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.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I prefer to be on the list, but please let Monsieur Laframboise finish.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I repeat, it is possible to protect the information provided by an employee and to protect the safety management system without having to protect the information which is ultimately given to the minister. It is possible to do this. Do you agree with me?
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
If the information which the minister ultimately receives is the same as the information revealed by employees at the start of the process, and if the employees are afraid the information could be made public under access to information, they will not go ahead with a report. The information which is brought to the direct attention of the minister is not protected.
We are talking about information held by an SMS company. The company has the right to protect its information and its employees. That's what we're talking about.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
In any case, the company is protected under the Access to Information Act. It has that right.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
That's right.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
However, a leak is possible, for instance when the minister carries out an inspection during which he looks over the shoulder of... Our inspections are good, and in some circumstances, we can get information which is protected. It makes perfect sense that it would continue to be protected.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is really the weak link in the bill. I think we've done good work. I think the government has been forthcoming in responding to problems that have been identified as we've moved through the bill. This is the weakest link in the bill, and we have to address this issue.
On the employee side, I think there's a broad consensus, but to protect a rogue CEO who decides intentionally to commit safety contraventions or who refuses to take corrective action, what we are essentially doing.... And that's the link back to what the consequences are, because we've seen, with rail safety, an increase in accident rates when there are no consequences
Let's assume for a moment there's a company--let's call it Air CN--that decides that it's going to cut back on its safety requirements because, through the SMS process, they are protected. What we have in the proposed section that is affected by BQ-16 is that the minister shall not disclose information or make it available except through the court or if the minister considers disclosing the information. In other words, we're giving that power to the minister to decide whether or not to disclose. If not, you have to go through court.
Secondly, information that's disclosed under that process may not be used in the taking of any measure or in any proceedings against the document holder. That's the problem, not the issue of the employees. We agree on that.
The problem is giving, as Mr. Reinhardt has said himself, a “get out of jail free” card essentially to companies, most of which will react very responsibly, some of which may not, and I am not prepared to say to the Canadian travelling public, that's fine, you will have this process in place with the enforcement mechanism of an enterprise manager submitting within 12 months a detection notice to aviation enforcement. I don't think Canadians will accept that, and I don't think Canadians will accept that they may be travelling on an airline that is in clear violation and the information can't be released.
The travelling public has the right to know when a company is systemically violating. The travelling public has the right to know when there's no corrective action being taken. The Canadian public has the right to know, and we simply cannot rubber-stamp this proposed section. We have to deal with it.
I think amendment G-3 is part of the solution, as Mr. Volpe said. Mr. Laframboise's motion is part of the solution as well, but we have to deal with this section. We can't give a “get out of jail free” card and we cannot subscribe information that might be critical for the travelling public from any method of getting that information out in the public domain except the minister deciding himself or herself, or through the court system.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Perhaps I'm a little too generous in my desire to see and hear good information. I've had a different perception about Mr. Reinhardt's use of that particular phrase.
So I think I've heard a lot, Mr. Chair, and I don't want to discuss the philosophy of the whole thing over again, but if it is your wish to go through clause-by-clause, then let's start to vote on BQ-16 right now, please.
I had initially hoped to move the thing along by addressing G-3, but I guess we're not going to have that. So would you please begin the calling of the question.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have listened attentively and I have studied this, I think, possibly more than any other member, but maybe not some of the members who were on the transport committee before. I think all of us have made up our minds in relation to the theory, for the same reason we are in political parties that are different. But I don't think anybody's mind is going to be changed right now on their position moving forward in the future on this.
Quite frankly, I think we've heard enough and we've thought about it enough and we've talked about it enough and we've discussed it enough and we've done enough charts and had enough information. We have the information. The question is, are we going to agree? And I don't think we're going to agree, so we have to agree to disagree.
I would suggest that if we put the question forward, then you're going to find a result that you either do like or don't like, just as we've put forward some that we didn't like, but we found a compromise.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I want this to be clear. When we study a bill clause-by-clause, we have the right to speak for as long as we wish. Unless I'm mistaken, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to speak for as long as I want and to say what I want. I am not trying to draw out the debate nor am I engaging in obstruction. I want to understand what these people are telling me.
However, I do have a problem when people think I'm an idiot, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a problem with the explanations I am being given. Mr. Chairman, I want us to understand each other, you and I.
When we study a bill clause-by-clause, can I have the floor until I understand? Do I have the right to do so? If the answer is no, that's fine, but in my opinion, I have the right to ask any and all questions I want.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think we have heard enough conversation on your motion. There seems to be a willingness around the table to move to the question.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chairman, I asked you a question. During the clause-by-clause study of a bill, do I have the right to ask any questions I want? Please take the time you need to consult with the clerk and with anyone else you want, but I would like you to make a decision.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
As I check the list, Monsieur Laframboise, you've spoken seven or eight times. From the chair's position, we're hearing the same argument.
