Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to echo some of Ms. Davies' concerns about this administrative change.
Possibly the thing that concerns me most is the lack of a requirement to report, both the financial reporting issue and the reporting of what has gone on in that year. These are important ways of being transparent and accountable not only to the public but to Parliament, to everyone, through a report. That will be gone.
I am concerned about the watering down of accountability and transparency that seems to be occurring in every part of government and in every department of government in the name of cost savings. Sometimes it's necessary to incur costs in order to keep things clearly transparent and clearly accountable. The accountability and the transparency is a big piece for me.
When you answered Ms. Davies' question on a couple of the issues that she brought forward, you said that in 1988, when this was brought about, there had been concerns even then about industry security, etc. That was 24 years ago. Can you give me examples during those 24 years where industry security has been compromised, where there is reason to believe that over the 24 years this did not work well and that there was a huge risk for industry during that time? I have to tell you, this is the first I have heard of this.
I always think that you can look for cost savings in many ways, but sometimes cost savings don't make sense. We now have an advisory committee that is going to be decided on, it says, by the department, but the minister has to rubber-stamp those. It isn't free of ministerial interference or ministerial oversight. Everything in a department has ministerial oversight. To suggest the minister will no longer be involved in it and that it will really be a department working on its own, means that people don't understand or aren't aware of how departments work, and what the minister's role is vis-à-vis a department, and what cabinet's role is vis-à-vis departments.
My concern is that the minister has had advisory boards in the past, on sodium, on issues such as high-energy drinks and trans fats. In every instance going back to 2007, ministers have completely ignored their advisory boards. My concern here is about the teeth. It's one thing to suggest that the process is going to shift and that's all, but what about the teeth that come with an independent body? This is something I am concerned about. I would like to get some answers on how you are going to put teeth in this when we've seen from past experience with this particular ministry there have been no teeth as far as ministers are concerned, and they've ignored advisory boards any time they wished.
I want to know what complaints you've had since 1988, over the last 24 years, that have told you that this system does not work and that industry security has been compromised by it.
I would really like to know how the minister's fine hand will not be seen to be apparent in all of her appointments that she is rubber-stamping, or not. There is absolutely no way that will go before a committee, as Ms. Davies pointed out, that would suggest these appointees have to be vetted etc.
One could quite easily have the fox watching the henhouse because of certain appointments. It's a case of saying, “Trust me, I'm the department. Trust me, I'm the minister.” That is not an acceptable way for a government to be run. This is not a private sector enterprise. This is a government enterprise, and therefore government has to continually be accountable. This has to be done in a way that is not only seen to be transparent, but accountability has to be real.
Those are my concerns. I'd like those pieces commented on and answered, please.
