Debates of Oct. 25th, 2023

Criminal Code

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question about a possible shift in the Conservative Party's current stance compared to that of Stephen Harper, the former prime minister of Canada, regarding section 7 and the Ndhlovu decision, which sought to enrol all sex offenders in a registry. This time around, the judge will have the discretion to decide which names are entered on the list.

I would like to know whether the current Conservative Party, unlike its predecessors, agrees with this shift?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think perhaps I did address this in my speech. When the sex offender registry was originally brought in, with the support of all parties at the time, it was discretionary for judges as to who would be put on the registry. However, it seemed to be taken up only about 50% of the time, so the Conservative government of the day, again with the support of all parties at the time, took the next step to make it mandatory because it simply was not being taken up enough to fully and thoroughly protect women and children in Canada.

From my point of view, I understand the court's decision and where that decision was coming from, but I think the Liberals and the NDP in their coalition government could have done a much better job of looking at that decision while still protecting women and children to the maximum within the parameters set out in the decision.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment to thank the member for South Surrey—White Rock for sharing in the House her personal experience as a sexual assault survivor. This is a scourge in our society that is too often treated as a source of shame for victims. It is very important that we all stand with those victims. One of the ways of doing that is by sharing personal experience.

The member will know that I also have shared in the House my own experience as an adult survivor of child sexual assault. I think that whatever our opinions about what the proper solutions are, it is important to acknowledge all those victims who came forward to the House of Commons justice committee, shared their experiences and risked retraumatization in order to get the legislative changes that they think are important.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to come forward. I am able to come forward in the House in a public way at this time in my life only because of the passage of time. At an earlier time, I simply could not have stood publicly and disclosed what I have disclosed.

The effects of sexual assaults last a lifetime. I applaud all those who came before the committee and told their personal stories, shared them in order to enlighten us all on the difficulties faced by victims.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for making it possible to pass Bill S‑12 in a reasonable enough time frame that should hopefully allow it to get through the legislative process fast enough for the existing legislation to be amended before the deadline set by the Supreme Court. I think everyone on the committee worked seriously and diligently, and I would like to thank them all.

Having said that, Bill S‑12 has two components. The first is the component required by the Supreme Court pertaining to the national sex offender registry. It is a response to the Supreme Court ruling handed down on October 28, 2022, in R. v. Ndhlovu, which struck down two provisions of the Criminal Code, namely section 490.012 and section 490.013(2.1).

The court held that registering offenders who are not at risk of committing a future sex offence is disconnected from the purpose of registration. The court pointed out that the purpose of registration is to capture information that may assist the police in preventing and investigating sexual offences.

The Supreme Court gave the federal government one year to remedy the situation, and that time is up next week, on October 29, 2023. If the amendments are not passed by then, then offenders will no longer have to register with the national sex offender registry. Clearly, we all want to avoid that.

Obviously, the House of Commons fast-tracked the legislative process to meet that deadline. What I am wondering is why the government waited until April 26, six months after the Supreme Court ruling, to introduce this bill. I would remind the House that the Supreme Court delivered its ruling in R. v. Ndhlovu over a year ago on October 28, 2022, and ordered that the Criminal Code be amended by October 29, 2023.

On April 26, 2023, Senator Gold introduced a bill in the Senate, six months after the Supreme Court delivered its ruling. Bill S‑12 was passed in the Senate at third reading on June 22, meaning the bill took two months to get through the Senate. Six months elapsed between the time when the government found out that it had to amend the law and the time when the bill was introduced, another two months elapsed between the time when Senator Gold introduced his bill and the time when it was passed at third reading in the Senate, and a further three months passed before the bill arrived here in the House of Commons—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the member not to put his phone on his desk because it causes problems for the interpreters.

The hon. member for Rivière‑du‑Nord.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that it took six months for Senator Gold to introduce the bill in the Senate. I do not blame him. It was the government's responsibility, not his.

The Senate passed the bill at third reading in two months, which seems more than reasonable to me. Three months went by between June 22 and September 19, because it was the summer. The bill arrived in the House on September 19, and 36 days later, here we are in the House for third reading of the bill. Thirty-six days is obviously not a lot of time to study a bill of this magnitude in the House. I find that disappointing.

What happened between October 28, 2022, and April 26, 2023? Was the government closed for business? Were there no ministers around who could work on drafting the bill? I guess not. I am very disappointed.

