AVCANADA

It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:04 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:57 pm 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5898
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
Rockie wrote:
photofly wrote:
It's very straightforward. It's written in section 20 of the Access to Information Act. The government is forbidden to release information provided by a third party in confidence except under the very narrow exceptions in the Act.


Except if it involves public safety or public interest which this clearly does. There is no prohibition.
Obviously we're reading different laws then. The Access To Information Act that I have in front of me doesn't say what you think it says. The courts don't think it says what you think it says. The Information Commissioner doesn't think it says what you think it says. And Transport Canada doesn't think it says what you think it says.
Quote:
That's possible, but you prefer institutionalized secrecy and a guarantee that none of these things will ever be publicly known?

I care that the overall safety of the travelling public is the priority. Not the selling of more newspapers. And I have a government that I charge with the responsibility for maintaining that safety. I see that lapses in following the regulations have been fixed through the use of the SMS scheme. I have a dog. I don't need to do my own barking.
Rockie wrote:
photofly wrote:
The government has to follow through on that, which includes the requirement to keep the reports confidential.


There is no such requirement. Show me, in any law, regulation, statute, bylaw or convention where public safety information as it relates to an airline or any other public transportation company is required to be kept confidential. Show me...

There's no such thing in law as "public safety information". There's "technical information that is confidential information supplied to a government institution by a third party and is treated consistently in a confidential manner by the third party" and there's "information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party" - both of which are forbidden to be disclosed except under the narrow tests for exemptions - tests which aren't met in these circumstances.

That's section 20 of the Access to Information Act. It's all there in plain English.


_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:25 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7249
photofly wrote:
Obviously we're reading different laws then.


No, same act. This is a prohibition:

"20. (1) Subject to this section, the head of a
government institution shall refuse to disclose
any record requested under this Act that contains"


This is the section pertaining to public interest, public health, public safety and protection of the environment - and is definitely not a prohibition:

"(6) The head of a government institution
may disclose all or part of a record requested
under this Act that contains information described
in any of paragraphs (1)(b) to (d) if

(a) the disclosure would be in the public interest
as it relates to public health, public
safety
or protection of the environment;
and

(b) the public interest in disclosure clearly
outweighs in importance any financial loss
or gain to a third party
, any prejudice to the
security of its structures, networks or systems,
any prejudice to its competitive position
or any interference with its contractual
or other negotiations."


If Enbridge wanted to run a pipeline through your neighborhood would you want to know what their safety record is with spills? If you had to fly on an airline you had heard some rumblings about wouldn't you want to know details? How about a railroad that had poor track maintenance and you wanted to know how many derailments they've had before booking that lovely trip through the rockies? Don't you think you have a right to know this stuff as a consumer?

photofly wrote:
And I have a government that I charge with the responsibility for maintaining that safety. I see that lapses in following the regulations have been fixed through the use of the SMS scheme.


How do you see anything without disclosure? You're either joking or just being argumentative.



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:13 pm 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5898
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
Rockie wrote:
If you had to fly on an airline you had heard some rumblings about wouldn't you want to know details?

What I want to know is an entirely different question from what is in the interest of public safety to be released. The Act quite plainly doesn't entitle me to know whatever I want.

Information may be released when the public safety angle clearly out weighs in importance the commercial disadvantage. In my opinion, and in the opinion of everyone who has to make that decision for real, the information in these particular cases doesn't pass that straightforward test. If you think it does, and you put together a cogent explanation to show why (you haven't so far) then you have a case to argue. I look forward to reading it!


_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:58 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7249
The access to information act predates SMS by a good number of years, and before SMS disclosure was much more open as the article indicates. Nothing bestows the "confidential" status on SMS reports or TC actions in relation to a company. There is nothing proprietary about SMS reports, they do not contain "trade secrets", and whatever technical information they contain has to do with safety rather than core business products.

