Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to summarize, because I think we're talking at two different levels.
I certainly support G-3, and I think most people around the table do. G-3 is an important clarification of the clause dealing with the reporting mechanism. Where we might have some disagreement is on whether that protection for employees to report those violations—which is necessary, of course, to get that information—should actually be continued to the company.
We have here the enterprise manager simplified event review process of SMS-related non-compliance events and enforcement liaison. If we look down to the third yellow triangle, that's where I think we run into difficulties. Was the contravention internally reported and documented by the enterprise? If no, then the enterprise manager submits, within 12 months, a detection notice to aviation enforcement. Was the contravention committed intentionally by the enterprise? If yes, then it is the same result. Has the enterprise taken corrective action? If no, then it's the same result.
We certainly heard through rail safety that the problems have been enforcement of SMS. We heard the witnesses talk about the fact that essentially the government has to take railway companies to court to get corrective action.
Here there is a very clear weakness. In a case where you have deliberate company action or negligent company action or companies that have taken no action, essentially, the follow-up to that is to submit, within 12 months, a detection notice to aviation enforcement. We have this within the context of information that cannot be released, aside from court orders or the minister himself or herself choosing to disclose that information. And the information that is disclosed can't be used against the document holders. That's the problem.
I think we all agree that employees need to be protected. I strongly agree, and I think most of the witnesses said essentially the same thing, that we can't give a “get out of jail free” card to companies that may be negligent. It may only be a small proportion of the companies. But I believe that we cannot put the Canadian travelling public in a situation in which, first, they are unaware because of the secrecy around what could be repeat violations of safety standards by a company, and in which, second, essentially the company is protected from the type of regulatory enforcement and sanctions that should necessarily come with them. That's the problem.
I would suggest, in that context, that we should be adopting G-3, of course, but we should also be seriously looking at BQ-16. That eliminates the bad from that clause and reinforces what I think we all agree to, which is protection for employees.