The only reason we are here today, being forced to ram through this bill, jeopardizing our parliamentary duty to listen to every citizen and group concerned about the bill, weigh their positions and arguments, and study the representations made in committee with care and attention, is that the government did not put in a modicum of diligence to satisfy the obligations imposed on it by the Supreme Court ruling. At no point, in the House, in committee, in the media or in a press release, did the government offer the slightest explanation for this delay. We received no explanation, no excuse, nothing. Again, it is disappointing to say the least.

Basically, the bill reinstates the principle of automatic registration, but with better guidelines and subject to certain conditions. Registration will now be automatic only for sex offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more and for repeat offenders. In all other cases, there will be a presumption that the offender will be required to register, but it could be overturned if the individual proves that there is no connection between the order to register and the purpose of registration or that registration is totally disproportionate to that purpose.

Bill S‑12 therefore allows for greater flexibility and provides that judges may use their discretion to order whether those convicted of multiple offences during a single trial should, or should not, remain on the registry for life when their behavioural profile demonstrates an increased risk of reoffending.

The Bloc Québécois unsurprisingly endorses these amendments, which are in line with human rights requirements and respond to the Supreme Court's October 28, 2022 ruling.

With regard to the second component, Bill S‑12 proposes provisions promoting the participation of victims at the publication ban stage, when a ban is to be issued. On numerous occasions, witnesses have come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights asking that we amend these rules and allow victims to intervene before a publication ban is issued.

Publication bans are issued to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses. They are issued for their benefit, not for the benefit of the defendant or the benefit of the courts and prosecutors. The basic principle in Canada, and a cornerstone of our justice system, is to hold open trials. Not so long ago, we heard about hidden trials, secret trials. I do not think anyone wanted them. They certainly should not become the rule. Open legal proceedings are a guarantee of fairness and of trials that comply with the applicable legal provisions. Justice is done in public, not behind closed doors or in secret.

Obviously, the presence of the public and the media in the courtroom is critically important, as is the right to talk about the trial, the evidence presented and the issues at stake. Publication bans should be used only under exceptional and clearly defined circumstances. On several occasions, the courts have heard challenges to their validity, often raised by media representatives.

If these bans are to be issued only on rare occasions, it is quite understandable that the reasons justifying them must be very well defined and clear to everyone. The purpose of the bans must be to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses, or at least seriously strive to achieve that objective. What is the current situation? At present, unfortunately, that is not always the case.

Bill S‑12 seeks to ensure that the people we want to protect are truly protected, and that they know they are protected. It seems to us that, at the very least, before issuing such a ban, the courts must ensure that the victims are aware that a ban is being sought and could be granted, that they understand the details of the ban and, finally, that they consent to it. How else could anyone claim that the ban is in their best interests?

Victims must also have the opportunity to request that the publication ban be modified or lifted. Victims may have consented to a ban for one reason or another but, for a host of other good reasons, they may later decide they want the ban modified or lifted. Logically, victims should be allowed to request such modifications if the ban is indeed in their best interests, as it should be.

However, as things stand, these bans are often issued without the victims' knowledge and, unfortunately, without their consent. Worse still, when they find out that a publication ban has been issued, the victims, whom the bans are intended to protect, are currently unable to request that the ban be modified or lifted. As if that were not enough, victims are even liable to prosecution if they violate a publication ban by speaking out about the assaults they have suffered or about their attacker's trial. The victim we want to protect becomes the culprit we want to prosecute. I agree with what everyone is probably thinking: That is insane and it has to change.

The purpose of Bill S‑12 is therefore to correct these incongruities and greatly improve the situation for victims and witnesses. From now on, judges will have to ensure that victims are notified when a publication ban is about to be issued and that they consent to it. If the victims are not present in the courtroom, the judge will have to ensure that the prosecutor has notified them and obtained their consent. Furthermore, victims will now be able to communicate with a legal professional, a health professional or a person with whom they have a relationship of trust without putting themselves at risk of contravening the publication ban. This is a necessary and welcome improvement. One even wonders how it could ever have been otherwise.

