THE POLITICAL battle is heating up over whether to hold a public inquiry into last year’s listeriosis outbreak that killed 22 people.
That’s too bad because contrary to claims by government and opposition parties, which accuse one another of trying to make political hay over the issue of an inquiry, such hearings give Canadians their best chance at depoliticizing food safety issues. That is critical if we are to find sound, unbiased solutions.
Since the listeriosis crisis occurred last year, food safety has become a political lightning rod.
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
On June 18, a parliamentary investigation by the sub-committee on food safety issued a report from its majority opposition party members calling for an inquiry.
The report makes recommendations about revamping Canada’s food safety regulations, reviewing Canadian Food Inspection Agency resources and more independence for Canada’s chief public health officer.
But the report’s cornerstone is its call for a public inquiry.
That is viewed in some circles as purely political – opposition party attempts to sully the Conservative reputation. In that regard, opposition parties, especially the Liberals, had best tread lightly. The food safety system of today is largely a product of Liberal government policies of the 1990s.
The Conservative minority on the sub-committee released a dissenting report and said an inquiry is not necessary because adequate steps have been taken.
Those include the government’s appointment of an independent investigator, whose report is due in July. The Conservatives also said many in-house reviews have already been conducted and recommendations are being implemented.
The problem with these measures is lack of transparency.
The investigation by former head of the Edmonton health authority Sheila Weatherill is promising, but falls short.
Weatherill must report to government, which raises questions about the arms-length aspect of the review. She also lacks judicial powers to force witnesses to testify.
Because hers is a government appointment, will the public accept her recommendations as nonpolitical? A public inquiry is immune to these questions.
An inquiry may be greeted by public apathy but inquiries are not about popularity. They are designed to study situations and events, the factors that caused them, and make recommendations to prevent future disasters.
Questions an inquiry could answer:
- Are proper meat safety protocols in place?
- Do inspectors properly audit sanitation procedures in processing plants?
- Is it effective to have private inspectors conduct most of the on-floor work and government inspectors oversee that work?
- Are there enough inspectors?
- Do various agencies have workable plans to achieve a quicker initial response to crises?
- Have all the holes in the meat safety net been mended?
- Is Canada’s food safety system up to the challenges of the next 10 years?
A public inquiry can assure increasingly skeptical consumers that their food is safe.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
