Evidence of meeting #55 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 sms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I disagree with Mr. Jean on that, the elimination of this section. We've proposed other amendments, but I think when we look at BQ-16 what we're looking at is essentially the secrecy element around SMS, which is something that has been raised by a number of witnesses, and also the element of not taking action against, essentially, organizations that have a better document holder. So it is something that was flagged by a number of witnesses; it is a concern that is clearly out there. We are, I think, sanding down and refining the whole approach on organizations who are designated and also on the aspects of secrecy around SMS that people have legitimately objected to.
So there are two approaches that we can take. The Bloc approach has been to take out those sections. The NDP approach has been to provide amendments on it. Either way, it does deal with our broad concerns that were raised by a number of witnesses.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I understand the government's objective. However, we still must read the essence of section 5.392 that says:
...any information disclosed under the process that comes into the Minister's possession is confidential, and the Minister shall not disclose it or make it available except in the following circumstances:
I do want the employees to be protected, but right now we are protecting the minister. He will be the one to decide whether or not something is confidential. I have a problem with this. If we want to get the details of an accident, the minister, because of this section, could decide that the documents are confidential. We mean documents that are in his possession and not information that is circulating within the company. These documents are in the minister's possession, and the minister could decide that they are confidential and cannot be published.
I am very reluctant to give such a power to the minister. I tabled my amendment, and you will discuss it. However, I have a problem with the fact that the minister could hide information or decide that it is confidential. I am not specifically targeting the Conservative government, I am talking about any future government including future Liberal or NDP governments, if that ever came about.
June 4th, 2007 / 4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would encourage members of the Bloc and the NDP to look at our amendment. They may misunderstand what the bill does and what the different reporting provisions are.
Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, could we have staff, perhaps Mr. Reinhardt, explain what the different levels of reporting are and why it's not necessary to remove the secrecy provisions? We've had witnesses from both airline pilots associations before us who say it's critical that there be confidentiality involved in the SMS process. If it isn't there, the reporting won't take place. And if we understand what other reporting mechanisms are going to be in place and are already in place, I think that will go a long way to assuaging some of the concerns that the members of the Bloc have.
Mr. Reinhardt, perhaps you could respond.
4:45 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
If you'll bear with me, I believe there's some confusion amongst the members about the type of protection here, and I would like to explain.
Yes, Mr. Jean.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm sorry to interrupt, but actually we met with the department and we asked the department to provide some documentation that would help clarify. We have some flow charts that might be advantageous to the members.
4:45 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes. We have some handouts here, both in French and in English, in point form, explaining exactly the type of protection under each system. This is critical, because if we don't give protection for this information, we will not obtain the safety data and we will not be able to use it to the benefit of the travelling public.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm going to ask, Mr. Reinhardt, that those documents be circulated, so people actually—
4:45 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay.
And while they're being circulated, I'm going to go to Mr. Volpe for a comment.
Mr. Volpe.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday we dealt with a government handout that had an explanation of amendment G-3, and it was new. I'm asking for you to give us the official indication of exactly what we did.
Under amendment G-3, proposed subsection 5.392(4), relating to this, it said that the holder of a Canadian aviation document shall not take any action adversely affecting a person's employment or terms and conditions of employment by reason only that the person has reported, and then it was added “in good faith...information regarding alleged actions” of another person “under a process referred to in subsection (1)”.
The reason I ask that is that when we were debating this matter, the explanation came forward that further amendments relating precisely to this proposed subsection would clarify all of this. To use Mr. Reinhardt's words--although not with any malice of intent--it is to reduce all the convolution to one rational argument that the person who makes a report, under the process outlined in this section, not be subject to any action by the designated company simply for having done things in good faith, because there are other subsections here that actually protect the certificate holder against somebody doing the opposite, which is to simply go out to the press without having had anybody be given the opportunity to actually address the issue.
What did we do with that motion? Did we accept it? Did we stand it? What is the government's view on that amended motion today?
4:45 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
It's there under G-3. We will see that under G-3 you have a new subsection 5.392(3) and a new subsection 5.392(4). It was supposed to be distributed today.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I thought there was an amendment as well on that, but I don't have it.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
It's coming.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Just for clarification, we have to remember that we are dealing with amendment BQ-16. We are referring to G-3 to see if that resolves some of the concerns Monsieur Laframboise has.
Could we get those circulated, please?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Could we have a moment to look over this? It's fairly extensive.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes, let's take five minutes. And if there are any documents that have to be circulated, please get them out now so that we can actually look at them.
Do you want me to suspend it first or do you want to put it on the record?