Let me begin by saying that we absolutely agree that 34% is not an acceptable number.
As Mr. Kennedy said earlier this week, we take a risk-based approach to these things, so while it is mandatory, we are targeting those we feel need it the most.
With respect to the number, we have a fair number of transients and students, so if we take out those people who are with the agency for less than three months—because we have surge work during the summer, and other things—that number jumps to 59%. That's still not acceptable—we would agree—but it's higher.
With respect to our inspectors, virtually every inspector who has gone through our prep training before heading out into the field—so, 100% of those—have, after graduating probation, gone through values and ethics training, including the issue of fraud.
With respect to our 1,300 delegated managers who are responsible for signing, they have all had to, again, complete the delegation training, which includes a module on values and ethics.
When we look at some of the areas where we feel there is greatest risk, then I have a certain degree of confidence to share with the committee that we have a number significantly above the 34%. Again, as I said in my opening, that's still not acceptable. That's why, at the beginning of this fiscal year, we wrote into all of my executives' management contracts that mandatory means mandatory, and it is part of their performance objectives to make sure we achieve that.
We will be following up. We are approaching the six-month, mid-year review to give them feedback. We have a quarterly report that is shared with us at the management table to ensure that we are actually doing what we said we would do.
The final thing I would share with the committee in terms of confidence is that we take this very seriously, beyond just the mandatory training. Within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we have an inspector general's office, whose role is to take a look at the work of inspectors to make sure that, when presented with this information, they take the same or consistent action. That's a way for us to see if somebody is taking action that looks a little different from what would be the norm. In the same way we would mine our procurement data for variabilities that would be flags that there is something a bit off, we look at what our inspectors are doing to make sure they are behaving in a consistent manner.
So, I certainly agree that 34% is not where we need to be. We'll be taking action to increase that number. However, we have been focusing on those areas that are at greater risk. We have also made it mandatory in terms of the performance agreements of our executives, and we will be following up with them to make sure this number is moving up significantly and quickly.