No.
Evidence of meeting #16 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 noise.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #16 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 noise.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I would move a friendly amendment that it read, “call Mr. Jacques Duchesneau to invite him,” as well as invite the president of the airport authority in Montreal, if that be the wish and will of the committee. But change the wording from “call” to “invite to attend before the committee meeting”.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think also one of the difficulties—and, again, this is more from my past experience—is that if we date it October 5, we may be putting ourselves in a box. If he doesn't show up on October 5, we may have to go through another motion. I'm suggesting that we might want to invite him with some timelines, but also give him some time to get organized. It might be up to Mr. Laframboise, perhaps, to change that definite date.
5 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I support the motion, but I would like to move an amendment calling the witness to meeting on October 5th or on another date. Mr. Laframboise has indicated that there is a sense of urgency to the situation. If Mr. Duchesneau is unavailable on Thursday, the invitation should not be limited to that day.
5 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
The friendly amendment, Mr. Chairman, was that the president and CEO of the Montreal airport authority would be accompanying Mr. Duchesneau. Correct?
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Laframboise had mentioned the president of the Canadian Airports Council. They're two different organizations.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My understanding is that it's the airport authority itself, and having the CEO and the president of that organization would make no sense. I think what's happening in Montreal would be indicative of what's taking place, as Monsieur Laframboise has said, in other airports. So it would be a good example of what's taking place, especially because of the light. But I would in fact include my friendly amendment to include what Mr. Julian actually suggested, which was “...October 5, 2006, or such other dates as are available”.
So I would have that friendly amendment in there, if that be the will of the committee, and ask Mr. Laframboise to accept my friendly amendment.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes, and I think we will also keep in mind that if that date starts pushing further and further away from us, we can bring this back as another motion, one that is a little more close-ended, as far as options, hoping, again, that these two people will want to meet with us and present their case.
Do you have the changed motion?
October 3rd, 2006 / 5:05 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee
I have it.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
The Clerk
The motion reads:
That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities invite Mr. Jacques Duchesneau, president and CEO of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and the president of the Montreal Airport authority, to the meeting of October 5, 2006, or to another meeting thereafter, so that they may explain the security failures noted at the Montreal Airport.
5:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Good.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
May I just ask one question of the committee? I was instructed to draft a letter to the minister. I have done that, although he has answered that question publicly in the House.
Is it still the will of the committee to forward that letter, or is the answer good enough? We do have it in writing, based on the Hansard.
5:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
