Mr. Chairman, I have to disagree somewhat with the words of the parliamentary secretary in terms of “we've heard it all”. I have to acknowledge and recognize, as I have already on a number of occasions, the willingness of the government to bring forward amendments. I think the legislative process calls for a continuous exchange, an ongoing exchange, until there's satisfaction that we've got pretty well the whole picture, then people will decide yes or no. As long as there are legitimate questions, I believe the debate is useful.
After all, brain storming can lead to great ideas, if I may put it that way.
I really don't like the idea of being prevented from speaking because debate is cut off, or when debate goes on for an inappropriate length of time. But I have the impression that that's what we are headed for. I personally think the discussion is just beginning. I hope so for Mr. Laframboise's sake.
I'll tell you how I got to this point. At a meeting with the officials, I asked as many questions as I could. I am satisfied with what Mr. Preuss has just said, namely that the government would normally not have the information referred to in these provisions, except in the three specific circumstances, that is, when the identities of the people involved have been removed, when a case is before the courts, or when other organizations impose disclosure, or in cases which fall under subsection 7.1. So information can be disclosed in certain circumstances, but which would not exist if there were no safety management systems.
So I accept the argument, and I can tell you that I am doing so because of an amendment you moved and which was adopted by the committee. It says that there shall be a review in the three years following the coming into force of these provisions. Perhaps this condition put everyone's mind at ease. I realize that the review applies to clauses 5.31 and 5.38. Perhaps we should introduce a provision imposing a mandatory review in five years. The minister will obviously have a ton of information after receiving all the reports on the safety information systems. At that point it can be decided whether or how any information was disclosed.
For now, what has helped me understand and accept the amendments—and I hope I am right about this—is the fact that we will be dealing with information which the government would otherwise not have. Apart from the possibility that the information may be made public, under other statutes the government must report on the information. This may make air travel even safer. That is why I support this idea. It was important for me to say so. In these circumstances, I am satisfied and ready to move forward. I also think we must respect all parliamentarians sitting at this table. If some members have legitimate questions, they should be allowed to ask them, even if that means sitting extended hours or more often, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
