Transport Committee on June 11th, 2007

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

This puts already established procedure in place. All three of the opposition parties offered amendments to this effect, that provisions of the Canada Labour Code would apply even in provisions of Bill C-6. We're certainly not contradicting anything in Bill C-6. It offers that level of protection for the employee that I think we all share.

We want to ensure that the employee whistle-blower is protected. This allows for that level of protection. Otherwise we don't have a clear and defined process for an employee. This allows very clearly for that through the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Canada Labour Code.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Go ahead, Mr. Reinhardt.

[Franz Reinhardt]

I will repeat that we believe there's sufficient protection there if you use the enforcement process that's available to anybody through Transport Canada and the department. People who are not respecting the provisions of the act will be prosecuted.

I don't think it's necessary to go through an industrial mechanism to review things under the Aeronautics Act. I think the Aeronautics Act should be self-sufficient. It should allow for the enforcement of each and every provision of the act without having to revert to an industrial relations procedure under the Canada Labour Code.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Bélanger, and then Mr. Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have three difficulties with this.

First, by putting it under G-3.1 we're back into the SMS section of the law, which we've completed. We're reopening a section that we've already dealt with.

Number two, if the second--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

We're still on the same clause, Mr. Bélanger. It hasn't been completed.

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

I understand, but presumably we have to move in one direction at some point.

The notion that he has in subsections (2) and (3).... Basically, if we adopt--and I hope this committee will--subsection (2), that the Canada Labour Code applies, and we include that for greater certainty in the act, then that section would not be necessary.

Finally, I'd be concerned that subsection (2) would be prescriptive to the point that it would be the only remedy available. That's certainly not the intent. I would expect, and I need confirmation of it, that whether this remedy is mentioned in the law or not, it will exist.

By singling this out in the bill, could it be seen that this is the remedy and there is nothing else?

Those are three difficulties I want to flag. That's why I won't support this amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

I'd like to go back to what you previously said when we talked about it. You said that penalties were already provided for in the Aeronautics Act following an offence. Is that correct?

Consequently, if a person dismisses an employee in violation of the act, that person would be penalized to the tune of $1 million. Is that correct, Ms. Stanfield?

[Susan Stanfield, Legal Counsel, Department of Transport]

The penalties are being amended, so I have to look to see what the new penalties are.

[Franz Reinhardt]

I can read it:

A corporation that is convicted of an offence under this Part punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding one million dollars.

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

That means for every violation, including when we say that an employee must not be dismissed. That means that, if there were a dismissal, there would nevertheless be a violation and the act could be used. I want us to understand clearly. The employee can decide to use the Canada Labour Code. Ms. Stanfield, you said that the Canada Labour Code applies to all acts. Is that it? We didn't go back to that subject.

[Susan Stanfield]

The Canada Labour Code already applies.

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

So it already applies, and penalties can be added to that because the company has not complied with the act. Mr. Julian's amendment refers to a complaint to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. Is that a measure that we can currently use, or is that something that would be added?

[Susan Stanfield]

It would be new in this act, but I share Mr. Bélanger's concerns that by encoding something that really comes from the Labour Code into the Aeronautics Act you may be setting up a conflict between the Aeronautics Act and the Labour Code, where both work in their worlds fairly smoothly right now. If you put this in here, it's kind of an oddball because the Aeronautics Act has very limited authorities in it dealing with what would be considered labour relations types of activities. There are provisions for limiting the hours of work and stuff like that in the Aeronautics Act, but there isn't much about the labour relations vis-à-vis collective bargaining, enforcement of contracts under collective bargaining, matters like that.

I would be concerned, especially since you don't know enough about who the employee is and the questions that may arise. You don't know what kind of collective bargaining they're governed by and you don't know whether they are covered by any collective agreements. You may in fact be pushing them into a process that would be dealt with under the Labour Code in a different way, that might be more advantageous to them.

