Thank you for that. But I would point out to you, given that you were trying to minimize the importance of this as a health issue, I was only repeating what you said in your report. You're the one who said, with all due respect, “The Agency continues to exercise due diligence by effectively minimizing and managing public health risks associated with the food supply and transmission...”.
Those weren't my words. I'm not trying to elevate this into some kind of phony crisis. The words are the Auditor General's, and your words in there talk about it as a public health risk. But you still haven't answered my question as to why you didn't do anything when the internal report showed you something in 2003, and the original audit done in 1996. Why did it take this Auditor General's report...? What I'm hearing and what I'm seeing, quite frankly, Ms. Swan, is that if we hadn't had this Auditor General's report and all you had was the DPR to determine what this department is doing, everything's fine, except for a few minor problems.
I still haven't heard an adequate answer as to why the agency ignored a 2003 review and the 1996 audit. What assurance should we take that you're really going to do it this time, when you obviously promised in the past you were going to do it and didn't?