Evidence of meeting #12 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Col Steve Charpentier
The recent one that you probably saw on TV was a controlled ejection over Moose Jaw where two pilots ejected and the aircraft crashed. That one is a top investigation right now.
In July on the news a Sea King at Shearwater cut his tail and rolled on the side and self-destroyed. This is one major investigation on the go right now.
Two years ago a Hercules flew up north in a search and rescue mission. The search and rescue specialist attempted to save two Inuit people in distress. The sergeant who was a part of this mission died. We've just finalized the report and it will be released to the public in about a month. Next week is actually the final stage of this, because I forgot that that step is after the Minister of National Defence.... We go and meet with the next of kin in order to give them the first information openly and after that we release it. This one you'll see being released with no modification whatsoever.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
What are the cases where a report would not be released or where it would be stopped? Can you give us an example of why it wouldn't be released?
My colleague, Mr. Sullivan, mentioned it.
I want to thank you very much for all the information you have given us. We have a great deal of respect for the work you do and the services you provide.
You have especially reassured us about your publication process, which gives everyone access to the information. We are also reassured to see that you work with civil officials. That was one of the questions the committee members were asking themselves, and you answered it really well.
Could you give us some examples of situations where information would need to be classified as secret? In what type of situation would information not be made public?
Col Steve Charpentier
Unfortunately, or fortunately, no member of my office's staff—not even those who have been there for 15 years—can remember a case where information was not provided, and I can't either. That has never happened.
I can envision certain cases where that could happen, but it would be for reasons of operational security—for instance, during missions abroad such as those in Libya or in Kandahar, which has ended. Otherwise, on Canadian soil, I cannot recall a single case. It has never happened.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Thank you so much. All the members of the committee are very impressed by the information we have been given today. Thank you for your services, as well.
Mr. Sullivan will ask some more questions.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
I have two small things. One, do you find that there is need for more funding for your department? Are you constrained? Are you restrained? Are there any limits? I mean, you're doing a lot of really great work.
Col Steve Charpentier
With those new powers with this act it's not going to change anything, I mean, in the sense of funding and so on. I don't have to increase the number of people I have and so on. It's going to facilitate my work actually.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
My second question, very briefly is, do you ever, and I assume no, but do you ever have any interference through the course of your investigation from more senior or political personnel? For example, the case you're just about to wrap up regarding the person from Trenton who perished in the north.... The folks in Trenton told me they would rather have helicopters that could reach the north so they wouldn't have to parachute from a Hercules but I can imagine the department not wanting that kind of information to be released.
Is there any kind of interference that ever happens with these things?
Col Steve Charpentier
No. You will see when the report is out and you go through it, we do make some good recommendations. That may be some guys.... It's transparent. There's no interference. I haven't seen any of it.
I took over this job last July and being away from that, because I was deployed on a mission in Haiti, I came back and I looked at that. I was a bit questioning myself about that, but I really had a good test, which was the Sea King crash in July. Some of the EA administrative people came to me and said the chief of the air force wants to know what happened in the crash. So I said, okay, I'll go up and brief him about it. When he saw me—and he knew I was the new director of flight safety—he said he didn't want to hear about me, he didn't want to be seen as interfering in my protocol. He told me to go back and do my stuff and he would get his information from the chain of command.
I really felt great about that because that was the test for me, that it's very respected and I haven't seen any of that. In the case of Sergeant Gilbert, who is the SAR Tech who died in Nunavut, we went through a very long and good investigation, but at no point whatsoever was anyone interfering in it. We consulted a lot of people directly. Let's say we have to talk to a sergeant, but technically in the Canadian Forces, a colonel doesn't talk to a sergeant. He talks to the colonel who talks to the light colonel and so on.
But we do have that power. We go direct. And we tell him that he can not repeat that. We just want you to double-check here, to make sure we have it correct. We sure don't want to release the wrong information in the report and he comes back to us.
