Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me start this way, Ms. Weatherill. As an individual, a former minister, who has gone before a public inquiry and has spent many hours before a public inquiry and come out clear at the end of the day, I think this investigation just doesn't get there. Now, that's not your fault, and I accept your word that you will do the best you can do. I sincerely believe you in that and I do believe you will come up, as you said, with reasons why it happened and how it happened.
But there's a broader concern here. We live in a system of government that is supposed to hold and accept ministerial responsibility. This investigation doesn't go there. I would say to the government members, in terms of the ministerial responsibility, that it cuts both ways. Yes, it can be found that you erred, or also it can be found that you didn't err—the error was somewhere else in the system and you no longer have to deal with that cloud over your head, which I will admit is a relief when it happens.
I think we've determined from the discussion here today that you really have no way of assessing political responsibility in terms of your investigation. I submit to you—I go back to my original point—that I am worried that you are being used in a way so we don't have to deal with the question of the involvement of the PMO or the minister's officer. I say that in all sincerity, and there are questions around there.
The other point—let's make clear—that we've determined thus far today is that you do not have the power to subpoena witnesses; you depend on goodwill. You do not have the legal authorization to demand documents, although you do believe you're getting full cooperation. One of the people who is indicating to you that you are getting full cooperation is the minister himself; he said so before this committee on February 10. The fact of the matter is that he's the minister who should be under investigation.
So there are some concerns here, so let's be honest and just lay them on the table.
Now, here's just a note of caution, going forward, on the agencies you're involved with, and we'll leave the minister and the PMO alone.
I would suggest you maybe read the minutes of this committee. I hope it doesn't get political. This is a committee to look at the food safety issue. I am very, very, very concerned. I can't express enough concern about the statements that were made by the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on Monday. In my view there was an attempt...and I quote her: “It is quite clearly industry's fundamental responsibility to produce safe food”. I would caution you in your discussions with the agencies that they not try to transfer blame to the industry. Michael McCain has taken a lot of responsibility, yes, indeed. In my view there's a higher authority in this country that is responsible for food safety in this country, and that's the government, its various institutions, and its ministers. I just express to you a word of caution in that regard. Do not allow the agencies to transfer blame to the industry, because Michael McCain was the only face we had out there at the time accepting responsibility in assuring Canadians on public safety. I just raise that as a note of comment.
My question to you is about your secretariat, and I know people are seconded or not. Can you assure us at least that in your secretariat your investigations, people being seconded are not from areas of the federal government that are directly under potential implication here? Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada, Canadian Public Health Agency, CFIA, Industry Canada, the Prime Minister's Office, and the Privy Council Office are all in one way or another implicated here. Do you have any staff from those offices that you know of? You may not know, and I'm not going to force you to it, but could you get back to us on this, if you don't?