It is not for me to present a cogent argument why public safety documents should be accessible when the argument makes itself, and which should be the default position - which it once was before this blanket of secrecy fell over all government operations and access to information requests. Rather, it should be up to a company (or you) to present a cogent argument why public safety documents should not be accessible.

photofly wrote:
the information in these particular cases doesn't pass that straightforward test.


You're wrong about the innocuousness of the information and that it is a straight forward test. It is completely subjective test and this government has taken the default position of secrecy in everything they do when it should be the other way around. That's the way a free and open society works.



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:17 pm 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5898
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
Rockie wrote:
The access to information act predates SMS by a good number of years, and before SMS disclosure was much more open as the article indicates. Nothing bestows the "confidential" status on SMS reports or TC actions in relation to a company. There is nothing proprietary about SMS reports, they do not contain "trade secrets", and whatever technical information they contain has to do with safety rather than core business products.


What bestows confidential status on the contents of the report is that the data in them is provided to the government by a third party and treated in confidence by that third party. The law states plainly that that alone is sufficient.

20.1 contains an "or" clause. The records have meet any one of the criteria to be protected from release, not all of them. Since SMS reports are both technical information that is considered confidential by the third party and could be reasonably expected to cause financial loss on disclosure, they're protected on two grounds. It doesn't make any difference if the information is proprietary or not, core business related or not, or trade secrets.
rockie wrote:
photofly wrote:
the information in these particular cases doesn't pass that straightforward test.


You're wrong about the innocuousness of the information and that it is a straight forward test. It is completely subjective test and this government has taken the default position of secrecy in everything they do when it should be the other way around. That's the way a free and open society works.

I'm not sure what the default position is, or even if there is one. What the government does in other cases is irrelevant to us; we must judge each issue on its own merits. Nor do I believe there's anything subjective about the test which I find quite easy to apply in this case.

The case that Porter might make to argue against disclosure is straightforward and logical:
1. The matters have already been corrected to the satisfaction of the regulator so no improvement to public safety could be obtained by disclosure
2. Disclosure of minor SMS findings would hinder future SMS reporting which is predicated on a level of confidentiality. Damaging the SMS system would be a detriment to public safety rather than assist it.
3. Disclosure is bound to cause significant commercial loss by needlessly alarming passengers and preventing them from booking for fear of safety issues that have already been corrected.

I doubt that we disagree on point 3. In fact I suspect that you're hoping to see that damage done because for some reason you have a hard-on for damaging Porter Airlines. But that's beside the point. What I'd like to read is a measured explanation of how public safety will be served by disclosure. I haven't seen it yet.

By the way, I believe there's a procedure under the Act where Porter would have been given notice of the intent to disclose and given the opportunity to make an argument against it. TC itself doesn't give a hoot if the information is disclosed, and it's not "government secrecy". It's Porter making a case to Government that disclosure of Porter's confidential information is not permitted in this case. And they're right.


_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:34 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7249
The judge ruled against Porter in that case, and then allowed basically indiscriminate redacting of the reports he ordered released. Sounds to me like he was unable to make up his mind. And in the article the head of First Air and the Federal Pilots union head make clear cases for why this information should be accessible to the public.

A good example of when keeping secrets is detrimental to the public is a certain defunct happy face airline. If the public knew half of what that company did they would have demanded they be shut down and rightly so. That company was protected - everybody in the industry knew it - and secrecy allowed it.

I also have nothing against Porter. The same standard should be applied to every operator including mine. Level playing field for all and if companies don't like seeing their name in print for excessive safety issues they'll try harder not to have any. Even you must be able to see how that benefits the public. If they can't keep their name out of print for excessive safety issues then who gives a s**t about their finances suffering except them? They have the power to change it.

The question is why would you want to protect a company like that?



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:16 pm 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5898
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
Rockie wrote:
And in the article the head of First Air and the Federal Pilots union head make clear cases for why this information should be accessible to the public.
After much effort, I'm unable to draw any such argument from what's written in the article. I should be grateful if you could make it explicit for me.

