Agriculture Committee on Nov. 6th, 2012

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, committee, you will recall the importers and exporters who appeared before this committee—two different representatives from the industry. We were all concerned when one of the witnesses indicated that while a food commodity might be made in compliance with the legislation here in Canada, it may be excluded as an import into another country because it doesn't meet their standard specifically. They gave an example of flour, it being made in Canada fortified with I think lactic acid, which would automatically be excluded in Europe.

From our review of the legislation, we couldn't determine, frankly, whether the act itself would automatically prohibit the export of that food commodity or whether the minister, through regulation, could actually permit the production of that commodity here in Canada and it would still be allowed to be exported into that other country, notwithstanding the lack of compliance.

Because you weren't here for us to ask you, I put forward this amendment so that we might have a discussion about the opportunity to include what is really a harmless clause, but it enables the minister to say, okay, wait a minute, in this instance we will make a list of food commodities that can be made here in Canada for the purpose of export, even though they don't comply with the expectations of food commodities in Canada. In other words, we'll allow them to make non-fortified with lactic acid flour so that they can export it.

I was importing this clause really for that reason alone. It reads:

(4) Despite subsection (3), the Minister may make regulations authorizing the exportation of a prescribed food commodity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Comments?

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, my question is for the witness. Does paragraph 51(1)(c) not already provide the minister with the ability to do exactly what the amendment is asking him?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Barnes.

[Colleen Barnes, Executive Director, Domestic Policy Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The issue that has been raised flags the concern the way subclause 10(3) is written. Exports and imports would all have to comply with the Canadian regime, and that's not the case. It's only if there are regulations in place that it operates.

What we've done is, in fact, in paragraph 51(1)(e), where there is the ability—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Slow down just a second. Where?

[Colleen Barnes]

Paragraph 51(1)(e) is the regulation-making authority around exports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What page is that on? Page 22?

[Colleen Barnes]

Page 22.

Mr. Chair, in fact, we have built in that regulation-making possibility that the member flagged as a way to manage the issues around exports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Further comment?

Seeing none, I'll call the question.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, may I withdraw the amendment, given now that they've explained that it's adequately addressed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You certainly can.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Then I'll happily withdraw the amendment.

(Amendment withdrawn)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We now go to NDP-3.

Mr. Allen.

It's very similar.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

It is. Let me not read it, but simply say that I respect the fact that Ms. Barnes has told us that in paragraph 51(1)(e) it specifically talks about a regulation that can be created—not necessarily that is created, but can be.

What we were hearing from the importers and exporters is a recognition that it can be. What they're saying is that they actually want to see it explicitly in the act that it will be, not that it can be through regulation through Governor in Council—which is all wonderful, but that doesn't make it so if they decide not to do it.

Their piece was that they actually want to see it stated in the act, so that they know it is, not that it might be, because clearly this is a “might be” act when it comes to paragraph 51(1)(e). That's not saying it will be, and I look to Ms. Barnes to tell me if I'm right about that.

This is actually not creating it; it's saying they can do it. Is that correct?

[Colleen Barnes]

We can make regulations in paragraph 51(1)(e), but for subclauses 10(1), (2) and (3) to operate there would have to be regulations around exports. So there is no implication for exporters unless we make regulations.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Again, their concern was that the regulation might be something favourable to them, or it might not be. It can be an either/or in this situation. The regulation could be, “You cannot do that”, as I see it in paragraph 51(1)(e). Notwithstanding that, their position was this: “Let's just state it in the act so that we can see it.” A number of witnesses asked whether things being done in this regard, especially by reference as regulations come out, are going to be part of that process. I don't know that. I'm not asking you to actually answer to that process. That's a political piece, and that's fine. I think their intent around this issue was to say, “Let's just see it.” That's where it's at.

Notwithstanding how you've explained things, and that Mr. Valeriote has actually withdrawn his, I'm happy just to go to the vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll go right to the vote, then.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to)

(On clause 12—Possession of commodity that meets requirements of regulations)

We have amendment NDP-4.

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although I suggested that the process be a speedy one, I'm not prepared to simply withdraw stuff, even though I'm recognizing the vote count. As I've said many times before, the Glaswegian in me knows how to count.

