Just before I leave this, for the edification of colleagues on committee, the departmental performance report of 2007-08 provides a chart on page 18. It goes through all their previous performance and what they had hoped to achieve in 2007-08, and in at least half of them they did not meet their goal.
Some of them are very disconcerting: for instance, things like the extent to which the agency data indicate the entry of new regulated diseases and pests into Canada. The target was no entry of new regulated diseases and pests through regulated pathways. In 2007-08, there were three; in 2006-07, there were two entries; and in 2005-06 there were four entries. So four, two, three...at best they're holding. They don't seem to be getting far on that one.
With regard to change in the presence of plant diseases or pests beyond the regulated area, in 2005-06 there was some increase, in 2006-07 there was some increase, and in 2007-08 there was increase. Performance met? No, it hasn't been met for the last year.
Now these—and I'll just do it quickly, Chair—are a number that talk about the compliance rate they expect from industries that are regulated; for instance, “Extent to which bulk-blend fertilizers comply with efficacy standards and fertilizer-pesticide samples tested, comply with safety standards (non-biotechnology product)”. I don't pretend to understand that, but I'm assuming it's important or they wouldn't be measuring it. And it's in the category of “Industry complies with federal acts and regulations concerning Canada's crops and forests”. Again, in 2005-06, 82%, then 78%, and now 83%. Their target was 95%.
Am I done completely?