I am delighted to see, Madam Speaker, that our friend opposite recognizes the need to define security requirements for Canadians. Perhaps the Bloc's proposed amendment is broad in scope, but that was the intent, to ensure that this matter of definition would be debated, since I am speaking basically on behalf of the regions-it may be true of other objectives as well-but as regards the price set on future security needs, the regions will wonder who will be expected to pay for all this.
My colleague opposite suggested the airlines might be picking up the tab. If the costs were distributed among paying users, I would see no problem. The regions would be able to keep their airports. But will airport owners be made to pay?
I think it is very important to discuss who will pay. I am sure that profitable airports like Dorval, Mirabel, Toronto and Vancouver might not have any problems adjusting to a new and safer technology. However, it may prove to be next to impossible for municipalities with zero money in the budget to operate the airport to find an additional $50,000 or $100,000 every five years to cover an occasional expense to acquire new and safer technology.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport was right to point this out. Had debate been allowed on this amendement, I think all Canadians would have benefited.