That said, our courts will face challenges. Sometimes, they will have to weigh the interests of the different parties if one victim wants a publication ban revoked or varied but other victims involved in the case disagree. The judge deciding the issue will have to consider the opinions and rights of everyone concerned by the ban. It will definitely take some imagination to word the ban in a way that satisfies and respects each person it needs to protect. This will be no small challenge, but nonetheless, it is a challenge we must meet. While it may not be perfect, I hope that Bill S‑12 will largely and adequately meet our legislative obligations.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

From the proposed changes, we can see that the courts will be able to exercise discretion in ordering lifetime registration in cases where an offender's risk of reoffending is high.

Is my colleague confident that the courts will be able to use this discretion wisely to make decisions that better protect victims and the general public?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for her question.

Yes, I am confident that the courts will be able to accomplish that task in an effective, fair and reasonable manner. To be honest, I have often said in the House that I believe we have a high-quality court system in Quebec and Canada that is likely the envy of many states, many countries.

The courts will be able to do that, even if it is not always an easy task. As I was saying at the end of my speech, problematic situations will arise, such as when there are multiple victims and they do not all agree on whether there should be a publication ban or not. However, I believe that our courts will be able to deal with such challenges appropriately.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill S-12 today, as it would address one of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”, which was tabled in the House in December 2022.

When the justice committee began its study on victims of crime more than a year and a half ago, the member for Victoria brought to my attention the bizarre and unjust situation that survivors of sexual assault face in their current circumstances, which is that survivors regularly suffer from restrictions on their ability to talk about what happened to them and sometimes even suffer penalties for violating court-ordered bans on the publication of information that would identify their own names. It is important to note that these bans are routinely imposed in sexual assault cases across Canada. Anecdotally, we know it approaches 100% of the time. It is also important to note that most of the time, this happens without survivors' being aware that the publication ban is in place.

Bill S-12 would fix that by requiring notification of survivors. There are many reasons a survivor might choose to or inadvertently violate such a ban. Some feel that such publication bans inadvertently protect the perpetrators by the necessity of protecting their identity in circumstances where the publication of the perpetrator's identity would identify the victim. Others feel the idea of publication bans itself is based on an archaic and misogynist idea that sexual assault victims are somehow responsible for what happened to them and should be ashamed.

To be clear, some survivors do want their privacy protected by having publication bans in place, but others believe that public safety requires them to let family, friends and members of the public know of a risk of sexual assault they might face, by identifying the fact they were assaulted and who the perpetrator was.

At this point, I want to express my thanks to the survivors of sexual assault, and in particular those from the group My Voice, My Choice, who risked retraumatization by coming forward to committee and talking in public about their own personal experiences, in order to get the legislative change they need, in the hearings before the justice committee on victims' rights that began in October 22, more than a year ago.

Again, I want to thank the member for Victoria, who brought this situation to my attention and then introduced a private member's bill on the topic in order to try to get the House to act. In addition, I want to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, the former minister of justice, who decided to include measures to restore agency to survivors of sexual assault by including it in Bill S-12.

The government did not choose a path, using a Senate bill, nor did it choose a timetable, at the last minute, that New Democrats might have chosen. This has left us with little time to meet the deadline for passage of Bill S-12 and therefore with little time to consider all of the important amendments suggested by My Voice, My Choice, without endangering the fate of this bill as a whole by causing a to and fro between the House and the Senate. Now, we have a bill that, had it been on a better path and a better timetable, could have been even better in meeting the needs of survivors of sexual assault. However, we still have a bill before us that, I am assured, would make the necessary fundamental changes to restore agency to survivors and to ensure that there would not be prosecutions for violating bans of those whom they were supposed to protect.

Let me turn briefly now to the other half of Bill S-12, which provided the original impetus for the bill. The Supreme Court of Canada decision requires revisions to the sex offender registry. The Supreme Court found that automatic lifetime registration for those convicted of listed offences was overly broad, and as a consequence, was capturing some who were very unlikely to reoffend. I know some argue that all must be listed, but it is important to remember that if we list people who are at very low risk to reoffend, we waste public resources that might better be used to monitor the higher-risk offenders.

Instead, Bill S-12 would meet the Supreme Court's challenge by implementing the presumption of registration of those convicted. This would mean that a very small number of those convicted of listed offences could ask a judge to use their discretion to exempt them from legislation. The estimates are that it would be probably far fewer than 10% who could ask for that exemption.

