Debates of April 23rd, 2015

Canadian Air Transport Security Authority

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support this motion, which, in my opinion, fits in well with our government's commitment and priority to promote economic development and job creation across Canada in a fiscally responsible manner.

The motion also fits in with our government's risk-based approach to air security, whereby funding is targeted to areas of highest risk.

I greatly appreciate having the opportunity to speak about the work that the government is already doing on this issue and what we intend to do in the future to help support the initiatives of these airports.

Let me say at the outset that job creation and ensuring strong economic growth are this government's top priority. We firmly believe that the air industry still represents the fundamental pillar of our economic success.

Indeed, that industry provides goods, services and opportunities for Canadians all across the country, from the largest urban centres to the smallest communities. It contributes to our quality of life, our economy and our relationships with others and with the rest of the world.

Canada's vast geographic size has given rise to one of the largest civilian air transport networks in the world, with over 200 airports operating commercial flights.

Aviation helps distribute Canadian goods and helps us to develop new markets for our industries. It also allows people from outside to discover the beauty of this great land of ours. One hundred million passengers benefit from commercial services in this country on an annual basis. Aviation is truly an economic enabler for Canada. It is very understandable, therefore, that smaller airports are exploring ways of maximizing the economic benefits they get from being part of our aviation network.

Our national civil aviation security program is also one of the strongest in the world and we are committed to maintaining a high level of safety and security for the travelling public.

Of the 200 commercial airports in Canada, 89 are regulated and therefore required to offer mandatory passenger and baggage screening services. These 89 airports deal with approximately 99% of all air passengers in Canada.

The list of regulated airports required to offer mandatory screening services was developed in 2002 in the wake of the September 11 attacks and shows the airports where screening was already carried out before the establishment of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. From the point of view of risk-based security, it is not necessary that CATSA, the authority responsible for monitoring transportation security in Canada, ensure a mandatory presence in Canada’s 200 airports; otherwise, the cost of ensuring its presence would be prohibitive.

As we know, CATSA is the only body authorized to carry out security screening at Canadian airports. While CATSA contracts with service providers to carry out this function, it is CATSA that ensures a consistent screening process from coast to coast through the training, certification and oversight of all screening personnel. This is why we ask that the proposed motion be amended, so it is clear that only CATSA is authorized to provide screening services.

Many smaller airports believe that the sole obstacle to establishing new commercial services out their airports is the absence of passenger screening. If these routes are economically viable for the air carriers, then they may in fact be right as Canada's major airports require that passengers be screened before they can transfer to other flights within their airports. Passengers departing from the smaller airports must, therefore, be screened at the larger airports before they can continue their trips.

We strongly believe that security is and should remain the key consideration when allocating government-funded resources to prevent or mitigate threats to the transportation system. Nevertheless, we also believe our aviation security system must support, rather than hinder, economic opportunities.

We are constantly striving to achieve our security objectives, while supporting competitiveness in the aviation sector and minimizing the impact of this support on Canadian taxpayers and on the allocation of scarce security resources. This is why the changes made to the list of airports designated to receive government-funded security screening services are founded on risk-based principles.

Our understanding is that none of the airports interested in receiving screening services currently meet the risk threshold that would warrant mandatory screening. Nonetheless, we believe it is important that the smaller airports have the opportunity to explore all avenues for economic growth, including those that may come with the establishment of new commercial routes.

As we have heard, last June the Minister of Transport sent a letter to the airports that had expressed an interest in obtaining screening services to inform them that departmental officials would be exploring and assessing various mechanisms that would allow them to obtain these services on a cost-recovery basis. Since then, Transport Canada officials have been in contact with the interested airports to confirm their willingness to proceed down this path and to gather additional information on their anticipated commercial operations. Several airports have confirmed their desire to move forward.

Transport Canada has also begun to receive projections and plans that will help determine the level of service and equipment these airports would require. The department is continuing to work with both the interested airports and CATSA to assess the cost of having security screening at these airports. Much of this will depend on the number of flights they expect to attract, as well as other factors, such as passenger load and the frequency and destinations of flights.

