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.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The problem is that the amendment does not dictate the process that should be followed for an employee who believes that he is the victim of reprisals. We have two amendments that are virtually identical, BQ-19 and NDP-12.1. However, NDP-12.1 suggests a complaints process under the Canada Labour Code for someone who finds himself in that situation. In BQ-19, there is no remedy procedure if an employee is a victim of measures.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Except I'm talking about BQ-19. We can discuss your amendment in a moment. That's not a problem for me.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
What I'm moving is that, at page 18, subsection 4, line 32, the text reads as follows:
(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, including any measure that adversely affects the employee's employment or working conditions.
At line 31, which begins with: “Information reported under the program...”, we would add a comma following “other proceedings”, then: “including any measure that adversely affects the employee's employment or working conditions.”
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Is that agreeable?
So you're withdrawing BQ-19, and that's your motion instead.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, my question is for the Transport Canada people. In subsection 5.397(4), which we would amend by means of a friendly amendment, are we talking about legal or disciplinary proceedings, stemming from a source other than the aviation document holder?
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
4:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Here it's clear that the employee is protected against any legal, disciplinary or other measures that might be taken, whether it be administrative procedures or document suspension measures, and we would now include reprisals, as provided in revised G-3.1 in subsection (4).
In English, at the end, that would read:
disciplinary proceedings, “including any measure that adversely affects the employee's employment or working conditions”.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Does that also mean that the conditions... I'm referring to subsection 5.396(2), which reads as follows: “A person does not have the protection of subsection (1) if...”
Then it cites a number of cases.
4:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Mr. Bélanger, we still intend to retain those provisions.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I would like to know whether we are amending subsection 5.397(4). In section 5.397... I don't want to get lost.
Does subsection 5.396(2) refer to section 5.397? In other words, do the exceptions stand, or are we going to create protection, regardless of the circumstances, in subsection 5.397(4)?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
The two are compatible, Mr. Bélanger. If you read the section carefully, you will see that, if you do things voluntarily, you cannot avail yourself of the system. If there already is a safety management system, you must first report to it before using the system.
These requirements are still there. If you use the universal voluntary reporting system, no penalty will be imposed on you. If, as I have already explained, Transport Canada had independent evidence and was proceeding against someone in court, one might wonder whether they had knowledge of such elements.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The question is what steps will an employee have to take if his employer has taken action against him.
4:15 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
With the amendment to subsection (4), the employer cannot institute proceedings against the employee.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What steps should be taken? If the employer takes measures against the employee—as is mentioned in amendment BQ-19, disciplinary action, demotion, dismissal, discharge or termination—what remedies are available to the employee? There aren't any.
4:15 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Mr. Julian, section 5.392 is clear. It concerns an offence for which a person may be punished on summary conviction against the employer, and liable to a fine of up to $1 million.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Any breach of any provision of Part I of the Aeronautics Act may result in proceedings, under the part on summary proceedings, and a fie of up to $1 million. That information appears in section 7.3.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Excuse me one second while you're gathering that information, Mr. Bélanger.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
My only concern is that we may be injecting some confusion in proposed subsection 5.397(4). We're talking about “any information reported under the program referred to in subsection...may not be used against the person who reported it in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings”.
“Person”, as defined in the law, means an individual, association, corporation--you name it. But by injecting in French
“contre un employé”,
then we're possibly creating a double sense in this section. That's my concern here.
If I can be reassured that's not the case, then fine, but I think we may be adding confusion here to the text of the law by referring to personne, and then specifically excluding, by definition, corporations or associations.