Let me start with Mr. Lemieux's assertion that it should only be in one place. I'd suggest that the government talk to the Competition Bureau, because they actually have whistle-blower protection in their act. It's already there. The government should know that it already has a double standard. It has already created it, and perhaps it should just be extended.
It's not actually a double standard, in my view. The Criminal Code always has a higher threshold, as it should, because you're talking about potentially incarcerating people. The standard should always be higher than what is basically an employment law piece. We're talking about losing your job, not committing a crime against someone by beating them up or threatening to take away their first child. None of those things is actually happening.
This is about losing employment or losing the opportunity within your employment, of perhaps getting a promotion if you do something or say something. It isn't one dimensional. It's not about a unionized place; it's about any establishment across the country, big or small, whether it be one or two employees.
For those of us who have worked in employment law, from whatever perspective, as lawyers, representatives, advocates of any description, we all know that 99.9% of the time these cases never go before the courts. There is usually a counter claim in the court by the employer, who hires a better lawyer who costs more than yours—it costs you a whole whack of money—and you settle out of court for a sum of money based on how many years you've worked there. Those are the deals that are cut across this land all of the time. I know that because I used to do it for a living. That's how it works, friends; it's no different from that.
The fact is that the government already has a whistle-blower protection act inside the Competition Bureau act. This simply does the same thing.
To Mr. Lemieux's point that it doesn't lay it out, it actually does lay out how it would happen.
The intent here is to recognize that we're not talking about the threshold of indictable offence, where you would have to go before the crown prosecutor and convince the prosecutor you had enough evidence yourself. It's you, as an individual, who has to bring the evidence forward to convince the crown to actually pursue something, who would then look for more evidence. It's an extremely high threshold to try to match.
That's why the intent of this is to say that the reality of the workplace is that the threshold for the protection should be lower, not higher. Indeed, the Criminal Code is in effect, and if we were to get to the point where, heaven forbid, the employer took action that would be an indictable offence, then the crown should move appropriately. No one denies that shouldn't happen. But what we are talking about here are the everyday occurrences inside a workplace that aren't necessarily organized. They have their own mechanism.
To Mr. Bouwer's point that the “CFIA would take seriously”, we absolutely agree with you, sir. This is not what this is about. This isn't about them not taking it seriously when someone comes forward. We absolutely agree that this is exactly how they act. We respect the fact that they do, and we admire them for that. This has nothing to do with saying that the CFIA isn't doing something. They will do what they need to do based on the information they have at their disposal, whether it be them personally or someone coming to them.
The idea of this protection is to make sure people will come forward freely, knowing they won't find themselves in the bog and the maze of the court system. The vast majority of folks don't want to go to court. They don't. I don't know anybody, other than a lawyer or a judge, who actually wants to go to court, ever. If you're going to court, it's not a good thing. You're going because you're a complainant or a defendant, so you're either trying to win something or you're trying to defend against something that's happening to you. If it goes to court, it means the fight is on. If you don't go to court, the employer has relented and said, “You know, we shouldn't have done what we did. We apologize for that and we back away.”
If you're in court, they're not about to lie down in front of the court and say mea culpa, mea culpa. They're not going to lie down. They're going to go to the court with their boots on and say, let's take on the fight, which in the business is called the judicial chill. There are ways to get employees not to go to court. There are ways to make sure you don't go to court. Usually it's about dragging it for as long as you humanly possibly can, costing the other side a small fortune, and backing away.
The fact is we've heard there aren't that many instances where this actually goes to court. I know Ms. Adair said there were none, but she may just be talking about this particular case of food safety. There may be other instances across the land where it did happen. The fact that there aren't reference materials where you can point to hundreds of instances tells me either that things happen in a way that everybody's really nice to one another and accepts people when they complain—and I say that with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek because we all know that's not true. The court system clearly affords the protection, but it doesn't make people feel comfortable enough to actually use it, otherwise we would see them go forward knowing they have the full protection of the court system.
The standard is too high. At the end of the day, it is a court process where you need to have enough information, enough evidence—not even information, but enough evidence—for which the standard is higher to get a conviction. This is a way to mitigate that issue: by saying the standard of the court system, appropriate as it is, should be left alone. This is about saying the reality of workplace employment law is a much different standard from the standard of criminal court proceedings. That's why this should be included.
Clearly, as my colleague Madame Brosseau said, that's why we feel very strongly about this particular piece. We need to understand the realities of what people face, not the wonderful intents of what the Criminal Code says is your protection. That's the reason to do this. If we intend to actually make things better, this is a way to potentially do that, in our view. It isn't a way to get in the way, to make it cumbersome, or to slow the process down. This is a way to try to enhance the process so that people will feel free to come forward without feeling there's retribution, and without having the standard of saying, “Well, there was retribution and now I have to go to court to prove it”, which makes it immensely difficult for folks in general at any particular time.
I would hope my friends across the way would think twice about it. I haven't really asked a question. I don't really need any clarification from them. They're free to offer it, obviously. I would never suggest you shouldn't. I've simply stated what we believe is the need to have it done.
The other side may want to ask a question of you, but clearly, with the greatest of respect to all three of you, you don't get an opportunity to vote. I'm really looking at the other side, albeit I am addressing you. I'm looking at the other side for their vote, and through you. I appreciate, by the way, the work you've done on this bill, in the sense of laying it out.
As you can see, we have a lot more yeas than we do amendments, to the scope I think of about ten or twenty to one. They're all positive, by the way. There are things you've done that we're trying to enhance, not actually take away. If you'll notice, there really isn't anything here that takes away something you've done. It's to add to it and hopefully make it a better piece of legislation.
I look to the other side to see if we've maybe corralled a vote or two. We only need one; two would be wonderful; all of them would be even better.
Thank you, Chair.