Transport Canada will work closely with each individual airport so that screening costs and requirements are clearly understood and to ensure that the potential advantages of establishing screening services exceed the cost of those services.

Despite the progress that has been made, there are a variety of legal and financial challenges relating to this initiative that need to be addressed.

We are currently reviewing the legislative and regulatory changes that would best support this initiative. All parties recognize that these changes would take a certain amount of time. Beyond this, we also want to ensure that any solution takes a long-term view of how CATSA operates so that it is able to respond to this and other industry needs as they arise in the future.

Transport Canada will be working closely with our industry partners to make available all the necessary tools to provide a safe, secure and efficient transportation system to all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to what I believe is an important motion. When we take a look at all regions of our country, there is a desire from communities, both large and small, as to how they can best develop their communities.

From the previous speaker, we heard a lot about the economics. I, too, would like to contribute to the economic side of things with respect to airports but, also, at the very beginning, to make some brief comments with respect to the importance of passengers, the social component to an airport and the difference that it makes.

There are many communities that have a desire to, ultimately, provide passenger travel through the air. Many of these communities are relatively small but still feel that they have the opportunity to grow into the future. By enabling an expansion of some of these smaller airports, the hope is that their airport will grow and, ultimately, be able to provide a better service to the constituents of that catchment area, if I can put if that way. Whether it is smaller communities scattered throughout the country or larger municipalities, airports really do matter; they matter a great deal to our communities. I like to think that governments, at all different levels, whether federal, municipal, or provincial, recognize the true value of an airport facility, and it does go beyond the economics.

Having said that, I do want to spend some time talking about the security issue and then go on to the economics.

We all, especially inside this chamber, travel a great deal. We have had the good fortune of being able to travel, for the most part, by air, which means that we will go through the CATSA and the screening that passengers are obligated to. It does not matter who one is, one is obligated to go through a screening process. That is just the reality of today's world. I suspect, as we move forward, there will be new technologies brought on. This is where Transport Canada and organizations like CATSA play a very important role because the security factor is ever so important when we talk about airport development. It does not take much to cause a disruption, and a disruption can have a very long, permanent impact upon a community, let alone upon the aviation industry as a whole.

It is important that we can keep up on the technology that is being used out there. People will try to bring things they should not be bringing across the security lines. I am sure many of us have seen ample examples of things that have been pulled out of luggage; for example, a sharp object, a questionable product or even some product of an illegal nature. It is an absolute necessity that we have this process in place in order to protect the long-term and short-term integrity of our airports.

As many members will know, I have had the good fortune of being a parliamentarian for a number of years. I will focus some attention on my own province of Manitoba and the time of Premier Gary Filmon. I can recall during the 1990s they came up with the Winport plan, which was to try to take Winnipeg's geographical location, being the centre of North America, and use it as a port where we could use our airport as a way to facilitate economic growth.

I must say that the hype was considerable back then. The idea was wonderful. Imagine. We are talking about back in the 1990s of being able to bring fresh pork in from our rural communities and load it onto a 747 and then fly it over to Asia as a potential market for fresh, unfrozen pork. It was an idea being talked about because of an experience that was taking place in Atlantic Canada with live lobster.

These are the types of things that generate a great deal of enthusiasm in our communities, when we start talking about potential. Winport did not quite get off the ground, but a number of years later, the concept behind CentrePort was developed. That has gotten off the ground. It is located at the Winnipeg international airport. There is a sense that our airport is going to be a driving force in the future growth not only of the city of Winnipeg but also of the province.

I say that with a great sense of pride. We have developed a new airport. The old terminal that was built a number of decades ago has been replaced with a modern terminal, with departures on the upper level and arrivals on the lower level. The expectation is that we are going to have a growing market as a direct result of the modernization of our airport facility and also on the premises in terms of new hotels that have been developed. Even in the immediate area, we have seen growth in the industrial area. We have seen Canada Way being brought through CentrePort. The potential is truly amazing.