The bill would also strengthen the sex offender registry in a couple of important ways. Most importantly, to me, it would add the offences of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and so-called sextortion to the list of offences that would result in registration as a sex offender.

In our modern world of overuse of social media, overuse of the Internet and overexposure of everyone to everything, these offences sometimes may seem trivial. However, we must remember that with non-consensual distribution, intimate images last forever on the Internet, and I think those who perpetrate this need to understand that these offences will be taken very seriously and that they will be monitored as sex offenders on the registry to make sure they do not engage in this kind of behaviour again.

I would like to conclude with thanks to all the parties that have worked together to get this legislation here today in time to meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline. I know that some parties still have reservations and I know that some of the victims would like to have had more amendments made to the bill. However, I do believe that we have it in a form in front of us today that will help restore agency to survivors of sexual assault in the future. I think that is a very important reason for us to act promptly.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, for those who do not know, two weeks ago, I ran 10 kilometres to raise funds for the Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel de Longueuil, or CALACS. It is a Longueuil-based support centre that is doing very good work helping victims of sexual assault. Its members want to run a campaign in high schools in the spring to prepare young students for their prom, and they want to talk about the concept of consent. They really are doing extraordinary work. I wanted to mention it because we are sort of talking about that.

I was looking at some statistics, which were actually provided to me by the CALACS people, and I can say that the work is far from done. The bill before us is important, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Only 5% of victims of sexual violence file a complaint in Quebec. What is more, when they do, only three out of every 1,000 complaints result in charges being laid. That falls very short. Clearly, the justice system still scares victims.

Does my colleague have any suggestions about other measures that could be implemented to ensure that the system no longer scares victims of sexual offences in this country?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the efforts he has put in within his community to help address the scourge of sexual assault in all communities across the country. I also thank all of the community-based organizations that provide support to survivors of sexual assault in particular but also to victims of crime.

One of the things we concluded unanimously in the justice committee's report on providing better support for victims of crime is that the federal government has to do more to support community-based activities. Coming back to Bill S-12, I think one of the important aspects of allowing sexual assault victims to speak freely about their cases if they choose to do so is that it will help remove the stigma associated with sexual assault. This in itself will help improve reporting rates.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we request that it be passed on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:44 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Canadian Aviation Regulations

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

moved:

That:

(a) the House recognize that an assessment by the International Association of Fire Fighters concluded significant regulatory shortfalls concerning emergency responses at Canada's major airports are needlessly putting the safety of the flying public at risk, by

(i) failing to specify rescue as a required function of airport fire fighters,

(ii) requiring only that fire fighters must reach the mid-point of the furthest runway in three minutes rather than all points on operational runways within that time period; and

(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should, without delay, ensure that the Canadian Aviation Regulations reflect airport rescue and firefighting standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, specifically by

(i) giving fire fighters at Canada's major airports the mandate and resources necessary to reach the site of a fire or mishap anywhere on an operational runway in three minutes or less,

(ii) specifying that a required function of fire fighters be the rescue of passengers.

Madam Speaker, the purpose of Motion No. 96 is to close what many, especially who know the fire and rescue profession, see as significant and dangerous gaps in the ability to respond effectively to aircraft accidents at major Canadian airports.

Motion No. 96 calls for the Government of Canada to close these gaps by amending the Canadian aviation regulations to bring them in line with standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency headquartered in Montreal.

Specifically, closing the safety gap involves three measures: including rescue as well as firefighting in the mandate for firefighters at Canada's major airports; mandating a response time of no more than three minutes for fire rescue equipment to reach any point on an operational runway; and specifying the number of personnel required to meet fire rescue standards.

People have been raising attention to the lack of a rescue mandate for at least 25 years. The April 1 edition of Fire Engineering reported a Department of National Defence document quoting an item in the Canadian Press, suggesting “firefighting standards at civilian airports in Canada aren't up to snuff and may even put lives at risk”. The report draws attention to life-threatening dangers faced by occupants of aircraft who are not able to walk away from a wreck because Transport Canada only requires airport firefighting crews to assist in rescue outside the craft. The DND reported that the primary responsibility for rescue from inside the craft is left to the airline's flight crews and local fire departments. I will say more on that a bit later.

In its 30th Canadian legislative conference, held in Ottawa at the end of March, the International Association of Fire Fighters raised the issue again. This time, we in Parliament have an opportunity to respond and close the gaps.

