Thank you, everyone, for being here.
My question is going to go back and forth between the action plan you've given and the notes the Auditor General has. In May 2008, the Auditor General examined whether the Public Health Agency had obtained, analyzed, and disseminated the information needed to respond to the threats. The audit specifically observed that there were no clear roles and responsibilities defined. The Auditor General's office just now said these are weaknesses since 1999. I can appreciate that this was Health Canada and then the agency was created.
Why is this action plan not robust enough, in terms of how it is really not addressing some of the issues the Auditor General has raised? For example, you said you had a senior surveillance adviser. How does that manage the risk the Auditor General is talking about? For example, how does that surveillance officer obtain information, from where will he or she obtain information, how will they analyze it, how will they disseminate it, how will they work with the provincial, territorial, and municipal partners? Where are the roles and responsibilities?
I know I have a lot of questions in there, but the question is addressed to the Public Health Agency. If the Auditor General's office could, in the response they give, tell me that's robust enough, then I'll go with that.
Thanks.