I am very proud of what is taking place in the city of Winnipeg today, and it is being driven by the community. What government can do is enable and support, and the way it can add that support is through infrastructure spending. I will reserve my criticism of the government on that file for now, but there are things the government can do. It is most important that the driving force come from within the community, and we have seen that.

When we take a look at the benefits to the city of Winnipeg, one can understand why communities like Brandon, Portage la Prairie and others, even some communities that are thinking about it that might not have thought about it in the past, are thinking about how they could bring in, in some cases, an airport or expand what they currently have.

There are 200-plus airports scattered across Canada of all different sizes, from the small community airports to Toronto international airport and everything in between. No matter where we go in Canada, we will find that there is a big push to move an airport forward, no matter its size. Even the Toronto international airport is looking at ways to enhance the community by developing the airport.

Whether it is in that community, whether it is in Thompson or Winnipeg, Manitoba, or whether it is any other airport, no matter what coast they might be in close proximity to, that is the reality. A major part of that reality is dealing with the issue of security and the important roles Transport Canada and organizations like CATSA have to play in that, in keeping up on technology and recognizing that there are many airports hoping to be able to tap into that technology to advance their cause, if I could put it that way.

If they can tap into that, and it is a fairly expensive matter, it does allow that facility the opportunity to go in a direction that would be of great benefit to the community in which the facility is actually located.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with conviction and determination to move forward with the matter of security in non-designated airports that I rise to speak today. This motion is designed to provide a solution for the many airports that currently wish to obtain CATSA security checks. The proposed mechanism would be useful for all airports in Canada that are not designated.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to a few figures. In 2004, only two airports received authorization. Since 2004, about 10 airports have had their application for designation denied by Transport Canada. The refusals were not even explained. The government decides to refuse to add airports, without even saying why. Like all the decisions this government makes, these refusals make no sense and once again reflect the incompetence of its administration.

It is nevertheless possible for everyone to understand the opportunity that designated airports represent for our communities. Airports are important economic vectors for our communities. We have the responsibility to support them.

At a time when economic growth is slowing and vulnerability is on the rise, the driving force of an airport leads to direct job creation and stimulates trade and tourism. The economic spinoffs for local businesses and enterprises are sure to be beneficial.

We are well aware that the Conservatives have neglected the development of our communities, and scarcely care about our enterprises. Look at the 2015 budget. Since 2006, the Conservative government has cut taxes on big corporations by over 25%, reducing their tax rate from 22% to 15%. Meanwhile, the government reduced taxes on small business from 11% to 9%, at a rate of 0.5% a year, but only as of 2016. In addition to not caring about small business, the government thumbs its nose at it. The NDP wants practical and effective measures. Promises that will not take effect until 2016 have no place in the 2015 budget.

I do not know what members on the other side do, but I have met with my constituents, spoken to them and listened to them. They have told me that they are no longer getting by. Canadians are tired of the government not listening to them. They want results now.

The Conservatives are out of touch with the daily reality of Canadians. Their only concern is the good health of big corporations and big airports, which obviously contribute more to our economy. Nevertheless, local and regional airports constitute a heritage that is just as important, and they also contribute to the enhancement and development of our regions.

I also learned today that Pascan, a carrier based in Saint-Hubert, will be cutting 240 of its existing 340 jobs. Without government support, regional air transport is no longer cost effective, which leads to layoffs like these. We are witnessing a desertification of our provinces. Travellers will no longer be able to make return journeys between our cities on the same day.

That is an additional problem affecting our communities.

I would like to come back to the issue of the desertification of our regions. My constituents write to me every day to ask for improvements in public transit. There is a real lack of infrastructure, and getting from Saint-Bruno to Saint-Hubert is like an obstacle course for the average citizen. However, what is the Conservative government’s answer to these requests? It comes up with measures that have no real scope, and with provisions that are so complicated that they prevent the funding from reaching the municipalities. Investing in infrastructure is vital for our local economy. If the government does not understand that, it should let us take over.

