I want to go, actually, to a comment my colleague Dr. Duncan made earlier. Her comment was about needing more numbers, and quite honestly all sides over there are talking that. They are questioning the numbers and saying how important is it to have more inspectors.
In 2005, in the previous government—and I know you weren't here, Ms. Duncan, at that time, but some people on that other side actually were here—mandatory testing and reporting by CFIA was cancelled. As a result, Maple Leaf Foods was not required to submit its environmental test to CFIA in the months leading up to the outbreak. For three months before the outbreak, Maple Leaf Foods collected periodic positive environmental test results for listeria but were not required to submit, were not required because it had been cancelled. As a result, CFIA was not informed of the listeria problem in the Maple Leaf Foods plant.
Since April 1, 2009, plant operators must now conduct environmental testing and immediately report any positive listeria results to CFIA. This new policy, which was brought in in 2009, also adds that additional environmental and end-product testing be done. I don't know, Dr. Butler-Jones, or to the CFIA, whether that actually would have stopped it. I'm certainly listening to what Maple Leaf has said, but I guess what I'm wondering about is whether this is a reality in terms of that change.
Secondly, quite honestly, we heard the same comments during our discussions at the subcommittee, about the union always saying more people needed to be hired. I understand that's what their objective is, but I'm wondering now what this conflict is in terms of not having enough people, when actually the former government cancelled a lot of the testing that had to be done. Can you talk to me just a little bit about the significance of the numbers we have? Actually, this new protocol that was brought in in 2009, does it have value?