Transport Committee on June 11th, 2007

[Franz Reinhardt]

It's difficult to review the whole thing on the spur of the moment.

It seemed to me there was no need for that specific protection under the universal, voluntary, non-punitive reporting. But Mr. Bélanger's suggestion seems to be a bit redundant. It's clear to me that it's the employer and the employee. That's my interpretation.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Be careful, because it says, “Information reported under the program...may not be used against the person...in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings.” It says “any”. It's fairly wide-ranging, so whether it's legal, disciplinary, or accusations, none of this can be used, and that's clear.

[Franz Reinhardt]

That's what I was saying earlier.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

But by injecting “against an employee”, what does it say, that you can't use it against an employee but you can against a non-employee?

[Franz Reinhardt]

If you look at the English side, only where it says “including any measures”, without making reference to an employee, this is very clear.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

We don't have the English wording, but we have the same problem in French. It states: “Dans aucune procédure judiciaire, disciplinaire ou autres, [...]”, which includes everything. It also states: “[...] il ne peut être [...]”, but there it states: “[...] contre un employé [...]”. That means that we're specifying that it's only when employees are concerned, which could create uncertainty. That might not include persons who are not employees, that is to say corporations, businesses and so on.

Be careful.

[Franz Reinhardt]

In the English version, it states:

“Information reported under the program referred to in...may not be used against” the person who reported it in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings, including measures regarding the employment.

So that would be an add-on to this.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Personally, I think it would be preferable that it be separate.

[Franz Reinhardt]

At first, we thought it was well drafted.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Allow me to mention that we have made a number of amendments.

[Franz Reinhardt]

This is becoming difficult, Mr. Bélanger. We tried to draft this act the best way possible. We thought that the act offered that protection.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I was all in favour of Monsieur Laframboise's amendment until I heard from Mr. Bélanger. I think it could call into question, in the interpretation, whether or not employees would be covered. I think that's a very valid point. I never thought about that.

But because we're including one group specifically, does that mean the rest are to be left out? I agree with Mr. Bélanger. I think it's very airtight now, Monsieur Laframboise; “any” is fairly clear in English, as far as not being able to have any recourse.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Julian is next, and then I'll come to Mr. Laframboise for comment.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I'll reserve my comments for later when we come back to the NDP amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Okay.

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

If this can clarify the situation, I maintain that we need a provision concerning employees. If you believe that subsection (4) covers bodies corporate, let's create a subsection (5) that would only cover employees. We say: “Information reported under the program...”, as we said earlier. So we could state this: “Information reported under the program referred to in subsection 5.395(1) may not be used to exercise reprisals against an employee, including any measure adversely affecting the employee's employment or working conditions.”

So let's create a subsection (5) that would only concern employees. Does that suit you?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Laframboise, we could also be content with amendment G-3.1, which we have already adopted.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

In fact, I'm not opposed to amendment G-3.1, but it only covers employees working in the context of a security management system. However, this part of the act talks about voluntary reporting. That could be employees who work in other businesses and who are not covered by an SMS.

[Franz Reinhardt]

Mr. Laframboise, it would surprise me very much if employees who are working to become holders of an aeronautical certificate were not covered by a safety management system. Our intention—we're currently doing it by regulation—is to cover all the fields. Even small commercial operators will have a safety management system proportionate to the nature, size and risk of operations. Everyone will be covered.

Normally, if an employer operates in a commercial environment, there is a safety management system. So it's open. If you are a private pilot, mechanic or someone who is working for himself, you don't have an employer. So there is no danger that you'll lose your job. You use the universal voluntary system. That was my initial proposal.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Go ahead, Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I'm having even more trouble understanding. Earlier, we seemed to understand one another, but that's no longer the case.

[Franz Reinhardt]

Earlier I told you that you wanted something stronger. I told you that wouldn't be a problem for us. However, if you're asking me if such a situation can actually occur, my answer is that I don't think so because people who work for a holder of a commercial aeronautical certificate will all be covered by the safety management system.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

What about a pilot who works for a private company and transports his boss?