In conclusion, I will say that the NDP is proud of this motion, and it supports the initiatives by these airports that would make it possible to improve security and support the regional economy, and thus the economy of the whole country.

In the globalized world we live in today, increased personal mobility is indispensable. The need for rapid travel is a real one.

The government cannot restrict people’s freedom of movement and the economic development of airports without offering valid reasons. That is why we will continue to defend the application of this motion so that the Conservative government commits to supporting the regions and we can finally move from words to actions.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill. I do not know if the previous speaker, my colleague from the NDP, knows that we are supporting the motion with amendment, so I do not understand why she would so vehemently criticize the government when the folks on this side of the House have the intention of supporting the private member's bill. Sometimes members should engage in the process that happens in this House whereby we do try to work together to come up with solutions. I see the nod of the head of my good friend from the NDP, the critic at the heritage committee. Oftentimes, while we may disagree, we do understand when we need to work together. Therefore, I am very much disappointed by the language of the previous speaker in terms of its tone.

I am pleased to rise in the House to support Motion No. 553, which advocates the development of a mechanism that would allow small airports to receive security screening services from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA.

The Government of Canada supports this motion as it highlights an issue of which it is well aware, and upon which it has been and will be working for a number of years, that is, to promote a safe and economically sustainable aviation industry. Indeed, this motion seeks to give small non-designated airports all the necessary tools to draw commercial flights to their airports and connect their passengers to larger airports. Over the past several years a number of small airports have expressed their belief that the establishment of screening services will help them attract more airlines, encourage commercial growth and improve their economic development opportunities in general.

I want to add that the Niagara regional airport from the region of Niagara, part of the area which I represent, is certainly interested and has advanced this thought through the commission in a strong way. It is working with the Ministry of Transportation at this very time to become one of those small airports that could potentially receive the services of CATSA.

From an economic development perspective, having a link to the main air transportation network can have an important impact on a local economy. It brings visitors and potential investors closer and makes the local attractions and resources more accessible. The potential economic spinoffs can be significant in terms of economic investment and growth. Travel by air also provides an important service to local residents by better connecting them to the rest of Canada. Our government certainly supports those objectives.

While security is the key consideration when the time comes to allocate resources for the protection of our transportation system, other factors should also be taken into consideration to ensure that our aviation security system supports, rather than hinders, economic opportunities for smaller communities.

Canada has one of the largest and strongest civil aviation systems in the world, with over 200 commercial airports and millions of passengers travelling through or within the country daily. It would make little sense to require government-mandated security screening at all of these airports, as it would be an inefficient and ineffective use of security dollars both from a security and a financial perspective. Instead, security screening in Canada is limited to 89 airports currently designated for mandatory screening. The security designation of those airports was first established following the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It included Canada's 29 largest airports, as well as 60 smaller airports that were already screening at that time, which was being conducted either by the air carriers or the airport operators themselves. Together, these airports represent almost 99% of all air passengers in Canada.

The screening provided at these airports is currently government-funded and offset through the passenger-paid air travellers security charge. Several small Canadian airports, including my own, the Niagara District Airport, have recently written to Transport Canada asking that the department explore the possibility of providing screening services at its facilities, not for security reasons necessarily but rather to promote commercial growth and economic development.

As I mentioned earlier, the primary rationale for passenger and baggage screening is risk. Accordingly, any changes to the current list of designated airports would have to be assessed against the risk threshold that would warrant mandatory screening. Currently, none of the airports requesting screening services from CATSA meet that threshold. My colleague, the Minister of Transport, advised these airports that if screening was to be provided at non-designated airports where screening is not required for security purposes, an alternative source of funding would need to be identified.

In response, a number of airports, including the Niagara District Airport , indicated that they would consider paying for the screening themselves, depending on the economic viability of assuming these costs. Transport Canada is currently holding discussions with all of these airports to present them with as much information as possible and to better understand their specific needs.

