Transport Committee on June 6th, 2007

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, this is the second part of the information that is essentially excluded from any possibility of getting out in the public unless the minister is cancelling a certificate, or unless somebody goes to court.

What this amendment serves to do is get back to the principles that were enunciated, which were protecting the employees—the operator's crew—but not protecting the operator, particularly in a situation where the operator has been irresponsible. We have a duty to protect the travelling public. We have a duty to enable our system to function, and simply allowing that information, to exclude “the taking of any measure, or in any proceedings, against the operator”, amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card.

It would be hard, I think, for the Conservatives to defend this when they say they're against criminals. Here they're simply giving what could be the most irresponsible operators a get-out-of-jail-free card, and that has consequences, Mr. Chair, certainly political consequences, because it is a very difficult situation to defend.

If the government's intention was not to give away a get-out-of-jail-free card, if the government's intention was to protect certain information and allow for that system of checks and balances, then the adoption of this amendment would allow the government to do its homework and come back with the kind of amendment that would clearly differentiate between an employee who is providing information internally and a company that may or may not be acting responsibly.

So adopting this amendment, then, allows the government to do its work, and we can come back on Monday and essentially look at what the government might propose to protect companies. This is extreme. If this bill goes back to the House, it simply will not be accepted by the travelling public. They'll be asking what we were doing here, Mr. Chair. And so I think it is advisable to take out that protection of the operator and put it where there is a fairly significant consensus that the operator's crew—the employees—be protected against reprisals.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We now move to page 49 and amendment G-4.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

This amendment is in response to ACPA and ALPA, who wanted this additional provision added, and, indeed I think it's fairly straightforward. As far as what it does is concerned, I'm not going to read it into the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I find it a bit hard to follow you. You said, “a holder of a Canadian aviation document”, whereas we're talking about the proposed subsection 5.393(1), which refers to “an operator of aircraft”. However, the words “a holder of a Canadian aviation document” appear on the previous page, in subsection 5.392(1).

[Franz Reinhardt]

I can verify the exact page, page 16.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Of the bill?

[Franz Reinhardt]

That's correct. It does state: “a holder of a Canadian aviation document.” In fact, we are referring to the operator.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

We're talking about subsection 5.393(1), which begins as follows: “If an operator of aircraft has a management system [...].”

[Franz Reinhardt]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Subsection 3 is not a paragraph. Subsection 5.392(2) only talks about reporting to the operator. Moreover, subsection 3 states, “a holder of an aviation document”, which naturally includes operators. So I don't believe there is any mutual exclusivity here.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

No, but the fact remains that that subsection states: “The information disclosed [...] may not be used [...].” That therefore means that an operator of aircraft may use it. That is why I am telling you that there is a correlation because we are on the subsection that refers to an operator of aircraft.

[Franz Reinhardt]

We're talking about flight data recorders. Subsection 5.393(1) begins as follows in English:

If an operator of aircraft has a management system with a process for the collection, analysis and use of information derived from a flight data recorder

In French, it states: “utilisateur d'aéronefs”. The legislative drafters saw fit, in defining a holder of an operator's certificate, to use the expression “holder of a Canadian aviation document”. A holder of an operator's certificate cannot use the information gathered in this way against his employees for the purposing of imposing disciplinary measures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Well, Mr. Chair, this is parallel. Because we have two proposed subsections dealing with different types of information, actually the more appropriate amendment would be amendment G-3. Amendment G-4 is actually based on the original amendment G-3, and we've amended the latter and, in fact, gone through two versions of it. With the exception of the final line, it's essentially the original amendment G-3, which we did not adopt.

There may need to be a minor modification, but to be consistent, amendment G-3 is what we should be fitting in there, because we're talking about two different types of information. I think we've all agreed on what the treatment and what the protection of the employee should be in those two subsections.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Reinhardt.

[Franz Reinhardt]

There's no person reporting here, Mr. Julian, because it's a FDR. A flight data recording is from IT equipment recording parameters, so there's no person reporting per se. So what we're saying is that when the employer reviews the information and sees that some crew members have not performed up to par, they cannot take disciplinary measures against the individual. And there's no whistle-blower there either, because there's nobody to blow the whistle on anybody—unless the machine is considered the whistle-blower.

So that's the difference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I understand. That is why I did not choose to add subsection (4).

I nevertheless maintain that, at the end of subsection (3), in view of the fact that subsection 5.393(1) states: “If an operator of aircraft has a management system [...]”, he must not disclose personal information and so on. I would have said: “If an operator of aircraft cannot use information gathered in a process [...]”.

You say: “A holder of a Canadian aviation document [...].” If you're telling me that's the same as an operator of aircraft, I'm going to make the correlation. Otherwise, subsection (3) should be as in subsection (1), “an operator of aircraft [...].”

[Franz Reinhardt]

I think we could. This is the way Justice gave it to us. But I understand your concern, Mr. Laframboise, and it's logical. It's really that the operator of the aircraft referred to in proposed subsection 5.392(1) cannot use it against those people.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

A friendly amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to ask you to maybe write those words down if that's going to be a friendly amendment. And I'll go to Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I was just wanting to understand the difference between proposed subsection (2) and this. I understand that the operator has a safety management system. That's fine. He's using it. But what we have here is a non-human information source. We're not protecting a whistle-blower. We have a mechanical system that oversees something happening. And you have that information, and it's not related to an accident; it's related to operational safety management, the monitoring of the effectiveness of the program.

[Franz Reinhardt]

Yes.