TO SAY THAT the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has a poor reputation for its communications “skills” is akin to saying the sun rises every day over Newfoundland first in Canada.
It is self-evident, as the slave-owning founders of the American republic said about the proposition that all men (women, back of the line) were created equal.
So it was no great surprise when the Canadian Association of Journalists recently awarded CFIA its “Code of Silence” award for performance on the listeria file last year.
Access to information requests for Maple Leaf Foods inspection records often took more than half a year to produce. CFIA was seen as less than forthcoming in informing the public.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
It is true that the journalism culture of “I need that damning information now!” and the bureaucratic culture of covering bases and vetting potentially damaging information are bound to clash.
But even in that context, CFIA has a communications problem.
Recent Parliament Hill hearings into the listeria issue and food safety were a classic example of an unfair fight.
The inspectors’ union, the agricultural union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, ran circles around the agency, setting the agenda, feeding media with stories that framed the narrative and generally leaving the CFIA on the defensive.
Did I mention that PSAC’s media shop is a tiny fraction of CFIA’s communications bureaucracy?
But they understood reporters’ need for a story, a relatively simple message and timely delivery.
They also had an easier message to sell to media and public skeptical of government and looking for someone to blame for 22 deaths and hundreds of illnesses – Conservative cuts, underfunding, increased company responsibility for inspection and a reduction of inspectors on the floor were contributors to the crisis.
CFIA responded with lines about chemical and scientific analysis, changing contamination-fighting strategies and denials that inspector staffing was an issue.
For folks unfamiliar with the day-to-day of the food industry, it looked fishy. Add to that a CFIA assertion that industry, rather than the regulator, has the frontline responsibility for food safety and the makings of a public relations disaster were born.
Then the union exploited the situation brilliantly with leaks to urban journalists and pre-event allegations that set the stage for questions to CFIA and framed the subsequent narrative.
Before CFIA officials appeared on a Monday, PSAC issued a news release that challenged agency assertions. CFIA did not respond unless the media asked.
The union commissioned a public opinion poll that said (surprise) Canadians “place food safety trust in government” rather than industry. The real question is where they found almost 14 percent of Canadians who said they trust food companies the most.
PSAC surveyed its members and found (surprise) the inspectors felt they were under-staffed and resourced.
All of these findings were reported, put the CFIA on the defensive and gave ammunition to opposition MPs determined to find the government at fault.
The agency looked blankly into the publicity headlights and said mistakes were made but trust us. It wasn’t a fair fight.
