We need a more detailed description of what you mean by an independent agency. I heard you discussing privatization. I am convinced that that was pleasing to our colleagues opposite, and to the government. I am worried about food safety and population health. To myself as well as many other people whom I meet either in Quebec or elsewhere, this is not just another ordinary business.
Earlier I heard you say that according to your polls, people were not ready to pay more for more inspections. I do not know what kind of questions were put to them in these polls, but I always felt that this was a top priority for people, not only for themselves but also for their children and their families. We must preserve public confidence in our system of food protection and food safety. Otherwise, we will lose much money, and this is your hobby-horse. I think that it is worth paying the cost.
You said that we do not need more inspections. However, you wrote an article in September 2008 in which you said that in Canada, there is a lack of ability to trace the ingredients that go into the composition of imported products. I see that this contradicts the fact that you tell us that we do not need more inspections, because you have written that we are not really able to find out what goes into the composition of those products. If we do not do more inspections, how can we find that out? This is my question.
I note a further contradiction. In your presentation, you said that the agency must not intervene directly with the public. This is my free translation of what you said in English. I am giving you an opportunity to explain this. In an article that was published in the daily newspaper La Presse on March 29, 2009, I found the following passage, which I quote:
In normal times, the CFIA must be seen as a public educator. Thus, when there is a crisis, people go to the agency to get their information. However, only 5% of those who answered our poll went to the CFIA website to get information about the recalls.
I see that this contradicts what you said earlier, when you said that it is not up to the agency to intervene directly with the public. At the same time, you are saying that the agency should be more proactive in intervening with the public.
I would like to hear your comments.