One drawback to the whole announce-an-inquiry/investigation-(public- or-otherwise)-to-push-a-scandal- onto-the-backburner strategy of damage control. . .

I was trying to figure out why the whole question of independent investigators vs. commissions of inquiry vis a vis subpoena powers kept tickling my memory, and finally figured it out: the Brown Report into the RCMP pension scandal. He, too, was an “independent investigator” and concerns were raised over whether he would be able to do his job without being able to compel documents or testimony. According to Brown himself, who testified before the Public Accounts committee, those concerns turned out to be unfounded; he got everything that he requested, although as David Christopherson pointed out at the same meeting, he didn’t end up adding much to the body of knowledge already assembled by the committee, which does, of course, have the power to compel witnesses and the production of documents. If the PM’s independent investigation into the outbreak doesn’t get underway soon, perhaps the Agriculture and Agri-food committee can hold its own hearings into the events of last summer.

“rogue corparatism”

You mean the same rogueness that produced millions of tons of meat to millions of customers for decades and decades without incident.

Or the rogueness that provided returns to shareholders (perhaps even your aunt, or granny [in the form of a portion of mutual fund or pension] …gasp, aunti may be involved in this rogueness!!!????

Or the rogueness that employed thousands over the decades, providing steady jobs and income for their families?

Oh what a wonderful world we would be without such corporations, living on idyllic government collectives, working two hour days in our government controlled paradise, with goods and services provided by the state (of a far superior quality no doubt, and for free!!).

I suspect the reason why this investigator hasn’t been appointed yet was an election, followed by a cabinet shuffle, followed by a Parliamentary crisis. That’s not a good enough reason, though — he or she should have been appointed with in 2 weeks of the PM’s announcement.

It’s not just the 20 deaths — though that justifies an investigation on its own. It’s also the fact that this listeriosis outbreak coincided with a major change in oversight protocol by the CFIA — which many inspectors have risked their jobs to say is not an adequate oversight protocol.

Doesn’t anyone remember the tainted tuna scandal back in 1985? That led to a minister resigning even though no one apparently got sick, much less died from it. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunagate ). How can anyone justify a lesser reaction to a much more serious incident?