Okay.
Evidence of meeting #56 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.
Evidence of meeting #56 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.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
As far as the information itself is concerned, if they report it to the SMS, this bill is trying to provide some protections for that document. If they take it the next step now and give it to us as an incident report, it's now in our hands and is ATIP-able.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
It comes into the public domain through ATIP just like that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
And they don't lose their protection if they've gone to the SMS first?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
No, they don't lose their protection, but the information itself comes out.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
The follow-up to that, Mr. Chair, then, is to ask what about an audit that would be ordered by the minister or Transport Canada? I guess I'm relating mentally to the rail issues we were involved in and the audits that were ordered by Jean Lapierre, the minister at the time. He said they would be made public, and they weren't when they were received, and the comment made was that it required a third party to agree.
So if the ministry does an audit, is the Aeronautics Act different from the Railway Safety Act, to this degree?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
They're all similar, and section 20 of the access to information legislation applies, asking that we consult with the third party, who has the opportunity to say if there are proprietary rights here. If there are proprietary rights, yes, those rights are protected. But if not, the information shall be released, and there is jurisprudence from high-level courts stating it has to be released.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
And what do proprietary rights involve? Is it competitive information?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Commercial interests, a special patent the company may have on their products, or things like that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
No, that's not protected.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
—the kind of information we had in those railway audits, which would appear to be—
4:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
This is accountability.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
There needs to be accountability, and it would not be protected.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
My question is for Ms. Stanfield.
We've included in the bill provisions designed to guarantee that an inspection service is maintained. We all agreed on that, and there was a government amendment to that effect. Could we add a provision stating: “and the investigation reports will be made public”?
Would including such a provision in the act trouble you?
4:10 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Transport
You're asking me?
That's a policy question, and I will defer to my departmental colleagues.
4:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
It's not that that would trouble me, Mr. Laframboise, but I know that it would trouble a lot of people at the Department of Justice. That's already permitted under other acts. It would be a precedent. We would not see that kind of thing anywhere else. For that reason, I think it would be redundant. You've previously told me that, when it's redundant, it's strong and therefore better. However, the Department of Justice asks us why provisions should be included in one act when they are already covered by other acts. That topic comes up frequently.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I would like you to tell me once again about the deputy minister's statement.
In your opinion, what kind of information could be kept?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
For example, in the context of inquiries into the implementation of the act, if a charge is laid against a given company, until the evidence and its guilt have been established, we do not make that information public. We do not want to cause any harm. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So we protect that kind of information. However, once the decision is rendered or the court has ruled, our file is opened. We can then disclose the information, except for the names of the persons, which are deleted.
Furthermore, as I told you earlier, the information is protected in cases where property rights are at issue. In addition—and this is perhaps what Mr. Ranger meant—we must communicate with the people from the company to give them the opportunity to be heard, to say what they have to say before the information is disclosed. That is a matter of procedural fairness. Whatever the case may be, based on the case law and on what the access to information coordinators do, we normally see that that information is subsequently made public.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Chairman, I just want to confirm to the committee that I handed a copy to Mr. Preuss of the memo that was referred to. I spoke to Mr. Thompson from CUPE, and he's agreed that he has no objection to my passing on the memo that was sent to me. If the committee wants a copy of it to be circulated, I'm happy to. We'll have to make a photocopy of what I've given Mr. Preuss.
