.
We had tabled at one time the number of working-level food inspectors where that's the focus of their job. The other thing we tabled to the inquiry was the number of inspectors, city by city, who are actually involved in the program under discussion, which is the processed meat products inspection program.
Now, let's say you asked the agency specifically how many inspectors you have in the field carrying out processed meat inspection. I'm telling you right now that I could sit down with folks from the agency and come to a hard and fast number within half an hour. There is nothing magical about that. It just depended on what foot they wanted to put forward, and I'm not saying CFIA; the questions were coming from various people on the committees, various politicians, and so on. I guess it depended on what they wanted to express. That's why the numbers were so vastly different.
As to why Ms. Weatherill could not categorize that in a way that made sense in her report, as I commented earlier, it escapes my ability to comprehend why that wasn't done, because those numbers aren't secret. Yes, they fluctuate to a minor degree from day to day and from season to season. That's to be expected. But the numbers really aren't that hard to come to.