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.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Let's reconvene, please.
Mr. Reinhardt, this is a subsection (5) that you've come up with?
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Excuse me, if I may, after subsection (4), you could have a subsection (5), that would read:
Information reported under the program referred to in subsection 5.395(1) may not be used against an employee to take any reprisals, including any measure that adversely affects the employee's employment or working conditions.
And in French we—
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, if I may, do you have that written out, Mr. Reinhardt?
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Maybe you could give it to the clerk so she can get it and translate it.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
They won't understand my handwriting, and it's a combination of....
Liberal
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I will read it in French now, and I've got it here.
“Il ne peut être fait usage de renseignements communiqués dans le cadre d'un processus visé au paragraphe 5.395(1) lorsqu'il engage une procédure disciplinaire contre [...]”
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
“Il ne peut être fait usage [...]”
If you're satisfied with the English, we can have the French completed by the end of the session here.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Is that okay, Mr. Laframboise? Good. Merci.
Now, before we can deal with that, we have an amendment on the floor, which was to add to subsection (4), so we need agreement of the committee to withdraw that amendment.
Is there agreement?
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
No. We had an amendment—I have only the French at this point—which basically was an attempt by Mr. Laframboise to add this to subsection (4), and it was accepted as an amendment.
It's on the floor; it's not Mr. Laframboise's to withdraw, so I'm asking for agreement of the committee.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Now we have the amendment of Mr. Laframboise, which you're moving, which would add subsection (5), as recited in English and will be translated in French.
Is there any further discussion on that?
(Amendment agreed to)
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Now we're moving on to NDP-12.1 and NDP-12.2.
Mr. Julian, you wanted to make a suggestion that there's a similarity between what we've done with BQ-19, but you're suggesting the difference occurs in proposed subsection (2) on your NDP-12.1?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
NDP-12.1 and NDP-12.2 are very similar, so we'll only need to have one, hopefully, brief discussion. We've resolved part of the issue, both through 3.1 and also through the Bloc amendment we've just discussed. What is missing is a process or procedure.
If we look at NDP-12.1, proposed subsection (2) says:
An employee—or a person that the employee designates for the purpose—who alleges that a person has taken an action referred to in subsection (1)
—in other words, the areas we just talked about, disciplinary action, demotion, dismissal, and other actions adversely affecting an employee's employment—
against the employee may make a complaint in writing in respect of the action to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, established by section 9 of the Canada Labour Code, within 90 days after the day on which the employee knew, or in the Board's opinion ought to have known, that the action had been taken.
And then proposed subsection (3):
Sections 133 and 134 of the Canada Labour Code apply with respect to a complaint made under subsection (2).
So this allows for a process for the whistle-blower that protects that individual.
What I would like to offer to you, Mr. Chair, is that proposed subsections (2) and (3) of NDP-12.1 would be added as proposed subsections (5) and (6), following the G-3 motion from the government that we adopted on page 15.
So we adopted new subsections (3) and (4) a few days ago. We would take proposed subsections (2) and (3) from NDP-12.1 and make those new proposed subsections (5) and (6).
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
We believe it would be very dangerous to embark upon that type of appeal mechanism. There are already very serious provisions for enforcement against people who breach any of the provisions under part 1 of the Aeronautics Act. There could be some reconvictions up to $1 million....
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Reinhardt, I did ask you what the process was for the employee. The process is going to court, which we would have regardless of whether Bill C-6 existed. This allows for a legal process that is outside the court system.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Mr. Julian, with all due respect, the process would be for the employee to report to Transport that there is an alleged violation by an employer regarding a provision of the Aeronautics Act. Transport Canada would carry out the investigation and take action if the evidence is there to support the enforcement process.