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.
5:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes.
Merlin.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Well, Mr. Chair, the way the proposed subsection actually reads right now, there is no way of disclosing or making available the information, “except in accordance with the agreement, unless a court or other body that has jurisdiction to compel the production or discovery of information orders its disclosure”. This goes back to what so many witnesses told us, that we have to have some accessibility around information.
The modification from the NDP would have that second paragraph read as, “except in accordance with the agreement or any Act of Parliament or a province”. So an act of Parliament or a provincial act that compels that information to be shared would allow for the disclosure of that information.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Does that mean, then, that--if I'm reading this correctly--a court or a body that has the jurisdiction to compel the production or discovery, ordering its disclosure, would not be able to do so?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The way it's worded, sir.... You're right, Mr. Bell. But that's not the intention. I would certainly accept a friendly amendment that would allow for that.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
You're trying to add, in effect, the agreement of any act of Parliament or of a province, are you?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, and that was the intention of the amendment. We've occasionally had typos or drafting errors throughout this process. The intention was not to remove the reference to court. It was to add an act of Parliament or of a province.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
This is information.... This is the staff outside the SMS. Now we're talking about the flight data recorder. This isn't with an operator who's in an SMS, is it?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
This is outside. Separate from an accident, we're talking about--I'm going up to proposed subsection 5.394(1)--“information derived from a flight data recorder”.
5:15 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
This is exactly the same type of information we're talking about. It's the FDR, except that in this case there's an agreement between the minister and the operator, with consultation with the employees, so the information can be downloaded to Transport for the advancement of aviation safety. It's just a different version of the other one, which was internal. But it's exactly the same thing.
That's why they need the protection. Otherwise they will never sign an agreement, if they don't have that protection.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, we have gone through five or six proposed amendments that are almost exactly the same as other amendments that have been lost. I asked you on Monday to group some of these, because we keep repeating the argument for each one. I don't mean to show any disrespect to you, Mr. Chair, but we are going through a series of amendments, or proposed amendments, that are really the same as that previous amendment under another subsection. And even the most cursory of readings would suggest they can't possibly be entertained because they would contradict what we have just done.
I've held my tongue for the last 45 minutes, but I think that on this one here, if you're going to entertain a lot of debate, and on others subsequent to this, without making a decision on the request I made of you the other day, we would not be using the time of this committee very efficiently.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I have amendment NDP-10.2 to deal with, and then I have a series of them that we have grouped together. Once we deal with this one, we will be able to do that, at the will of the committee.
Mr. Julian.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Volpe on this.
Given that we are making decisions that will make a difference regarding to what extent SMS works or becomes the kind of disaster we've seen with rail safety...so working through it, I don't think anyone is taking an inordinate amount of time. The questions are intelligent. The interventions are relatively brief. I would simply disagree with pushing along in that way.
On that basis, then, I will present amendment NDP-10.2.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This essentially takes the operator out of another section now. We've gone through three proposed sections that provide get-out-of-jail-free cards. How many of those cards are we going to give out to companies that may be irresponsible, given the testimony we've heard? This is simply keeping our responsibility to the Canadian public. We've heard witness after witness testify that getting out of jail free is not good public policy.
So here's a third section now where, if we do not adopt the amendment, we are giving an additional layer of freedom to companies. Most of them will treat it responsibly, but some companies will not. There are the problems we've seen with Air Ontario. The potential for an “Air CN” is increasingly likely if we continue to give these get-out-of-jail-free cards out like candy to companies that may want to cut costs on safety maintenance so they can make a quicker buck.
We've had the warning, particularly from Dax Air--what compelling testimony--that simply doing this makes it increasingly difficult for even good companies to try to match the bottom lines of more irresponsible competitors. So I hope that the committee, having given out two of these cards, will stop giving them out and will adopt this amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have a point of order. We have a motion that we were supposed to deal with at 5:15.