Evidence of meeting #57 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 employee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair, so I would put off.... Obviously, the discussion would be on the BQ amendment.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Okay. Now we're back to BQ-19, which is page 56, and that is Mr. Laframboise.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I move that Bill C-6, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 17 with the following:
“(2) No person shall take any of the following actions in respect of an employee by reason only that the employee has reported a contravention under the program referred to in subsection 5.395(1) or has participated in good faith in an investigation conducted under this act: (a) disciplinary action; (b) demotion; (c) dismissal, discharge, or termination of employment; (d) any action adversely affecting the employee's employment or terms and conditions of employment; or (e) threat of any of the actions referred in paragraphs (a) to (d). (3) A person does not have the protection of subsections (1) and (2) if”
So this is for the purpose of improving and increasing the protection for an employee against measures that might be taken against him. Discussions have been started, and the government has introduced amendment G-3.1. When we adopted it, we asked ourselves the question whether, once included in the bill by the government, it protected all the clauses of the act, including that on voluntary reporting. Our objective is to ensure that employees are fully protected in the case of voluntary reporting.
Is this the right place to insert amendment G-3.1? If not, shouldn't we—I've said this from the start: there's no harm in being extra careful—add another amendment in another place to ensure that the employee is protected in the event of voluntary reporting? I don't know whether the department has had occasion to consider the subject.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Indeed, Mr. Laframboise, we re-examined the entire act following the revised amendment G-3.1, which was adopted last week. Protection is there for people who report within a business that has a safety management system, of course. Those who want to use the universal voluntary reporting system, for which the business already has an SMS, will first have to report to the system and they will be protected. If they do not have a safety management system, the information is, in any case, “disidentified” immediately on receipt. For those who do not work for an employer—we take it for granted that, where there is an employer, there's generally a certificate holder—there will be a safety management system. For all certificate holders that manage commercial operations, there will be a safety management system. If you are a private pilot, a mechanic or other person who needs to use a voluntary system outside the safety management system, the information is “disidentified”. Under this protection, there is no danger that the employer will engage in reprisals.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
However, that's not appropriate as regards voluntary reporting. I find amendment G-3.1 interesting. However, I would have liked that amendment to be added to the entire “voluntary reporting” part in order to genuinely protect an employee who wishes to make a disclosure. I'm not sure that entering it in the safety management system file... You said so yourself: there could be problems if ever a person who is not covered by the safety management system decides to make a voluntary report. We want to ensure the employee's protection. I think it would encourage the employee, as you have convinced me, to make voluntary statements and reports, if we protect him more. You haven't considered this question.
Ultimately, I would have liked the text of amendment G-3.1 to be added to the “Voluntary Reporting” heading to be sure that employees are protected. Whether it's my text or that prepared by the government is of little importance. The important thing is that, under part of the act, employees or those who would like to report information feel protected from proceedings.
4 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Mr. Laframboise, I can read you subsection 5.397(4), which states:
(4) Information reported under the program referred to in subsection 5.395(1) may not be used against the person who reported it in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings.
I think that's quite serious protection. It isn't identical to what's contained in revised amendment G-3.1. That's why we haven't moved an equivalent to revised G-3.1: we thought that was sufficient.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was going to make the same comment. I know it appears that this was borrowed from the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and it spells out exactly what is meant by reprisal. But doesn't G-3.1, which we passed before, actually alleviate and address all of the concerns Mr. Laframboise has? That was my understanding in speaking to the department.
4 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
It does to a certain extent when people are working within an SMS environment and reporting and they have an employer they'll be protecting. Mr. Laframboise's concern was on why we don't have a parallel in the other system. We said we didn't think of putting in a parallel G-3.1 revised because there is a stronger protection there against taking any measures against an individual. Anyway, it's going to be identified immediately upon receipt.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Could you be more specific in what you just said? First of all, you said it doesn't necessarily cover all that he wants it to cover. My understanding was that it does cover everything he wanted to cover in relation to the protection. Does it or does it not?
4 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
If you are an employee working for a certificate holder, all certificate holders will have SMS requirements, so there'll be internal reporting. If you do report, you are required to report first through your SMS and you are covered or protected.
The other universal, non-punitive, voluntary reporting is open to everybody to report. We assume those people won't necessarily have employers, because if they have an employer they have an SMS and they're covered. Even though there's no parallel, as I said to Mr. Laframboise, there is still a very strong protection in the second one. So we believe there's no need for a parallel.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
That's in the regulations as well, is it not, in section 5.395?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I don't understand your question. You said it's in the regulations?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Except that, to continue along the line adopted by Mr. Jean, let's take subsection 5.397(4), the one you just read to me, which states:
(4) Information reported under the program referred to in subsection 5.395(1) may not be used against the person who reported it in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings.
I agree with this statement, except that amendment G-3.1 also contains the following words: “[...] including any measure that adversely affects the employee's employment or working conditions [...]”
When we talk about disciplinary measures, that does not necessarily mean dismissal; it can be a schedule change as a result of which the employee must work at night rather than during the day. It is this additional protection that G-3.1 has the benefit of providing with the words “[...] including any measure that adversely affects the employee's employment or working conditions [...]” That is the protection offered by G-3.1. If we had been able to add that to this subsection (4), I think that would have satisfied me. The problem is that employees who report information in the context of SMSs enjoy a certain amount of protection, and those whose employers do not have a security management system have another type of protection.
I would like all employees who make a voluntary report in businesses that do not have an SMS, employees who decide to make a voluntary report, to have the same protection as those of a business that has an SMS. That quite simply is the purpose of our amendment BQ-19. I would be ready to accept an amendment to subsection (4) that you mentioned to me earlier, Mr. Reinhardt, in order to be able to amend that, if the government agrees.
4:05 p.m.
An hon. member
Which subsection (4)?
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I'm on page 17, but subsection (4) is on page 18. It's subsection 5.397(4), which states:
(4) Information reported under the program referred to in subsection 5.395(1) may not be used against the person who reported it in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings.
It's that G-3.1 adds: “[...] including any measure that adversely affects the employee's employment or working conditions [...]”. If we added what is contained in G-3.1 to subsection 5.397(4), I think that would ensure identical protection for those who make reports within a business that has an SMS and for those reporting in a business that does not have an SMS.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I have no objection. It doesn't affect it. As I told you, it was already protected, so it just makes it a little bit stronger.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Yes, that's it, because I would withdraw amendment BQ-19, and, if the government agrees to a friendly amendment, if everyone agrees to adjust subsection 5.397(4) so that it provides the same protection as that offered by G-3.1, so that it is identical, that's fine with me.
