OTTAWA – The government’s proposal for a new food inspection agency is drawing more fire from those who will work for it and those it is supposed to help.
Everyone says they like the concept but many argue the government is going about it the wrong way.
Last week, businesses whose products will be inspected and a union which represents future agency workers appeared before MPs to warn of flaws in the government plan.
First was a coalition of food processors and manufacturers representing billions of dollars in annual sales.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
“We’re worried,” said George Fleischmann, president of Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada. “We think the new agency is a great idea but will it work as well as it must work? Not with the legislation as it is currently written.”
He denounced that senior executives of the food agency, along with a board of advisers, will be appointed by the government and will be accountable to it, rather than to businesses whose products will be inspected.
Input from business
Fleischmann urged some skeptical Liberal MPs to adopt a pro-business model used by the Conservative Ontario government. A board of directors appointed from candidates suggested by businesses would hire senior executives, manage the agency and report to the agriculture minister.
The new agency is supposed to reduce duplication by combining the inspection services of three departments into one agency, but he is worried the legislation will give Health Canada a role in assessing how well the agency enforces safety standards.
This, said Fleischmann, amounts to an invitation to Health Canada to “audit the auditors” by asserting some authority over agency inspectors who are auditing food safety systems at work in food plants.
And he worried the new bill will do too little to separate the food inspection system from the political system. Senior appointments would be made by the government and the agriculture minister would have the power to order a product recall.
“Please keep the power to issue recalls in law and away from any possible political considerations because in this act, the minister can issue recalls,” said Fleischmann. “We are not in favor of the minister so doing.”
The next day, union president Steve Hindle warned that because the food agency is being designed as an alternative service delivery rather than as a traditional government agency, it will offer its employees less protection.
The president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada also questioned the accountability of the new agency.
He suggested consolidation of services and savings proposed by the government could be better accomplished within the public service than through a new hybrid organization.
“We are of the opinion there is money to be saved by consolidating services within the public service,” he said. “The case has not been made for this new structure.”
He also questioned government claims the new agency will save $44 million annually in lower inspection costs.
“Is there really $44 million in duplication between current government departments or was this number pulled out of a hat?” Hindle asked.
Other witnesses, and some MPs, have been asking the same question.
