I've just had a chance to read the new motion. First of all, I don't necessarily agree with passing the motion anyway. But if we are going to study the consequences of noise caused by airport operations in urban areas as well as all other problematics linked to the quality of life of the population, is that problematics linked to the quality of life of the population in regard to airports, or is it in regard to depression, crime, and all those other things that are there? It's not specific enough. First of all, I don't know why we wouldn't just study airport noise, if that's the issue, and see what other things relate to it. If it's airport noise and other issues that are brought forward, then let's study that.
But frankly, I've already agreed with Mr. Guimond that we'll study this as long as we can have extra meetings. As long as all these meetings that we have in relation to airport noise are extra and beyond the scope of the normal meetings of the committee, I have no problem with it. But frankly, I think what we're going to find, as I said before, is that this particular issue has been studied and studied, and what we're going to find after we hear from the department is that there really is not much that can be done about it, unless we want to shut down airports and quite frankly devastate the economy of this country.
I have had a chance to find both French and English of “The Economic Impacts of the Member Carriers of the National Airlines Council of Canada”, and I believe that has been submitted. I do invite all members to read that prior to any study on noise or whatever else we're going to study in relation to that, because they will find the impact of airports on this country is quite dramatic. They are in a very sensitive position right now vis-à-vis the economy as it is. So I think we should keep that in mind on all issues.
But certainly what I would recommend at this stage is to amend the motion so it actually reads that we're going to be studying things relating to airports, or airlines or airways or airplanes, which is not clear—at least in English it's not clear. Then if you have the department here, listen to the department, listen to what they say about it, and then decide where to go from there. Maybe ask the department, is it noise or the yellow bricks of ice coming down? What are the issues that people complain about? We have the Canadian Transportation Agency that receives complaints, so why don't we invite them along with the department the first time and talk to them about noises or other complaints they receive, and then see where we go from there?
But as I said to Monsieur Guimond, if he wants to study this, that's no problem. As long as we do it at extra meetings, we'll agree to it.