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.