Hey "Always", I agree, excellent topic. As a fellow Canuck flying ETOPs ops for the CYYZ based carrier with tacky red engines and infamously cramped seating... you know the one, I'd like to add what I "know" about CYFB and it's suitability for ETOPs operations.
In August of '99, the JAA issued an information leaflet (IL no.20) proposing several changes to ETOPs legislation. From the IL, "The definition of Adequate Aerodrome has been expanded upon to include a reference to the revised RFFS levels available at Canadian en-route alternates."
The concern being inadequate levels of Rescue and Fire Fighting Services. As this document later specifies, "For an aerodrome to be suitable for the purpose of this IL, it should have the capabilites, services, a minimum of ICAO category 4, or the relevant aeroplane category if lower, Rescue and Fire Fighting Services and facilities necessary to designate it as an adequate aerodrome..."
Apparently ICAO has been exerting pressure on the Libs for some time, trying to get them to fork out some cash to reverse the downgrades in airport emergency services implemented in the early ninties. I don't have a CFS in front of me so I don't know the category of RFFS now available in CYFB, but I bet it would be a little light on fire trucks and foam for my A-330 if we were in dire need.
Thanks for the additional info on CYFB. I haven't had the pleasure of being there since '94. If you're interested, I've been told by a gentleman who's involved in the project that a new version of TP 6327, the Canadian ETOPs document, will soon be available.
If there's anyone with additional info, feel free to update/correct me.