The argument is exactly the same as it was before.

I understand the explanation, Ms. Barnes—and I appreciate it, by the way. You've been very clear on the explanation, so I don't think I actually really need to go through why I think this should be there. You have given me an answer as to why you think it's covered, and I've given my position as to why I think it needs to be explicit.

I'm prepared, Mr. Chair, to allow you to call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(Clauses 13 to 19 inclusive agreed to)

We now move to a new clause, proposed clause 19.1. There is an amendment, NDP-5.

I'll go to Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is rather an extensive piece that's added, and let me describe it. This really is what one would call whistle-blower protection, recognizing that the Criminal Code of Canada allows for that. Let me just preface it by saying that other acts within this Parliament explicitly lay out whistle-blower protection beyond what's in the Criminal Code, which is all well and good. What this is meant to do is allow employees to come forward and feel secure with this idea that they can tell inspectors things that they may not see or to let folks know why an investigation should happen, since we're talking about safe food.

In this latest crisis, there were workers who said they knew things were happening in a way that they didn't believe was right, but because they felt vulnerable...and this vulnerability can be felt in all kinds of ways, and I'm not simply identifying a temporary foreign worker; it can happen to anyone who doesn't feel they have the protection they may want. This is what this is intended to do, not to allow vexatious complaints because somebody has a grudge or a grievance against their boss, because that's not what it's intended to do. Some of these places are unionized and they have a grievance procedure and they can go through that. Most places, if they're not unionized, have policies on how to bring forth a complaint about how it's not working out so well with your boss.

This really is about saying to folks, if there is a food safety issue and you have reason to believe that you would feel comfortable coming forward and identifying it, notwithstanding the fact...you should do it anyway. The culture should be that you shouldn't have an issue with it. This should be accepted by the employer you work for. But it depends on who you're telling it to. It might be your direct supervisor who actually isn't a good person to work for, who wants you not to say things. It isn't just a question of saying, well, of course the company wants to have safe food. Of course they'll say that, and of course they should do that. Unfortunately, we know that doesn't always happen. We all wish it did. If it did, then we probably wouldn't have the incidents we have across the country, or elsewhere, for that matter.

That's the reason for laying out the whistle-blower protection. I think we should be looking at this. It's a standard model across lots of statutes that are enacted, so that folks can feel comfortable coming with a reasonable complaint, a complaint that has merit and that can be adjudicated in a fashion so that they don't feel their employment or their advancement is jeopardized, or any of the other things folks feel vulnerable about. It would be lovely to say that we all feel equal in the workplace. The reality is it's not true. There are no egalitarian workplaces in this country. Even those who are in the top 100 of the best employers in the world don't have egalitarian workforces where everybody gets an equal say. Workplaces are hierarchical by nature. Somebody has to make a decision at some point. It's not taken by a vote. If it was, they might lose that vote. We're accustomed to that.

That's the rationale for whistle-blower protection. I'm interested in hearing the other side's comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Comments?

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I understand it, there is whistle-blower protection already in place. My concern with Mr. Allen's comments, particularly as they relate to the recent incident, is that the union talked an awful lot to the media, but I've never seen anything where they actually reported on the issues regarding E. coli.

When I think about this whole process with the union, where employees are scared to talk.... The employee's job, if there is an issue, I believe, is to go to their supervisor, to the union, and the union does have an opportunity to go to CFIA. CFIA doesn't work for the company, so it seems to me there are pretty clear lines in place, and protection. If the union did not do any reporting, I would say, why didn't they, if this was such a big issue? They're totally different unions. The CFIA does not report to the management of the company. To me it is very frustrating to hear comments by the union trying to stir the pot.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Before I make a comment, I have a question, Mr. Chair.

Well, first of all, the word “employer” is not defined in the act.

I have a question for the witnesses. Have any of you worked on whistle-blower legislation in your career that was similar to this? The intent is to provide some form of protection for an employee, unionized or non-unionized, who wants to bring forward what they expect to be a violation of the act that will cause harm in some way. Have any of you worked on such legislation?