I'm not a Labour Code lawyer, but we have discussed with officials from the department who administer the Canada Labour Code and they do agree that it does govern this work done under the Aeronautics Act. They don't have any concerns that it's not covered. They agree with us that it's not necessary to repeat provisions or make reference to it. It is already governed, and anything where you're starting to add provisions that look like they come from the Labour Code may create questions of how the Labour Code is supposed to be administered. Given that they were satisfied and they are the specialists, I would be very hesitant to put too much into this act that even speaks to duplicating, because we really don't know.

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

Mr. Reinhardt, you seemed to have a text.

[Franz Reinhardt]

No. I reassert what I told you. Part I of the Aeronautics Act states this:

Except as otherwise provided by this Part, every person who contravenes a provision of this Part or any regulation, notice, order, security measure or emergency direction made under this Part is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

We're clearly saying that the body corporate found guilty of such an offence is liable to a fine of $1 million.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Julian, and then Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, I think the more we're discussing this, the more we're actually seeing the necessity to have it in place. If there is no contradiction between the Canada Labour Code and the Aeronautics Act, then it is advisable to have that option available to employees. It is an option. The specific wording of the amendment is “may make a complaint in writing”. It gives an avenue for that employee. It's “may make”. It's not an absolute; it's not a requirement. It is an option that employees have.

Very clearly, the Canada Labour Code needs to govern the discussions that take place at this level. Otherwise if an employee is punished, if that employee is disciplined, if that employee is dismissed, what we have is the SMS, because this is, as Mr. Bélanger correctly identifies, within the SMS systems of the act. We have what we received two weeks ago: the enterprise manager's simplified event review process of SMS-related non-compliance events.

So was there a contravention of the Aeronautics Act? Yes. Was this contravention committed by a person or enterprise governed by an SMS? Yes. Was the contravention internally reported and documented within the enterprise? Yes. Was the contravention committed intentionally by the enterprise? Yes. We lead to “the enterprise manager submits within 12 months a detection notice to aviation enforcement”.

If what we are doing is setting up a system—a very long, convoluted system—for an employee who has lost their job as a result of actions that we are trying to protect against by reinforcing certain provisions of this bill, then in a very real sense an employer can take disciplinary action against the employee. It may be in a couple of years. The company may be fined. Maybe the employee can go to court. But there is no protection. There is no internal system that allows that employee to reach out in an immediate way. The amendment here offers a 90-day timeline so the employee can move through the Canada Labour Code, through the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

It is not something that requires them to go to court. It is not something that requires them to simply trust in Transport Canada. It is something the employees themselves can do. That system of checks and balances we should want to see within Bill C-6, because certainly that's what witnesses called for: a system of checks and balances.

So what the amendments do is establish that system of checks and balances and give an option to the employee. It's not an obligation; “may make” is an option for employees to take, so that employees have the ability to move through an existing process and protect their job when they have been disciplined or dismissed unduly.

It doesn't make sense for us to set up a series of checks and balances but have in the end no ability for the employee to do anything except either trust in Transport Canada or essentially go through the court system. That makes no sense, because what it does is allow for a hollow shell. We're essentially saying to the employees, “We don't really want any actions to be taken against you, but if the actions are taken against you, we're not going to leave you with any options.”

I think to be consistent with what we have discussed thus far in the committee--Mr. Laframboise's amendment, the Liberal amendments that have come forward, and even the government's own amendments--we need a process for those employees, and that's what this amendment provides for.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Jean.

Are you ready for the vote?

The understanding, then, is that there would be an addition of proposed subsections 5.392(5) and 5.392(6).

That's under the amendment G-3.1 on page 15.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Mr. Julian, do you want to discuss amendment NDP-12.2.2?

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

No, Mr. Chairman. It's very similar to what we've just debated. I would have offered the same amendment, so I'll withdraw that. We've had the debate and discussion on that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

Thank you.

Moving on, then, still in clause 12, now the grouping is “Deletion of provision for internal reporting before voluntary reporting”.

We go to amendment, BQ-20 on page 58.

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

I withdraw amendment BQ-20, Mr. Chairman.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Don Bell]

That's Mr. Laframboise. Yes.