Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses and wish to add my voice to that of my colleague to congratulate them. The solutions they are proposing today are very enlightening.
All the parties are working together during this study and I’m looking forward with great interest to seeing the recommendations this committee will make in its report.
What the witnesses have told us today is nothing new. The problems are well known. We’re looking for solutions. In this connection, we have heard a great deal about the need to change the culture within regulatory agencies. In my opinion, we need to change their mandates. I looked at that a few days ago. Under their mandate, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are already required to consider the economic impacts of their decisions, and so I think there’s a need to be a bit more ambitious and a bit more specific, and that’s why I’d like to thank Mr. Tyler McCann for his recommendations. He brought up a number of points that other stakeholders have already raised.
Mr. McCann, I’m going to go back to your second and third recommendations. You spoke about the agile regulatory table, whose goals have yet to come to fruition. Indeed, it has identified 150 irritants, but what has been done about these irritants? The proposed solutions lack clarity and ambition.
There was a proposal to transform the agile regulatory table into an actual organization, empower it to make recommendations, and give it very strict 30-day deadlines to resolve issues effectively. There is also the issue of creating the position of an ombud that can intervene if things don’t move fast enough.
Could you give some more details about these recommendations?