This is certainly not clear in the bill, and that's why we're asking you to look at it.
First of all, the way the bill is written, certainly in the French version, it seems like an inspector, on his own, can make a decision whether he needs to access a company computer. He simply walks around the plant, looks at things, and says, “I think there's something wrong here. Can I please look at your computer?” Well, we think that is just a little too easy.
We think it should require at least the inspector sitting down at his computer that he has available to him in the plant and writing up what his reasons to believe are and submitting them to someone at CFIA, who then would look at them and say that the inspector is right and he should go ahead and access those computers. The document would be in place and the CFIA would have made the decision that there is reason to believe there's non-compliance.
We're just cautioning you that the way it's written is a little sloppy. It allows one individual, one inspector, to make a decision to use these additional access powers. The additional powers being asked for in this act are significant. Don't belittle what's happening here. Do we need those powers? Yes, we agree as an industry that this is a step forward. We need them, but as we said in the statement, I worked for the Competition Bureau and I know how that worked. We could not access company documents without first going to a judge and saying that there's a reason to believe and we documented it.
All we're asking is that at least one other person in the CFIA look at this reasons to believe, and then they can go ahead and access those additional powers, whether it be with respect to a computer or whatever else they may need. It's just a little bit of a check on the powers. I don't think that's an unreasonable request to make.