Nevertheless, Canada's high security standards must be upheld. Therefore, the security screening services requested by these smaller airports, which will allow their passengers to connect seamlessly to larger airports, will need to be delivered by the officially designated CATSA. In addition, the annual operating costs for screening at small airports will depend on a number of factors, such as the number and frequency of flights, passenger volumes, size of planes, and a number of other factors. Once a solution is in place, the decision as to whether it is financially viable will ultimately rest with each individual airport.

Efforts to increase air service from small airports must take into account both market realities and airline objectives. Cities and regions want easy access and price competitive options for inbound visitors as well as for outbound residents. Airlines will need to determine for themselves what routes are worth pursuing.

It is also important that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority remains the sole screening authority for delivering screening services at Canadian airports. Having a single, centralized organization responsible for screening services allows for greater consistency in meeting security requirements and in managing security incidents. As such, we have asked that the original version of the motion be amended, as it could incorrectly imply than an entity other than the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority could carry out screening services.

In short, small airports' requests for CATSA screening reflects a desire to further economic and commercial growth. The Government of Canada shares these objectives and will do what it can to accommodate these requests. The government continues to be open to exploring mechanisms that will assist in finding ways to drive economic development at smaller airports and in those communities should they choose to invest in these services. I must be clear. “Should they choose to invest in these services” means that those individual airport commissions or boards are going to take on responsibility for the cost. Nonetheless, developing such a mechanism will take a bit of time, as there are still legal and financial challenges to be addressed.

Our aim going forward will be to ensure that the aviation security system continues to be effective, efficient, and responsive to the rapidly evolving industry. It is about getting it right for both air travellers and taxpayers. As such, the Government of Canada will continue its efforts to meet the needs of the small airports, and it is grateful to the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his support on this issue.

I know that there are a number of members of Parliament on this side of the House who have smaller airports in their regions, their ridings, and their districts. I am one of them. On this side of the House, we have worked closely with the Minister of Transport to try to effectively move forward on the security screening that would allow the type of economic development, travel, and options that present smaller airports with the option to land people in their regions, at their airports, to use the great areas they will travel to. This would also allow those who live in those communities to access larger communities and larger airports, both within Canada and potentially outside of Canada.

While original intent of a piece of legislation was to drive at the issue of safety and security at airports, it left out some of the smaller airports across our country. It could be very viable in terms of delivering charter or larger airlines into their regions. The motion speaks to that issue and actually enhances it and moves us forward.

In closing, I would like to comment that the Minister of Transport has been extremely open to looking at these options. I know that she understands the direction and intent of this bill and certainly supports it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the discussion. Given that it is about flying, airports and planes, I am particularly delighted, because I like that stuff. I do not mind sharing that when I was a young boy, my goal was to be a commercial airline pilot. It is hard to feel like I failed, given that I got to have a seat in the House of Commons, but nonetheless, every time I get on a plane I glance over at the pilot and think that yes, that is the place to be.

First of all, I am in support of the motion. While I have the floor may I just say how impressed I have been with the work that the member for Sherbrooke has done on this and every other file.

I mentioned to him in the past how unusual it must be to be walking around here and he is already a historical figure and he is not yet 20. That is not easy. It is tough to be here. It is tough to be here when one is young and have that designation, yet I think the member for Sherbrooke has done an outstanding job. I have no doubt that he is going to be here for a very long time and will make major contributions to our country, as he is doing today with his private member's motion. He is doing the primary work of a member of Parliament, which is to take care of home base, take care of the riding. That is why his motion is here, and it is a good thing.

I realize the motion is not controversial at all and everybody is supporting it. I guess there will not be the usual heckling, which I enjoy listening to and responding to, so it will be a different kind of speech today. I heard my leader at the procedure and House affairs committee comment, “If you could heckle just a little louder so I could hear, I would gladly engage”. It does not have to be bad, but it is more fun that way, I find.