Transport Canada's standard 323 in its Canadian aviation regulations states, “an aircraft fire-fighting service is a contingent resource tasked with the primary responsibility of providing a fire free egress route for the evacuation of passengers and crew”.

Section 323.03, on general requirements, adds:

This standard is not intended to limit the fire-fighting service from providing services in addition to that of aircraft fire-fighting at the airport or aerodrome, nor to prevent it from dealing with other occurrences.

Some I have spoken to reflected that firefighters can be assigned other duties while on shift, such as cutting the grass, that could well increase the turnout time for a call. Regardless, the reality at most of Canada's major airports is that fire crews do not have the personnel or, perhaps, even the training or equipment to step beyond this basic mandate, which is now limited to fighting the fire, trying to keep an escape route open and hoping that whoever is inside the aircraft can make it out.

Transport Canada's outline of the requirements to comply with the current Canadian aviation regulations focuses on fire extinguishing agents and the testing of the equipment needed to ensure the correct discharge rate and the reach the foam can get to when out fighting a fire. The section on training of personnel focuses almost exclusively on responding to an aircraft fire, with one reference to emergency aircraft evacuation assistance. If this measure refers to anything more than keeping open an escape route through the flames, the reality of staffing makes it only aspirational at some, if not most, Canadian airports. In discussions with the firefighters association, I was told that the staffing requirements on a rig dispatched to extinguish a fire is two firefighters: One drives and assists the second firefighter to discharge the foam.

If firefighters are charged with the additional mandate to rescue aircraft occupants from inside the craft, I am told that they would almost certainly need to rely on the two-in, two-out rule: If personnel are sent into any burning structure, there must be at least two firefighters outside to be there if it becomes necessary to rescue their colleagues inside.

We cannot ask firefighters to risk their lives, as they most certainly do when they go in to rescue people, without the support and backup needed if things go terribly wrong. A two-person response team today would then become maybe four, six or more. Bolstered fire hall complements, plus any necessary equipment and rescue training, would all be necessary to bring the Canadian aviation regulations up to ICAO standards.

A number of us in this place are exposed to the broadest range of risks when we fly to and from our ridings to be here for our parliamentary duties and to go back home and help our constituents, and I am one of them.

An assessment of the fire and rescue capabilities in Canada puts Vancouver International Airport at, or near, the top. That is where I usually originate my trips to come to Ottawa. In 2022, YVR recorded 230,162 runway movements and passenger counts of over 19 million. This is a lot, though it is still far short of the prepandemic total of 25.9 million passengers, but it is quite likely that volume will be reached and exceeded relatively soon. I would estimate, judging from the passengers I see at YVR, that this year will probably see the old level reached quite handily. I am told that the Vancouver Airport Authority has voluntarily adopted standards that meet or are very close to the ICAO standards.

At the other end of the journey for most MPs from metro Vancouver, we have the Ottawa International Airport. It is cited by the IAFF as one of the most challenged in meeting ICAO standards. In preparation for today, I reviewed the “YOW 2038 Master Plan”. I looked through it, and currently, there does not appear to be any provision in that plan to close any kind of a fire rescue gap.

I am told Pearson airport in Toronto is close to meeting the higher standards, and most Canadian airports, at least the 25 to 30 larger airports with more than 180,000 enplaned or deplaned passengers per year that are subject to the Canadian aviation regulations, face greater challenges than Vancouver or Toronto.

The second gap is the response time to an incident. The ICAO standard is three minutes for a fire rescue response to any point on an operational runway. I am told the Canadian standard is three minutes to the midpoint of any operational runway.

Let us have another look at the Ottawa airport. The fire hall is located very close to the end of its longest runway, which runs north-south and is 3,049 metres long. Current regulations require firefighters to reach the midpoint in three minutes, and I am told that they can do that in just under three minutes. However, it would be a challenge for them, if we are looking at a worst-case scenario of four minutes or five minutes for a crew to receive an alarm, turn out and reach an incident at the farthest end of that longest runway. I have not been able to find any records on YOW's actual performance in exercises or incident responses, but a resource here with us this evening has said that they can do the three minutes. Beyond that, it is pretty dodgy.

By the way, when we talk about meeting the standards, we should not for an instant doubt the dedication and professionalism of the firefighters. The focus here is on enabling them to meet high standards efficiently and, above all, safely.

