Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I found it very educating. I don't sit on this committee, but certainly I can appreciate the challenge that the committee has and that you share in terms of protecting the public.
I'd like to follow up on the line of questioning that Mr. Allen pursued. I was given the Weatherill report as background information. I'll tell you, there's a word that gets everybody's attention around this place, and that's “audit”, and the role of the auditor. As soon as you mention that, everybody responds in a Pavlovian way. They know this is serious stuff.
Mr. Evans, you've used the term “review” with respect to the Weatherill report. I'm going to quote recommendation seven of the report:
To accurately determine the demand on its inspection resources and the number of required inspectors, the [CFIA] should retain third-party experts to conduct a resources audit. The experts should also recommend required changes and implementation strategies. The audit should include analysis of how many plants an inspector should be responsible for and the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors.
It calls for a third-party review, and it does use that word: audit.
In terms of the review that was done of the CFIA report on the CVS program, it stated a very important caveat:
This review does not constitute certification or guarantee the accuracy of CFIA's calculation since the review did not involve, for example, either of the following:
Detailed testing, analysis or validation...of data...
Technical or other assessments of CVS tasks in terms of appropriateness of...frequency, or duration [of interventions and so on].
Those are inspector-significant caveats.
I guess my question is can the public be absolutely satisfied and secure, given that there are still those caveats? In my experience, it's the on-the-ground inspectors and the inspections that make the difference with respect to what falls between the cracks.
I do appreciate very much, as I'm sure the committee does, the citing of improvements that have been made and changes that have been made--for example, in the relationship with border security and other issues. I'd like you to have the opportunity to give a response to the question in general but also with regard to what it means to the public.