Transport Committee on June 6th, 2007

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

I would have tended to say, for example: “[...] subsection (2) [...] subject to subsection (1)”. I would also have added: “[...] information disclosed under a process referred to in subsection (1) may not be used [...]” I would have had that reaction as a legislative drafter, given my legal training—

[Franz Reinhardt]

Mr. Bélanger, I had the same reaction as you.

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

It's Mr. Laframboise.

[Franz Reinhardt]

I received the same training as you. I spoke with the legislators, and we discussed all that in depth, and they convinced me. Indeed, in English, it states, “for a contravention,” and, in French, it states, “relativement à une contravention”. That nevertheless enables the minister to adopt administrative measures with respect to certificates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any other comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to move now to amendment NDP-9.1, and I would point out for the committee that it is very similar to what we dealt with before. But I would ask Mr. Julian to move the motion, and perhaps the committee, rather than repeating the same discussion, can move reasonably quickly on it.

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, this is important legislation. You can't rush it, and we're already starting to make errors.

This is the proposed section that deals with “the collection, analysis and use of information derived from a flight data recorder, then any information collected under the process that comes into the Minister’s possession...”. So it's a different treatment of information, the same situation.

Right now, it's only

available except in the following circumstances:

(a) a court or other body that has jurisdiction to compel the production or discovery...

(b) the information is disclosed

--it doesn't say how--

or made available in a form that prevents it from being related to an identifiable person...

It doesn't say how that is going to occur. So for all intents and purposes, we have paragraphs (a) and (c), that

the Minister considers that disclosing the information or making it available is necessary for the purposes of section 7.1.

That's an important clarification we have now that we didn't have on Monday. Section 7.1 restricts it to suspending, cancelling, or refusing to renew a Canadian aviation document, so we have an even tighter restriction than we had when we discussed this issue on Monday.

Essentially we're putting in place the same structure of information that we've seen has done damage to rail safety. Essentially now you have to go through the court system or, in extreme cases, presumably where people have already died, “if the Minister decides to suspend, cancel or refuse to renew a Canadian aviation document”, then it could be disclosed.

It is in no way in the interest of the public to restrict that information through the court system. It just does not make sense. And it doesn't pass the nod test. If you talk to Canadians and say this is important information that is held internally by a company itself, if it's a good company, if the company has a good reputation, people might say that's understandable.

But we've had companies.... And Judge Moshansky and others have testified to this effect. I think the most compelling testimony was from Kirsten Brazier. She talked about the competitive push to diminish safety standards.

And here we're going to put ourselves in a situation where that information is tightly held and not available to the public. Even through a small door of the restrictions around access to information, it makes absolutely no sense. We've worked very carefully up until now, but today I get the sense that the wheels are starting to fall off what was a careful examination of Bill C-6. It is clearly not in the public interest to force individuals to go through the court system for disclosure of information where lives may hang in the balance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

I still come back to the same problem, because I don't have a better provision.

You've convinced me that the audits are the only documents that must be made public because you have the opportunity to remove everything that is personal or other similar things. Subsequently, however, when it is seen that entire pages are erased, do not appear and so on, does everyone find that normal? Do you find that normal?

I wonder whether there wouldn't be a way of saying that there will be investigation reports and that that is what will be made public, and that there will indeed be personal information that is not required to be disclosed, and so on. Moreover, you explained to us that, in an investigation report, you remove all the personal information and try just to give the general drift.

That is indeed what you explained to us at the outset?

[Franz Reinhardt]

In fact, personal information is protected, but the rest of the information is accessible, Mr. Laframboise. The rest of the information is available. This amendment refers to flight data recorders.

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

I understand that.

[Franz Reinhardt]

That's what we talked about in the case of the amendment preceding this one. That won't be available. They will not be compelled to use the flight data recorders. We encourage them to do so. We want more information.

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

Yes, I understand.

[Franz Reinhardt]

If we don't protect them, they won't use them. As they are not compelled to use them, the minister will never have the information. That is my answer.

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

Yes, but Mr. Bell told you that Minister Lapierre had made public ... Exactly what did he make public?

[Franz Reinhardt]

What did Mr. Lapierre make public?

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

He was forced to make public... It was you, Mr. Bell, who said that?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

No. Minister Lapierre indicated on the rail safety issue that the audits that were going to be done would be made public when they were received. They weren't made public. The subsequent minister said he didn't release them because of the third party requirement--the agreement of the rail company. That was my concern. They finally did come into our possession.

[Franz Reinhardt]

They were finally made public.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The issue was that if they'd been made public earlier we might have had that information and avoided some of the subsequent incidents--might or might not have.

[Franz Reinhardt]

I am not aware of what is going on in the rail sector, but I can tell you that, in principle, documents must be made public.

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

Except that, until there is a provision in the act, situations such as this will continue to occur. You're telling me that a provision is already included—

[Franz Reinhardt]

You have it in other acts, Mr. Bélanger.

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

It's Mr. Laframboise.

[Franz Reinhardt]

Mr. Laframboise, pardon me.