Agriculture committee  I don't have quite the crystal ball Brian does, but I'd say that I would hope so. From last year to now, in certain areas, they've improved. The positive requirement for a plan to report and the clarity around that and the requirement for third party labs to submit results back to CFIA are very important steps.

Agriculture committee  Absolutely. Absolutely.

Agriculture committee  The workload that's given to the staff right now is at a point where it's always a matter of what you aren't doing today. There's just no way you can get all of your job done, so you have to cut corners and make choices about what you can't do. You always try to do that in a risk-based perspective, but at the end of the day, there are parts of the program that just can't be delivered.

Agriculture committee  Well, it's hard to say. Where are we today? We have better technology—again, living within your means. If you'd walked into a federally inspected plant a few decades ago, there were inspectors all over the place in every aspect of the production of the products, and you don't see that now in any way, shape, or form.

Agriculture committee  Given the strength of that recommendation in the report, I don't see how it couldn't happen, quite frankly. That same sentiment was what brought about the creation of CFIA, for those of us who were around. I know there are several at the table who will remember all that. Departments, they're territorial by nature.

Agriculture committee  Given the current resource level, it would be impossible to increase ad hoc inspections. You're talking about a simple process where the inspector shows up unannounced, walks through the plant, gets a general overview of what's going on, can look at a few records and do spot-checks.

Agriculture committee  Without knowing exactly who said what to her, I can only speculate. But yes, it's certainly possible.

Agriculture committee  No, that would be unfair. I couldn't. I've had a couple of discussions with the gentleman, but it wouldn't be fair for me to try to figure out why he made that comment.

Agriculture committee  Well, I guess it depended on what question you asked. For example, 3,200 is the total number of a category, a classification known as EG. All of the people in CFIA who are part of the technical category come under that 3,200 number. Whether they're working on soil sampling for golden nematode, certifying log houses leaving the country, or working in a lab somewhere testing seed germination, they all come under that 3,200.

Agriculture committee  I don't think I'll be needing 10 minutes. Since the report came out and since the inquiry and this body of inquiry took place, quite frankly, given what CFIA have to work with, I think they've made a Herculean effort to bring about the technological changes asked for. I think if you look at their history, though, you'll find that's an ongoing practice.

Subcommittee on Food Safety committee  No. First of all, the people who work in meat hygiene are less likely to have that crossover than most, unless it's a crossover with animal health. In meat hygiene, the people who work in plants are, among CFIA inspectors, the least likely to be cross-utilized with a totally other program.

Subcommittee on Food Safety committee  Absolutely.

Subcommittee on Food Safety committee  Of course.

Subcommittee on Food Safety committee  First of all, it would be rare. Second of all, there's a tracking mechanism for every single inspector wherein there's a breakdown of the percentage of time they spend in every program. I used to sign those documents. Some places do them for the year, some places do them on a month-by-month basis, but in the corner of the expense claims and time sheets for each inspector, there's a breakdown by percentage of how much time they spend in every single program.

Subcommittee on Food Safety committee  Visual pre-operation inspection checks are a part of CVS. They weren't being done at the time. That is where such things as improperly cleaned machinery come to light. Now—