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.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Absolutely not. We can use the information. Information can be made public, and in cases which end up before the courts, the information is revealed in the course of the trial. It is not necessary to make information public before a case is heard in court.
No, absolutely nothing is missing; we have everything we need.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chairman, I am a great democrat. If my colleagues don't agree with our proposed amendment, I do not mind withdrawing it. However, I am still concerned about the powers given to the minister.
(Amendment withdrawn)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Laframboise.
We'll move to amendment NDP-8.3.
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think this is certainly a minimum requirement. As we've had this discussion, I've become more and more concerned about the provisions in this clause of the bill.
I was just finishing up my questions when you raised the issue of moving on to Mr. Jean's motion. So I'm going to finish up a couple of questions regarding the shape of that proposed section and then come on to the--
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
We're no longer on that particular amendment. It's been withdrawn. So is he moving NDP-9 or--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We are moving NDP-8.3, and I'd ask Mr. Julian to speak on the motion, please.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
In the interests of time, I'll be raising concerns that I think are encompassed both by NDP-8.3 and NDP-9, and that is the issue of the secrecy and the issue of the “get out of jail free” card.
Coming back to the fact that disclosure of information obtained through the SMS cannot be used against the company itself, I'm also concerned what that would mean. You mentioned, Mr. Reinhardt, that in a situation where a company wasn't complying, essentially that mechanic who had seen that non-compliance on a repeated basis could then go to Transport Canada. He's no longer protected because he's acting outside the SMS process. Am I not correct, if we look at G-3?
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
No, the mechanic who will report internally, as you know, is protected--
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, but the company hasn't acted and you specifically said that if that mechanic--
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
He's still protected if he has used the internal reporting process at the beginning before going public in the newspaper, because he wants his name in the newspaper. He's protected. If he goes through the system, he's protected even when he goes to Transport, but he has to go through the system first.
We want to avoid those disgruntled employees who want their names in the newspaper reporting directly to reporters before going to the company, which would be counterproductive.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
If you read the--
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I too have been most interested in hearing all the debate. We are now on amendment NDP-8.3. I hear references to amendment G-3, which I understand is not on the table, because that's what you ruled 40 minutes ago when I asked you to address it.
The question here is whether we would accept that the amendment be that the information required be disclosed under an act of Parliament. So I'm going to make Mr. Julian the happiest man in the world. I can't speak for any other member around the table, but I'm all for disclosure under an act of Parliament.
Would you please advise Mr. Julian and all other members who are interested in accessing information under an act of Parliament that at least the member of Parliament for Eglinton--Lawrence says yes, no need to discuss it further.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate Mr. Volpe's intervention, but I still want to get an answer to this question, because it is something that has come up subsequent to the debate, and I don't see the protection.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
But the relevance is, Mr. Julian, an amended motion to the committee, not discussing G-3. Your amendment is dealing directly with page 15, paragraph (d).
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
You're trying to sell that amendment to us, not necessarily to ask questions, I believe. It may come back to you.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The issue itself will come up later, so I will follow Mr. Volpe's advice and come back to that line of questioning later, when it's appropriate.
As far as the disclosure under an act of Parliament is concerned, that provides an additional element of disclosure of information that should be in the public domain, and we may find through the functioning of this bill that it must be in the public domain in the case where there is safety information that's a matter of public importance.
So on that, I move my amendment.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, is it the case that the committee is indeed in charge of its own destiny?