My second question relates to why there was no mandatory environmental test reporting system as well.
When you do a pilot project—and I believe the pilot project was introduced by the previous government—isn't it normal for a summary report to be done and tabled with the minister, who ultimately makes the decision on whether you move ahead with what was being piloted?
I'll let you hold that for a minute, Mr. Prince, because I do have a question that I have to get on the table. We didn't get an answer from the minister today. Maybe Mr. Evans or Ms. Swan would be able to answer this question.
On the documents I raised the question on, the verification report at the plant, 097B, these verification reports range from February 11—I have seven of them here—until August 6. All seven of them had handwritten notes put in them dated August 26, 2008. This is after 12 deaths had been confirmed. Why?
I can understand an inspector changing a report a day or two after he thinks about something else. According to the agricultural union, the inspector who signed off on the amended reports was directed to do so by his superiors at CFIA.
Why were the reports amended, and why were they amended up to five months late? And can you give us the name of the inspector who was involved?
We will be asking questions of the agricultural union as well, on this matter.
Mr. Minister, I don't think--