Mr. Ianiro, thank you for your answers. We know the chief redress officer, as part of the CFIA, was a critical office that was eliminated by the Liberal government. We know that almost 27%, or well over a quarter, of all the complaints brought in by customers, producers and businesses to the CFIA were justified, and many of those decisions had to be reversed.
Can you table with this committee an updated report on how many CFIA complaints have been received between 2015 and today, broken down by subject matter, by province and by the outcome of those complaints? That would be very helpful to this report, as well.
Now I want to turn to AAFC. Thank you very much, Mr. Jurgutis, for being here.
The sustainable agriculture strategy and what's come out of that is a big reason this study is happening and is a linchpin of why this is so frustrating. More than half of the farmers who were polled and surveyed on the sustainable agriculture strategy perceived it as a negative impact. Many thought it was onerous, and stakeholders were very negative on the impact of the SAS. In fact, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Canola Council of Canada, Cereals Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, Pulse Canada and Soy Canada have all abandoned this partnership. To quote those organizations:
Together, we have consistently voiced that there is a lack of industry alignment regarding the targets and actions proposed in the SAS. As a result, we have collectively decided to step back from the Advisory Committee, as the strategy's direction does not fully represent the interests of our members.
To paraphrase that, what they're saying is that whatever suggestions or advice they're bringing to the advisory committee, Ag Canada is going in its own direction despite that. That's why they have stepped aside.
Does the Liberal government still plan to impose the SAS on Canadian agriculture?