Agriculture Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Karen Proud]

That's not my understanding. When we get member requests come into the office, we don't know who all these entities are. We submit those to our membership to verify that these individuals who apply for membership qualify within one of the classes of our membership.

It's possible that someone slips in who shouldn't be a member. We would rectify that and remove their membership if it was brought to our attention in that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Perron, you have five minutes.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to stay on that topic, Ms. Proud.

You said that an entity's membership would be revoked if they weren't entitled to that membership. Section 2.01(b) of the bylaws, which Ms. Dandurand just quoted, really says that associations can join, unless I'm misunderstanding what's written there.

I wonder why membership wouldn't be available to associations. My position on this won't surprise anyone, since we've already talked about it. We feel this poses a major risk to small farmers. You said so yourself, when you gave the United Kingdom as an example. In the first few months, no one talked to the adjudicator, because they feared a lack of confidentiality and security.

Now you're saying associations can't join the code, that they can't defend their own members, when we know these members don't have any legal experts or lawyers on the payroll, unlike large retailers.

Moreover, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the informal process for systemic issues hasn't been fleshed out and that it doesn't need to be.

Then, how can farmers trust the code? It doesn't even exist yet. Sure, they might trust it in a year, but at the moment, very few of the hundred or so members who have joined the code are farmers, and that worries me a lot. Confidence is essential.

[Karen Proud]

I don't disagree that it is challenging for those who don't want to bring forward complaints because of concerns about confidentiality. We are trying very hard to make the processes such that people feel comfortable bringing issues.

I did not make the decision that associations cannot be members of the code. In the way the code is written, it is very clear that the code applies to retailers and their suppliers. It doesn't apply to associations.

The bylaws, as they are written, are also very clear that associations may be interim members, but as soon as we move to finalize things, they will no longer be members. That's the way the governance was developed before my office was created.

To your point, we are trying to make the system as simple as possible, so that producers, suppliers and others can access it without the requirements of legal counsel. It's not meant to be an onerous, legal process with lots of red tape. Those who designed the process wanted it to be very similar to what they have in the U.K., which is a light-touch approach. The approach in the U.K. is exactly the same as the approach as the one we're using here.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I get what you're saying, Ms. Proud, but I don't understand why it's like that.

I urge you to go look at the bylaw. Maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it. You could send us a written explanation of section 2.01(b), which states that associations can join. It's on the Canada grocery code website, and yet, you say that's not true, that your bylaws are clear. Maybe I got my information from the wrong place, but I urge you to go look at that section and send us a written explanation. It really says “associations”.

I don't understand how the process could be negatively impacted if associations were allowed to join. Did the large retailers refuse to let associations join? Associations will act in good faith, just like all other code members. I don't see the logic.

[Karen Proud]

I don't know how the decision came about as to who was or wasn't in the code. I wasn't part of the conversation at the time. The associations still have a very important role to play, and they can still represent their members to the office. I'm not sure what membership would provide to an association that doesn't currently exist in the structure we've created.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I'm not trying to put you in a difficult position, Ms. Proud, but you know how important confidence and independence are. I like you and I trust you, and I think the other committee members do as well. That's important.

That said, a few small producers told me separately they'd received an email from your office that went to both them and distributors. They got worried and started questioning whether you really were impartial. I hope you'll say you are. I think you are.

First, could you tell us about that email?

Second, have you established a process that would allow for positions or processes to be adjusted?

[Karen Proud]

Our office is completely impartial. I'm aware of the email that you were referring to. I believe that's been misconstrued. I had asked one of the associations to put me in touch with some of their members who represented the grower communities, because, as I said in my opening, we want to consult with them. That association took it upon themselves to send my email out and copy me. It wasn't my direct request, but I was happy that they were engaging with their members to try to get me more associations to speak to. I think the intent behind that was misconstrued.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much for joining us today. We look forward to seeing you again in the future.

We're going to suspend now for a few minutes while we change the panel. We will be going in camera, so please, everyone besides staff or MPs will have to leave the room.

[Proceedings continue in camera]