Thanks very much. Thank you for coming.
I have a concern with the reasonable and probable grounds issue. It sounds like the CFIA does have the power to act on reasonable and probable grounds but in this situation did not. They were waiting for the lab tests to come back. I have a concern that it shouldn't be a culture thing. Public health officers choose to operate on reasonable and probable grounds in order to protect the interests of the public, but CFIA for some reason decided not to do that until they got the lab tests back. That surely should be determined long before an outbreak. I had thought that this was written down in FIORP, in the Foodborne Illness Outbreak Response Protocol, that one would have rules about this, not just feelings or culture about this.
I am concerned, having heard the testimony from Lynn Wilcott, who said that during routine food recalls, when there are no illnesses involved, a good working relationship, good communication, with CFIA is possible, but where things seem to go off the rails, he said, is during recalls where there are illnesses involved or potential for illnesses, or potential adverse publicity, or even prior to recall when we as a province are doing an illness outbreak investigation. He said that in examples like that CFIA becomes very reluctant to share information openly and freely.
I wondered if you had any other experience in terms of the reluctance of CFIA to operate on reasonable and probable grounds, and why they waited to get the lab tests back if indeed there is a protocol and they have the power to act when there is the potential for trouble.