If I can just recreate a set of circumstances here, I'm employed at a food processing plant. I'm concerned about the activities of somebody, activities that I think are leaning towards violating the legislation. I want to blow the whistle. I talk to somebody in advance of doing that because I'm afraid for my job. They say to me, “Frank, you're protected already because the Criminal Code says that if you blow the whistle and anything happens to you, that person can be charged.” Right? Charged. That's a big deal—charged.
On the other hand, I go to somebody and ask them and they say, “You know what? The legislation was changed. You can blow the whistle and they may not charge that person, but you are protected under this legislation, which is non-criminal legislation.” You can clarify that for me, but it's non-criminal legislation. In other words, if there's a violation, it's not a criminal act. It gives that person some comfort to know that they've got the protection of legislation that doesn't force upon the violator a criminal conviction. That's number one.
Number two, under the Criminal Code, they would have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt—you can correct me if I'm wrong—that the person violated the Criminal Code, which is a high threshold, as opposed to this legislation that's proposed, which is on the balance of probabilities, which I believe is a lower threshold, such as more than a 50% chance.
Given what I see already as a conflict in this very legislation between the need to promote trade—and I honour that—and not, for instance, to stop a plant that's processing 4,000 head a day through some vexatious claim, and on the other hand the need for food safety, would you not think that a person should at least have the protection of non-criminal legislation so that they could go to somebody and say they have reasonable grounds to believe that something is going on and it should be checked out, so that at least at that level, food safety comes first and not necessarily trade?
There are two questions there.