Let me say that the importance of local airports really cannot be overstated. The Hamilton airport when I was a kid was called the Mount Hope airport. Now it is formally the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport. We are very fortunate that it is an international airport. It has everything one needs, except flights from Hamilton to Ottawa, which would be nice. We had these flights, but the airlines keep claiming that there are not enough passengers. However, and I digress a bit, the strange thing is that every time I phoned to book flights, I was always told they were already booked. I had to call two weeks ahead to get a seat, and yet these airlines would inevitably fold up and say that they just did not have the clientele.

Other than that, it is a great airport. It is beautiful with incredibly reasonable prices all around. Cargo is the area that is sustaining our international airport. It is a very viable entity that continues to grow. The airport is an absolute plus in our community.

One of the things I love about my hometown of Hamilton is that given we have an international airport, we also have a world-class port and a world-class train system throughout, because Hamilton has been around so long that it was part of the original planning. We have great infrastructure. Our highway infrastructure is excellent. We have more farmland than we do anything else. Then we have our beautiful city itself, our beautiful downtown. Quite frankly, if this were Europe, Hamilton could easily be a stand-alone country.

I am always enthusiastic in talking about all that my hometown has to offer, mostly because it surprises people. We know the reputation; we get it, but the fact remains that virtually anybody who comes to Hamilton, even if they come with their eyes rolling saying it was not their first choice, in a very short period of time, they find out it is a community to love, to get engaged in. They end up staying, and they are glad they stayed.

We are talking about airports, and I see my colleague from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale feels the same kind of pride that I do in our airport. I am not sure if the member represents the airport right now, maybe a little bit of it, but there are going to be some changes. I know how much pride he has in it.

I realize we are not into partisan debate as usual, but I do have a couple of questions.

If it is such a great idea and the Conservatives are all for it, praising our member for Sherbrooke, as they should, why did it take an opposition member's motion to force the government to do something that they think is a great idea and would help?

The Conservatives are all about economic activity, going on and on about it. To them, that is more important than anything. Therefore, I would think, given the importance we all see and are speaking of tonight of airports in our area having the proper designation so they can be used to their maximum, this should have been a priority. For the life of me, I do not understand why the hometown of the member for Sherbrooke was denied.

I was glad the member for St. Catharines spoke first to give more background to it. I listened carefully, but I did not hear anything that made common sense as to why, if the Conservatives thought this was a good idea and they would support the motion of the member for Sherbrooke, they said no to the city of Sherbrooke in the first place. Why are we going through all this? Why is the government not out in front? It is not like this is some obscure little piece of our country. It is airports.

Given the size of Canada, it is an important part of the day-to-day lives of Canadians, part of our economy and part of our hometowns. It is all those things, so why on earth did it take a member, whose request from his home community was denied, to bring it back here and turn it into a motion? Why did all that have to happen? That is the part I do not get. If it is such a great idea and the Conservatives are so supportive, one would think one of their backbenchers would have grabbed onto this. One could argue that maybe they were asleep at the switch, but at the ministerial level they would have received the request and they would have evaluated it. Now they are all gung-ho for it.

Not only that, here is the thing about the proposal that came in from the city of Sherbrooke. As I understand it, the city offered to pay, so there was no cost to the federal government. I have been in government and the first thing that usually stops it is looking at the price tag, and the government has to come to grips with that one way or another. That is not an issue here because the city was quite willing to pay all the costs.

What else could it be? Then we realize that the airport infrastructure is owned by the city. Again, the city wants to do something with its airport to help with its local economic activity and all the benefits that come from that. The city owns it all, the whole kit and caboodle. It is prepared to pay the costs and the government says no. Then the hon. member did what he should do. He came back here and brought in a motion, put it on the floor of the House of Commons and the Conservatives said yes in that case. How did we get here? There is a piece of this missing and it just does not make a lot of sense.

