I would ask Mr. Cooper what is the purpose of his statement.
Evidence of meeting #42 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
Evidence of meeting #42 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I would ask Mr. Cooper what is the purpose of his statement.
Don Cooper Deputy Site Manager, IMP Aerospace
It's just a statement from corporate on.... Mr. O'Callaghan's comments here today don't reflect probably the feelings or thoughts of the company.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
That's understood. As a union representative he's talking about his employees, and he's speaking on behalf of the employees, not on behalf of the company, as I understand it.
Secretary, Local 90120, Union of National Defence Employees
I'm definitely speaking on behalf of the employees.
Secretary, Local 90120, Union of National Defence Employees
I don't speak on behalf of DND.
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
No, no. If all he's saying is that Mr. O'Callaghan's views don't reflect that of the company, then we can accept that, if that's what he wants to say. I assume if he wants to make a representation to the committee itself, he can make one in writing, or whatever. I have nothing against the person. It's just simply the fact that if we go somewhere else and somebody doesn't like what someone says, can we then say, okay, someone wants to rebut that or say something different by way of argument? I'm just wondering whether that's something we're going to accept on an ongoing basis?
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, I guess my point.... I have no idea what Mr. Cooper is going to say, but since we're here and since we've got the people here that we do have, I think it's frankly incumbent upon the committee to listen. We can choose to disregard it or take it any way we want, but I think it would be appropriate for us to hear from the company that is corporately responsible for operating those aircraft. To me, that's common sense. I don't know what you guys think.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
The problem is, earlier today someone had asked--he's a former honorary colonel who was sitting here and wanted to speak--and I told him there was no way he could do that. I was of the understanding that was the list and that was that. You can take it for what it's worth.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I don't know who that was or what his thing was. It would seem to me that since IMP is responsible for maintaining the aircraft, it would make some sense, while we're here and they're here, to hear what they have to say. It's clearly relevant to response times. It couldn't be clearer than that.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Okay, so we have a motion in front of us.
You can discuss that, Claude.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I gave my support to this right away, because I don't think we will be going back to Newfoundland and Labrador in the near future. It is a democratic exercise. Some people may not have known about this. Why not listen to them, if we have the time?
I am a former unionist and a great friend of National Defence, in particular of Jérôme Turcq and people from that group. Moreover, I am also able to understand that the employer may have another viewpoint. I think we have to listen to him. We will listen with discernment to everything people have to say, we can do that, we are mature enough.
Since we are in a democracy and we do have the time, I agree that we should hear them.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'm in general agreement with the notion that if someone is here and wants to have something to say, we should hear from him. In fact, I proposed just that in Ottawa, you may recall, and the committee turned it down when I suggested that we should hear from whoever wants to have something to say to the committee. We relied on a witness list instead.
If we're going to hear from this gentleman, we should also offer to hear from the gentleman who spoke to Mr. Simms today. We're setting a precedent, Laurie, I have to say, that is contrary to what the committee has said. I've got nothing against Mr. Cooper. I'd be happy to hear what he has to say. Maybe he should send us a letter, unless we're going to open it up to anybody else who's here who wants to have something to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Okay. We have a motion in front of us from Mr. Hawn that Mr. Roy Cooper, deputy site manager from IMP, be allowed to make a statement to us.
Mrs. Gallant.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Speaking to Mr. Harris' concern over setting precedent, you know how one thing can lead to another in terms of another scenario at a future point. If we agree to this, hearing from another witness, perhaps we can also agree, have some sort of consensus, that we're not setting a new convention. It's because we're in specific circumstances here--we've come all these miles--that it won't become something we'll do on an ongoing basis.
Thank you.
Conservative
Deputy Site Manager, IMP Aerospace
Thank you. My name is Don Cooper. I'm the deputy site manager with IMP Aerospace. IMP maintains Canada's fleet of CH-149 Cormorant aircraft in support of search and rescue operations and has done so since 2001. IMP takes exception to some of the comments made here today and intends to appear before the committee at a later date to make representations in its efforts to clarify the comments, which we believe do not accurately reflect the SAR operations.