Transport Committee on June 11th, 2007

[Franz Reinhardt]

In the case of a pilot who transports his boss, the company has a safety management system. He's actually part of the group of 604 that have a safety management system.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

We'll have Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm wondering whether Mr. Reinhardt would just clarify something for me. I appreciate Mr. Laframboise's line of questioning. Maybe Mr. Laframboise will want to put me in my place in a moment, but I detect a sincere desire on his part to accept what Mr. Reinhardt said regarding G-3.1 revised, and that is that it has adequate protections, as I read it, in the location where we put it last week.

The confusion that's emerging, from my perspective, and again, I say that Mr. Laframboise may want to correct me, is that the protections inherent in that G-3.1 revised are so laudable that they should apply to those who are not captured by the SMS system but may be working in an environment where.... One moment. I thought it was for all employees.

My understanding, Mr. Reinhardt, is that under an SMS system--and this we have not gone into in great detail--all the operations that are captured by employees, subcontractors, contractors, and actual operators have an obligation under the SMS. So anybody who works for an airport--let's say the machinists, the baggage handlers, those who pump fuel, those who prepare the plane--is part of this.

So G-3.1 revised, as we accepted it last week, covers the entire spectrum of anyone who's associated in any way with that SMS system. So the protections are applicable as well to those who are not the direct dependants of a document holder or a certificate holder, because you might have multiple document holders and certificate holders under “one operation”. Is my understanding a little too generous, or am I completely off the wall?

[Franz Reinhardt]

No. Provided that it's related to aeronautics, Mr. Volpe, you're right; they will all be governed by an SMS. However, I don't want to mislead you. If in a company like a food caterer, like Cara, for instance, an employee decides to report, those guys are not covered by an SMS.

I just don't want to mislead you, because there are many other companies in an airport working and having contracts with the air operators.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

But they're not associated with the safety of the operation.

For example, the Cara people may happen on to a situation where they think safety might be compromised. Then they could report; they could keep quiet. If there were an incident or an accident that involved some liabilities, they would have no protections if they had withheld information. But they're captured by something other than the SMS. They're captured by existing legislation and an existing framework. I think that's an accurate understanding on my part.

If I interpreted Mr. Laframboise's concern, he is suggesting—this is what I hear him saying, but maybe he's not saying this—that those people from Cara who, by happenstance, fall upon an incident that nobody else has reported perhaps should be covered too. Now, if that's what Mr. Laframboise is saying, I say it's laudable, and I would wonder, then, rather than pick on where in the legislation we would put that protection, whether in fact we are more effectively served by indicating that G-3.1 already captures that. And if it doesn't, Mr. Laframboise's suggestion of an amendment to his motion might just simply be a phrase, that under proposed subsection 5.397(4)...just simply refer back to that revised motion G-3.1 that we put in the previous section.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

Mr. Volpe is partly right. However, I must speak to my research assistant. Until safety management systems are in effect everywhere, we want those who report certain things to Transport Canada to be protected. You said so yourself: sometimes it takes a number of years before the safety management system is in effect. In the meantime, we want to ensure that these people are protected.

You're nevertheless offering a protection provision here. That means that it is possible that not everyone is immediately covered. We want an employee to be protected from the moment he decides to file a complaint. Whether he transmits it directly to Transport Canada or through the safety management system, we want to ensure that that person is protected. Here I would be prepared to come around if we could add a subsection (5), which would simply consist in including those not covered by safety management systems. It's simply that.

[Franz Reinhardt]

I understand your idea, Mr. Laframboise. If you want to achieve the desired result, an amendment that might perhaps constitute the subsection (5) would be necessary. If that were the case, and if the government wanted to proceed in that manner, I would suggest that we take a few minutes—perhaps during a break—to try to draft something. It is very difficult to draft and answer questions at the same time. It isn't easy.

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

Perfect, that would suit me.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

While you're thinking, allow me to suggest that amendment BQ-19 perhaps be considered as it was initially proposed. It covers the entire voluntary reporting program, and a bit of time must elapse before we have operational systems. This amendment eliminates any confusion over the following sections, including subsection 5.397(4), because of the way it is drafted. A subsection (5) would therefore not be necessary. Perhaps we should consider returning to the initial amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

We've come full circle.

Mr. Julian.

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

I agree with Mr. Bélanger because—I listened very closely to the discussion that took place—the protection that Mr. Laframboise wanted to offer through his initial amendment is not offered through what we've discussed. If we go back to the original amendment, I would like to add the two provisions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Go ahead, Mr. Laframboise.

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

It will probably be easier to retain amendment BQ-19 once this discussion is over. I'm going to keep it and we'll move on to the vote. I don't have any objection to that. I think that's easier.

I understand that subsection 5.397(4) has its purpose. We simply want employees to be protected while the safety management system is being implemented. The way this has been drafted makes it possible to protect employees in the meantime. That is our single objective.

[Franz Reinhardt]

I understand you, Mr. Laframboise. However, I'm afraid that amendment BQ-19 causes confusion. It runs a bit parallel to the federal government's Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. Section 5.392 already contains something different.

Why not keep that together with section 5.392?

In fact, I agreed with your proposal to draft a subsection (5). All I'm asking is for the government's consent—I'm speaking to you as a public servant—and a five-minute break, because it is very hard to draft while answering questions.

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

If the objective is the same, I have no objection to there being a subsection (5). However, Mr. Jean isn't here.

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

Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could take a break of a few minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Can we just clarify one point?

This is my understanding of what we have, of what we're discussing right now on the floor: amendment BQ-19 was withdrawn, and we have the amendment you made, which will be subclause 5.397(5)--no, an amendment to subclause 5.397(4), on page 18. You had suggested that it could be separate, as subclause 5.397(5), but the actual motion you made was to add to subclause 5.397(4).

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

That's it. I agree that we should create a subsection (5). Then I would withdraw amendment BQ-19 and the other amendment, if the government agrees, if, in the next three or four minutes, we can draft a subsection (5) that everybody would support. That would suit me.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

We're asking for approximately a five-minute recess. Is that what...?

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

I was just going to suggest that we move on to the next clause and have them draft it and bring it forward afterwards. Can we do that?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

I heard Mr. Reinhardt say he can do it right now.

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

—won't be able to draft.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

All right. Keep us focused. We'll recess for five minutes or less. Thank you.