Thanks, Chair.
Listening to the discussion, I think it would be very unwise to have two standards for whistle-blower protection. I think that's what's being advocated here.
The Criminal Code defines whistle-blower protection. It's a serious matter, and it should be a serious matter because we're talking about taking a disciplinary measure against an employee—demoting him, terminating him, otherwise adversely affecting the employment of an employee, or threatening to do so if he blows the whistle on a particular situation. It's a serious matter.
It would be unwise to embed in an act something that is whistle-blower protection but something less, because then you would have multiple definitions based on multiple acts. That's kind of what you're saying, “Well, this is different; this is food safety. We need to have something different for whistle-blower protection.” But then you could make that case for almost any act, that each act should have its own slightly different definition of whistle-blower protection. Then you could imagine the confusion—what applies when, what is the definition of whistle-blower protection, when does the Criminal Code kick in, etc.
I think, Chair, that what's in the Criminal Code is sufficient. If there is grave concern that the Criminal Code provisions are too strict, then changes should be made to the Criminal Code, which is beyond what we're doing here today. But that's where the changes should be made, so that there is, once again, a single reference in the Criminal Code as to what whistle-blower protection is offered. This idea of having multiple standards, I think, does not serve Canadians well. It's just going to lead to confusion. A few years down the line there will then be an attempt to rationalize whistle-blower protection back into one, clearly understood provision under one act or one code, such as the Criminal Code. That's why I would be against this, Chair.