Transport Committee on June 6th, 2007

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The status doesn't nullify essentially the existence of this organization. It does reduce it. We've already accepted that principle through the various amendment processes, first through scheduled air services, then adding fare-paying passengers. This certainly added an additional level of security to ensure that for any designated organization we have the

implementation of the amendment as well, as a result of which that will happen in a few years. So here we're essentially limiting the scope of this clause in the bill.

It's not nullifying. It is certainly restricting to a greater extent, but that being said, I'm not going to fight and die on this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If there are no other comments, I'll call the question on amendment NDP-7.2.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to move to amendment NDP-8.3.

When we agreed at the last meeting to move to amendment G-3, it was simply because some felt that was an encompassing amendment, including those numbers, but because we didn't deal with them, we stood them at the time. The amendment has been moved, and I would ask Mr. Julian if he wants to continue with the debate on it or move to a vote or to withdrawal.

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

Mr. Chair, this is an important amendment. We've already seen--and we've had many witnesses who have testified to this effect--that the element of secrecy is something we have to be concerned about. Witness after witness after witness, from David Jeanes to Greg Holbrook to Justice Moshansky, talked about the issue of ensuring that whistle-blowers are protected--we're starting to deal with that now--but also of ensuring that there was not an excessive level of secrecy around this closure process. Ken Rubin and Richard Balnis spoke very eloquently to this issue.

What we currently have is information that is essentially kept. Either a court can force it out or the minister himself or herself can make it available, and we've seen that has not been to the credit of the process when we talked about rail safety issues. We certainly heard that through Mr. Bell's inquiry into rail safety.

What this amendment is doing is looking to the information being subject to disclosure under an act of Parliament. We know that the Access to Information Act already is limited in its ability to deal with full disclosure. In fact, we would hear from the department of a variety of areas, from commercial reasons to others, where information is not subject to the ATI and not released. What this does is simply provide a small and modest additional level of security to ensure that the information that has to go out to the public is out in the public domain, and for Canadians who are choosing which airline to go on, this is important. It is important to protect their families. It's important to have that safety information out, if it is required in the travelling domain.

I think it is important that we look at making the bill less extreme in that area of secrecy and subject to more than just a long and arduous court process or the minister himself or herself. That's far too limiting a clause, and so this amendment would open that up to a certain extent, although it is fair to say it is far below what Mr. Rubin, who is the dean of access to information, would have certainly liked to see. Certainly it is much more open than it is currently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Mr. Chairman, at the last meeting, there was an exchange between Mr. Julian and the departmental people concerning an access to information request for an audit of Air Transat. Mr. Julian said that, according to his information, that request had been denied. Mr. Preuss said that he would check to see whether he was given the information on that subject. Is that exercise complete? If so, can we know the results?

[Franz Reinhardt]

I'll let Mr. Preuss answer.

[Merlin Preuss]

I responded to a specific question about an audit, Mr. Bélanger. I asked Mr. Julian to provide me the date of the audit to which he's referring.

My understanding is that if it wasn't disclosed it certainly should be, and it certainly should be brought to this committee. I'm not aware of a gap here somewhere. It's certainly not something that I personally, from an audit perspective, have said, that there's not a report, and no, you can't have it.

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

It seemed to me germane, Mr. Chairman, that if indeed there is a specific case where the information was requested, and we have officials who say it should be available but we have a member of the committee who says it isn't available, that we need to know. I'm sorry that didn't occur between Monday and today.

Could we see our way to getting clarity on that? I think that would go a long way to dealing with this in a number of the amendments that are coming before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Reinhardt.

[Franz Reinhardt]

As soon as we have the exact date and the details of when the audit occurred and the carrier, we can ask our people in access to information to prepare the package. I remember the last time we left the committee on this. Give us the date and we will--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for clarity, then, the issue was raised and you said to provide you with the date of the occurrence, and you can research and get back to us.

[Franz Reinhardt]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian, do you have that?

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

It came within the CUPE presentation to this committee, Mr. Chair.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

May I make a comment, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I recall that exchange. It's contained in the CUPE, or whatever--that's fine--but CUPE didn't ask for that. A member of the committee asked for it. Specifically it was, “Would you just give us the date, and we will do it.”

So Mr. Julian, if you don't have the date....

I would love to hold Mr. Reinhardt and Mr. Preuss to their word, but they haven't been given that date. I can't even feel as if these guys are letting us down. I don't think it's fair to them or to us to say, well, it was contained. I don't even know when CUPE appeared before this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I agree.

Mr. Julian, if you have a specific date, perhaps you would get that to Mr. Preuss or Mr. Reinhardt and we'll get that answer to you.

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

Certainly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

We set ourselves the objective of doing our research. I would probably be prepared to accept the department's position regarding the confidentiality of the audits. However, I have a problem. I bring to your attention the statement that Mr. Louis Ranger made before us on November 7, 2006. He said: “TC plans to continue withholding such audits by treating them as confidential, commercial or technical information.” I am prepared to accept the department's position, but, if the audits are not made public and are considered confidential documents under the new act, that poses a problem. I want to follow you, but, last time, you told us the audits would be made public. You're removing the names of the audits; I understood that.

[Franz Reinhardt]

I don't know the context in which Mr. Ranger made that statement. I would have to know the context. However, I can tell you that, since there has been access to information in the civil aviation world, when we receive an access to information request for audits, those requests are handled directly by the access to information coordinator. We know that there is a body of case law under section 20 according to which we must consult the third party, but the information must be transmitted. When we transmit the audit findings, we also state the corrective measures that the companies have decided to adopt, because we want it to be balanced. If we have 10 findings on a company, it will submit 10 corrective measures to us. We want the person making the access request to have a balanced view of what happened and what the company subsequently did. We transmit both, and the audits are always transmitted. That has always been the policy.

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

As I told you, I have your word. However, that appears in no statutory enactment. Couldn't we include that in it?

[Franz Reinhardt]

No. According to the Access to Information Act, we tell you what must be made public in response to a request. There have been interpretations by the courts and there is a very clear body of case law on the subject. Unless the information is likely to cause serious commercial harm because property rights are at issue, the information must be made accessible. People are very well protected.