Quote:
...and if companies don't like seeing their name in print for excessive safety issues they'll try harder not to have any. Even you must be able to see how that benefits the public.
What I see is that if companies don't like seeing their name in print for safety issues they'll fight tooth and nail against a system that requires them to volunteer their own safety issues in confidence to the attention of the government only to see them on the pages of the Globe and Mail. Then safety issues won't be addressed when they should be. Even you must be able to see how that will work against the public interest.


_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:06 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7249
photofly wrote:
After much effort, I'm unable to draw any such argument from what's written in the article. I should be grateful if you could make it explicit for me.


"Greg McConnell, president of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association union that represents government inspectors, reviewed the documents concerning Porter, but said it was difficult to conclude much given the redactions, which was a concern.

He said the documents show how Transport Canada’s work has changed over his career: “The documentation has become, almost, very secretive.”
"


"First Air CEO Brock Friesen said transparency was in the public’s best interest:"

Pretty easy to see they're not fans of the secrecy and why. You mustn't have put that much effort into it because they state it quite clearly.


photofly wrote:
What I see is that if companies don't like seeing their name in print for safety issues they'll fight tooth and nail against a system that requires them to volunteer their own safety issues in confidence to the attention of the government only to see them on the pages of the Globe and Mail.


I have some bad news for you, companies already abuse the system because there is no oversight - unless of course you think the TSB is wrong too. No oversight of a voluntary reporting system in public transportation companies, and a shroud of secrecy when they do. Some people like that system, but their interests in it aren't usually aligned with the public interest.



Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:55 am 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5898
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
Rockie wrote:
"Greg McConnell, president of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association union that represents government inspectors, reviewed the documents concerning Porter, but said it was difficult to conclude much given the redactions, which was a concern.
McConnell says there isn't enough information ("difficult to conclude much") to make an argument for public safety. That's not the basis of an argument for public safety, and asking for information to be provided merely to discover if there's a public benefit in that information being provided is called a fishing expedition. Courts don't approve fishing expeditions.
Quote:
[i]"First Air CEO Brock Friesen said transparency was in the public’s best interest:"

Friesen is saying only that it's in the public interest, but he's not saying how or why. "It's in the public interest because it's in the public interest" isn't a cogent argument either.

An argument that the information should be released because the benefit to public safety clearly outweighs the commercial damage it would cause to the third party looks like this:

If the records are released then (a) will happen, which will lead to (b) which will lead to (c) and (d), and (c) and (d) will mean fewer airplane accidents. Significantly fewer, to outweigh the loss to Porter in customers who will fly with another airline.

Nobody has put forward that argument - here or anywhere else (certainly not in the quotes you provided) - and until they do, you're not going to get the information released.


_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:55 am 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5898
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
Rockie wrote:
"Greg McConnell, president of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association union that represents government inspectors, reviewed the documents concerning Porter, but said it was difficult to conclude much given the redactions, which was a concern.
McConnell says there isn't enough information ("difficult to conclude much") to make an argument for public safety. That's not the basis of an argument for public safety, and asking for information to be provided merely to discover if there's a public benefit in that information being provided is called a fishing expedition. Courts don't approve fishing expeditions.
Quote:
[i]"First Air CEO Brock Friesen said transparency was in the public’s best interest:"

Friesen is saying only that it's in the public interest, but he's not saying how or why. "It's in the public interest because it's in the public interest" isn't a cogent argument either.

An argument that the information should be released because the benefit to public safety clearly outweighs the commercial damage it would cause to the third party looks like this:

If the records are released then (a) will happen, which will lead to (b) which will lead to (c) and (d), and (c) and (d) will mean fewer airplane accidents. That will be significant and outweigh the loss to Porter in customers who will fly with another airline.

Nobody has put forward that argument - here or anywhere else (certainly not in the quotes you provided) - and until they do, you're not going to get the information released.


_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: atpilot, bearitus, Full Ins, Phlyer, ram, Rupert_Pupkin and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]

For questions/comments please send them to
avcanada@gmail.com


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a topic or post is inappropriate email us at avcanada@gmail.com .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site. 

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.