I appreciate the government's effort to clarify things for the employees. But I have a problem with section 5.392 that deals with protecting the public.
Basically, a safety management system must make sure that there is a follow-up, there must be documentation and employees must be allowed to disclose cases of neglect. In my opinion, when everything is said and done, when the report is tabled, the minister can say that it is confidential pursuant to the act. He will not even be able to publish it, unless he "[...] considers that disclosing the information or making it available is necessary for the purposes of section 7.1". This remains to be seen, because he is liable to be sued, and the government might have some serious problems.
I want to protect the public. In any case, when a report is published pursuant to the Access to Information Act, many things are blacked out. But we at least have access to the information. When the minister receives a report, it is because of some important event, probably an accident or something due to neglect. Small things that remain unnoticed and are not reported on television will not be investigated and there will be no demand for access to information. This will only happen if the accident shows up in the media. Sometimes, it does not have to be big, as we saw regarding railways. It does not have to involve mortality. It can be so big that if we do not see it and try to prevent it, there could be a catastrophe.
Therefore, in the safety management system, all the information would become confidential and inaccessible to the public. I have a problem with that. I agree that we must protect the employees, and we are protecting the employees, but under section 5.392 we are protecting the company and the minister above all. At any time, he can say that it is confidential and that he is not publishing anything at all. That is what will happen.