I know the member for St. Catharines and the Niagara District Airport really want this. Even if our desire on our side is not enough to cause the government to do this right away, I would hope and think the Conservatives would want to do it for their own member and for their own re-election.

The last point I would leave is this. Having gone all the way around on this issue only to come right back to where the city of Sherbrooke wanted the government to be in the first place, which is that of supporting the city, the question now becomes this. Will the bill pass before the election and, most important, will the government implement the direction that is contained in the motion? That will be the test.

The first test of whether the Conservatives will support it, we seem to have passed, although it was a bit of a crazy way to get to this point. The test that is left is whether the Conservatives are prepared to ensure this bill not only passes, but that the direction it gives is followed and it is implemented.

It will be interesting, not just for the benefit of my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke. I would hope the member for St. Catharines would put whatever political effort he can into ensuring the bill is passed and implemented to benefit Niagara, Sherbrooke and every other community that needs this.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

As there are no more questions or comments, the hon. member for Sherbrooke has a five-minute right of reply.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all my colleagues who spoke and expressed their views on this issue in the first hour of debate, which took place on March 9 of this year. I would like to mention the participation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and of the hon. members for Ottawa-Sud Compton—Stanstead in my area, Etobicoke-Centre and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. All of them spoke to motion M-553. I also thank all those who have spoken today, beginning with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the hon. members for Winnipeg North and for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the hon. member for Hamilton-Centre. I wanted first to thank all those who have taken part in this debate and have expressed their views on this issue and, on the government side, have tried to explain the reasons why we have reached this point today. I am very proud to sponsor this motion, which will be put to a vote next week, as the procedure requires.

I thank the government for its contribution, the amendment it proposed and its co-operation throughout this debate. It proposed some rather technical changes to the motion, which will, I hope, have the support of most members of the House. I have had good indications from all the members who have spoken and who said they would support it. I am very happy. I hope that all those who have not had a chance to speak to this motion will nevertheless support it after hearing the debate and what was said during the two hours we spent discussing it.

I want to take up the questions by my colleague from Hamilton-Centre concerning the reason why we have reached this point today. I would actually have preferred not to have to move such a motion to compel the government to act in this matter. These concerns date from even before those affecting the Sherbrooke airport. They date from 2009 and the airport in Trois-Rivières, one of the airports that was requesting designation. This matter has been raised for a long time by the various airports that are unfortunately not designated under the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act. I too wonder why we have reached this point, given that the applications were made so long ago and that the government talked about a mechanism that would allow non-designated airports to have security screening. To my knowledge, the government had proposed this on paper in 2012, at least. So why has this matter been dragging on since 2012? Why did the government not act and present this mechanism sooner?

Nonetheless, we are talking about it today. We are talking about adopting Motion No. 553, which calls on the government to implement this mechanism as soon as possible. It is important to note that the motion specifies “as soon as possible”. I wanted to be sure to emphasize that in my right of reply. I do not want to predict the result of the vote before it is held, but given the support most members have expressed, I get the impression that my motion has a good chance of being adopted. If that is the case, I hope that the government will truly take action as soon as possible because there is not a lot of time left before we all leave for the summer. There is not much chance that we will come back before the next Parliament either. I hope the government will truly take action as soon as possible and that a solution will be presented to the House as soon as possible once the motion is adopted.

Today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs indicated that the government was working on the issue and that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority had also held meetings with the various airports involved. Discussions are being held and steps are being taken. People are talking. I am pleased to hear that and I am glad that the government is finally taking this situation seriously after so many years. This matter should have been resolved a long time ago.

Of course, an NDP government would have settled this matter long ago. However, since that is not the case, we are doing our best, and we hope that this matter will be settled as soon as possible for the good of my community, Sherbrooke, and for the Eastern Townships, because this is critical to Sherbrooke's development.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting Motion No. 553, which will provide a meaningful solution to various airports in need of a mechanism like this, including the Sherbrooke airport.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

(Amendment agreed to)

The next question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 29, 2015, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 6:15 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:15 p.m.)