So this is well understood and I think there's a little bit of a good fear in the chain of command that no one wants to put their hand in this thing to be seen as trying to interfere because after that I could go straight to the Minister of National Defence and create a bit of turmoil.
Conservative
February 13th, 2014 / 9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you very much for that, Chair.
I have questions with regard to the amendments that would permit the on-board recorder of an aircraft to be made available to the military boards of inquiry.
You're saying that under the CTAISB Act, a civilian coroner would have to decide that based on a test, and the test would basically be whether the public interest outweighs the reasons why you might not want to do that. You said one of the disadvantages was that you'd have one arm asking for its release and another arm saying it shouldn't be released. You say this system is better because now the Minister of National Defence would make the final determination balancing the interests.
But my question to you is, if you have an independent party from the military making a decision with respect to what's in the public interest or not, even though there are two competing interests, how is that worse than having someone who's actually involved with the military—like the Minister of National Defence—make that decision? Would it not be better to have an independent party outside the military making that decision?
Col Steve Charpentier
That's a good question. First, before I go there, I just want to give some background to this thing. As I said, I'm in charge of the flight safety program. I want to make sure that free and open reporting is happening and people don't fear reporting. So that's why I would fight to keep the information of the OBR and the testimony not to be released, to be privileged. Because if we start messing with that type of information and people start to understand that this information could be turned against them into discipline action, then I'm going kill my free and open reporting thing.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
But that's not the substance of my question or the issue. The issue is, who best can balance the public interest and who is in the best position to do that? You're saying a system where an independent party like the court is not that system. It would be the Minister of National Defence and I'm asking why that is better.
Counsel, Legal Advisory Services, Department of Justice
I think, sir, we're trying to avoid—as Mr. Armour mentioned—having to go to court to settle these matters because under the current law, the board of inquiry has an independent status. They could demand the on-board recording from the colonel here. They have an infinite mandate and likewise does the DFS and the AIA.
So now we have potentially two people going to court here, so these provisions have created what we think is a fair and balanced process internally.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So that decision as to balancing the interest would be made internally as opposed to an outside source? And you're saying that's better?
Counsel, Legal Advisory Services, Department of Justice
I think it is better. First of all, the man beside me here is going to have the first decision. If the board of inquiry wants that particular on-board recording, they've got to come to the AIA, the colonel here, to make that initial decision. We have to think that it's going to be an unusual case when they're coming to the colonel. There's going to be a case where perhaps the only evidence that's around on a particular event that the board of inquiry is investigating is on the tape. There may be no other evidence. That has to be a big factor in the AIA deciding.
Secondly, the tapes are not to hide blatant conduct.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The point is, who is in the best position to objectively determine the public interest? Is that somebody independent of the military, or is it somebody who has to do with the military?
Senior Investigator, Department of National Defence
It's the proper administration of justice. We're proposing a slightly different test in this amendment. Currently, the public interest is weighed by a judge under section 22. Then in section 23, in our proposed amendment, we're saying that when we're weighing...and that provision is still there by the way, we've imported that from CTAISB. Section 28 is now section 22 in our proposed amendment. We've added a section 23 whereby the test is proper administration in the Canadian Forces versus the privilege associated with the recorder.
If it's the proper administration in the Canadian Forces, a Canadian Forces person really should be making that decision. The first decision is made by the AIA. There's an appeal process. The next level would be the minister or an officer delegated by the minister. The test is literally the privilege associated with what's on the on-board recorder. That means the protection of the flight safety blameless culture versus the proper administration of the Canadian Forces. Has he breached some blatant rule or regulation? The only piece of evidence that somebody else can look at is that on-board recorder.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
There are two tests. When is one used and when is the other? What's the difference?
Senior Investigator, Department of National Defence
If something were to come into a public court, then section 22 would apply. If something were happening inside the Canadian Forces, section 23 would apply. We haven't removed the ability of a court to look at the public interest in justice and the privilege associated with that. That is still in our amendments. We've added a second test possibility, and that is with respect to proper administration of the Canadian Forces.
