Evidence of meeting #56 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
So we're saying in proposed subsection (2) that the information collected under that process in proposed subsection (1), which is the flight data recorder, I'm presuming, “may not be used in the taking of any measure, or in any proceedings, against the operator, the operator’s crew members or...persons employed...by the operator for a contravention of this Act”.
This is referring to the act. This isn't referring to the employer being able to discipline employees.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
No. A contravention of the act is the minister not taking action against a person because of a contravention of the act. But the employer is required not to take disciplinary procedures against its own employees there. The employee is protected by proposed subsection (3), which we're putting there.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Proposed subsection (3). If an operator is charged with flight safety, and they get information on a flight data recorder that employees are not operating in a safe manner, why wouldn't you want them to be able to take disciplinary action against those employees?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Mr. Bell, they have collective agreements in which they have conditions by which disciplinary procedures can be taken or not taken according to their collective agreements. And the union wanted this to be reflected.
So here, where it says, “except in accordance with any conditions that are established” in relation to that process, those are the conditions. If in a collective agreement it's clearly spelled out that if an individual does something two or three times that he was trained or recommended or actually asked not to do again, and he does it again, there could be some of what we call just culture discipline in accordance with the conditions. And in their collective agreement, they have that. So there is no danger there.
It's just that to allow people to come forward and use that and accept that it be used, they want to make sure that if they commit an error-based violation or something like that, they are not going to be jumped on by the employer immediately. But the collective agreement applies.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
That's correct.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Monsieur Laframboise, before I identify Mr. Jean, from your comments--and I think Mr. Reinhardt agreed--a friendly amendment might take out “The holder of a Canadian aviation document” and replace it with “The operator of aircraft”. Am I correct in saying that?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
That is correct.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
So the words “a holder of a Canadian aviation document” will be replaced by “an operator of aircraft”.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
“The operator of an aircraft”, oui.
Are there any other comments? Mr. Jean.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I think it's a friendly amendment, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Again, this is an amendment put forward by ALPA and ACPA in relation to making sure the minister would consult with the operator's employees who are affected by the agreement before entering into it. It's fairly straightforward and it was recommended by several witnesses.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Just so I understand, Mr. Chairman, we're not necessarily talking here about operators who have a SMS. They may or may not have SMS. Am I correct?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Proposed section 5.394--we're now into the flight data analysis agreements section of this vast section of the bill--could involve an operator who has an SMS or operators who don't have SMS. Is that correct?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Correct. But most likely at that level, Mr. Bélanger--that type of equipment is so expensive--it's a commercial operator with a SMS.
5:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
It could be.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I have a final question to close the door on the SMS section of this. It's something I had brought up, Mr. Chairman. If you'll allow me a question, I hope not to digress too long.
In one of the discussions I had with our witnesses, there was a wish expressed that flight inspectors periodically sit in when there are meetings between the employer and the employees on the administration of SMS. I don't believe that has been included anywhere. I want to confirm that. I'm not sure it needs to be included in the law, but given that we do have a report stage, perhaps it could happen then. I just want to understand if I'm correct on that.
I want to address that question to Mr. Reinhardt--we've had this discussion--to see if there was a conclusion to that.
Mr. Reinhardt.
5:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes, I remember that discussion, Mr. Bélanger. We said it would be appropriate to put that in the assessment protocol that Transport Canada has with respect to SMS, to allow inspectors to sit with the employees and the employer as part of the assessment for SMS.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Am I hearing a commitment on the part of Transport Canada to include a requirement in its assessment protocol of SMS that periodically our flight inspectors sit in on meetings between the employer and the employees under that SMS umbrella? Is that what I'm hearing?