Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony today.
Obviously, AgriRecovery is a new approach, founded in 2007 and working hand in hand with the provinces to try to find better ways to serve. I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Allen's assessment that the federal government needs to be the crusading person. What I think most of my constituents would like to see is all governments working hand in hand.
My understanding from the testimony here today is that it is a framework, so that when a disaster happens, both the federal and the provincial governments, and any other relevant authorities, work together to try to find a way to mitigate damage and to make sure that we have a strong stable food supply but that we also have a growing economy. There's only one taxpayer, so I don't think the constituents in my riding really care if it's the federal government or the provincial government leading the charge, as long as the results are assured.
Mr. Auditor General, thank you for coming in. I have a few questions in regard to the survey.
I'm really rather confused, because in paragraph 8.16 regarding the 9-month target, it says quite clearly:
We examined whether the Department had met its payment target and found that it had. The Department met its 9-month target for 84 percent of initiatives”. Your report also found that the communications efforts “work well after an AgriRecovery initiative is approved.
I'm very happy to hear some of these things, but what gets me is that about one third of the surveyed food producers.... By “food producers”, it's not the actual farmers who use the program but the industry associations, is that not correct? Or am I wrong in that?