Ottawa's airport is one of those ones that relies on the aircrew on board a burning aircraft to get the people to the door and outside, where the current regulation says that the fire department has to keep a pathway clear so that the people can get away from the aircraft. If it is to be fire rescue, they have to rely on the Ottawa civic firefighting service. The fire hall on McCarthy Road is nine driving minutes from the airport, and the hall on Leitrim Road is 11 minutes away. That is driving time. That does not count the turn-out time or getting the person out of the back or wherever they happen to be when the alarm comes in.

To the extent that Canadian airports have been designed like YOW, it could very well be that meeting ICAO's response time would require the relocation of fire halls. As I mentioned, the fire hall at YOW is at just about the end of the longest runway. That leads to the issue of costs, of course. In a 2003 regulatory impact analysis statement, the definition of “rescue” was specifically drafted, “to ensure that the status quo will be unchanged with the types of activities included as aircraft rescue and fire-fighting services” without imposing any additional obligations or costs.

Let us think about that for a moment. In these times, when passengers pay a surcharge of, let us say, $12 a ticket for security costs and $35 or more, in fact, in airport improvement fees, the IAFF suggests that an additional surcharge of 50¢, a dollar or, in the case of a smaller airport, maybe two, three, four or five dollars might be necessary to fund the lifting of services up to the ICAO standards. Canadians love to travel, especially by air. I certainly see a lot of evidence of that here in Ottawa or in Toronto, which I go through. I occasionally see it in Montreal and certainly at YVR. Those airports are jammed. I am seldom on an aircraft that has any empty seats. In spite of the narrative that says the country is broke and nobody can do anything, there sure seems to be a lot of money around for air travel these days. Therefore, we have to wonder whether maybe a few bucks per ticket to bolster the ability of aircraft passengers and crew to survive an accident at Canada's key airports is really too much to ask. Of course, the proposition here is no.

In preparing for this debate on Motion No. 96, I have been inspired by the hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, whose private member's bill, Bill C-224, which we passed unanimously, has paved the way for a national framework to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting and to improve access to cancer prevention and treatment. When it appeared I had this opportunity, she was the first to promote resolving the regulation gaps as an important, worthy and complementary initiative, one that could support our firefighters even further by delivering critical safety improvements for air crews, air passengers and, yes, firefighters too. I would like to thank the Library of Parliament and our legislative assistant Riley Sutton for their assistance in researching this issue. I would also like to thank, of course, the International Association of Firefighters and firefighters from the Ottawa airport, who are helping to keep this issue alive.

I am now looking forward to hearing the perspective of our colleagues, because when Motion No. 96 came out, we received notes from members of the other party asking what it was all about. We provided the information we had, and I know they have been doing their own research and will be in a position to maybe expand on some of the points I have been able to raise this evening. Therefore, I will be very pleased to cede the floor to questions if there are any and certainly to my colleagues to expand on the need for Motion No. 96.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member proposing the motion and the change is this: Does he think this maybe should have gone through a more regular process, perhaps have been brought to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for a discussion so the various affected parties could weigh in on it?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, definitely I think so. I think this is a first step. This is a catalyst that could get that kind of discussion taken up at the transport committee, which would have an opportunity to dig into the details. This is what we need to accomplish, in my view. The “how” part is definitely necessarily a focus of conversation among the members of the House who are charged with delving deeper into the issue.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I love my work, because every day I learn something new on a variety of topics. I think that as MPs, we have an extraordinary opportunity here. The motion we are studying is a fine example of that. It is quite simple: We want to allow firefighters to have access to every possible runway in less than three minutes. Everyone likes firefighters and everyone appreciates them.

Obviously we support this motion. My only problem is that I have to wonder why we are once again asking the person buying the plane ticket to pay for this. Why can we not manage this in some other way than through this motion?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to pay for that gentleman. I think it is important. I like him, and I want him to get here safe and sound. However, the fact is that this is another part of the how.

We have a really good fix on what needs to happen. To the earlier question from my colleague across the way, there will be opportunities to really delve into this. “Who should pay?” is always going to be a question and “How much?” too, because that will change depending on the size of the airport and the number of passengers going through. However, if we all agree that it should happen, then how it happens becomes a step that will not be that hard to take.