Bill C-49 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak on the motions at report stage, namely Motions Nos. 1, 2, 10, 17, 18 and 20. Some of these motions came from the Standing Committee on Finance.

I had the pleasure of attending one meeting of the committee when it was debating this bill. I knew then, as I knew even before, how important this legislation was for the House, for the Government of Canada and for the people of Canada. As members know, security issues have been identified as being very important for Canadians. Canadians have told us that they have two priorities; first, economic security and second, personal security.

When the Minister of Finance introduced his budget in the House, the focus of the budget in fact targeted those two issues specifically, along with other issues that were important to Canadians.

Bill C-49 is legislation that responds to personal security for Canadians. It is a sensible bill that tries to provide what is necessary so Canadians can feel comfortable and secure when they travel on airplanes to their destination.

First, I will speak on Motion No. 1, which was proposed by my colleagues from Calgary West and seconded by my colleague from Yellowhead, both opposition members. It asks the government to table in the House a report on annual basis. As members know, committees and agencies report to the House on an annual basis. From time to time standing committees of the House can at their will choose and decide to look at any given issue concerning agencies or crown corporations.

Motion No. 2, which was introduced by the Minister of Transport, states:

Two of the directors must be nominees submitted by the representatives of the airline industry designated under section 11 whom the Minister considers suitable for appointment as directors, and two must be nominees submitted by the representatives of aerodrome operators designated under that section whom the Minister considers suitable for appointment as directors.

I would suggest that this is a very sensible amendment which responds to the need of industry, and it is exceptionally timely for the House to adopt this amendment.

I know one of my colleagues on the opposition side made a submission at the committee level which asked the government to specifically designate two positions for union representatives. The Minister of Transport in the House made a commitment on a number of occasions that union leaders, people of knowledge in the union movement, would be considered and would be appointed to the board. I take his word. He is an honourable member.

If we were to start designating positions for different categories, some of my colleagues might submit that a representative of every component of the industry that has anything to do with airline travel perhaps would have to be on the board. There is nothing in this legislation that would prevent any industry member, organization or association, any individual member of the House or citizen of the country from submitting names to the minister for his consideration. Therefore, if the government saw fit and the individual was qualified, he or she would be appointed to that board.

Nonetheless, there comes a time when we have to move ahead with this legislation. Canadians have told us that they want the government to take immediate action.

This is not the first legislation before the House that deals with security issues. There has been other legislation that the House of Commons has dealt with and government has adopted. This, if anything, is complementary. It is part of an overall package. If we were to go back to see what the government has done in terms of commitments to the armed forces, to our security forces, whether the RCMP or CSIS, to security at airports in terms of efficiency of travel, at border crossings in terms of transportation by road and sea, as well as by train, they are all part and parcel of an overall government agenda that responds to the needs of Canadians.

I appeal to my colleagues to ensure that the bill passes through the House of Commons as fast as possible so it can go through the Senate and be approved as quickly as possible.

The government responds, takes leadership and acts. I want to commend the government on its action on this issue. I understand there is no legislation without review. From time to time, for every bill that passes through the House, a committee of the House, as well as the government, the designated ministers have the authority to review the bill.

I know some of my colleagues would like to see this bill reviewed on an annual basis. That may not be suitable. Otherwise, we would end up crippling the wheels of committees, the government and the agency itself that would oversee and monitor the process of this whole issue.

I want to commend the Minister of Transport on his leadership and commend the government for moving ahead with this bill. I urge my colleagues to pass it as quickly as possible.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start my comments with regard to Group No. 1 on the issue of parliamentary democracy. In the last few weeks the government has run roughshod over that concept. We saw it at the environment committee regarding the endangered species legislation. We saw it at the finance committee with the way it manipulated the election of the chairman. Now we are seeing it in the bill and the motion with regard to representation from the labour community on the airport authority that will be established should the bill go ahead as proposed.

From the sequence of events, it is clear that the parliamentary committee that reviewed this issue felt very strongly about who should be represented on the agency. It indicated that and passed the information in its proper format on to the minister. Either the minister or, more likely the Prime Minister's Office decided to heck with parliamentary democracy and the knowledgeable work the committee did, and the recommendations which came from all parties on the committee were ignored.

I also want to address the importance of labour representation on the authority. A number of major issues which directly affect workers in the airline industry will come up in front of the agency, for example, decisions on health and safety matters, general work standards and training which will require input. Labour representatives will bring their experience to the table. Based on what we have heard from the minister, he has deemed that as not important enough to have them sitting at the table.

Originally the committee recommended to the minister that there should be two members on the authority from the labour community. What we got initially was floundering by the government which argued for maybe one and now it is an absolute no, that labour does not deserve to be at the table.

One other issue which I want to raise is right in line to be affected by the authority once it is established. That is the whole issue of who will be responsible for the workers in the industry and providing security at the airports.

As it stands, various unions represent the workers. Depending on what decisions are made by the authority, that representation could be completely wiped out. The issue of successor rights, should the responsibility for these workers be transferred from where it is now, is very important to the unions and bargaining units that represent those workers at present. It is another reason that they should be represented on the authority once it has been established.

Another issue with regard to Group No. 1 of Bill C-49 is the $24 fee which of course is a tax in everything but name.

Looking specifically at the airport in my city of Windsor, that airport is marginal. It is doing okay right now. It is actively promoting itself to be used more extensively. We lost Canadian, but several smaller airlines are currently looking at providing service which is badly needed not just to Toronto where we are really confined to now, but to and from a number of areas around the country.

I have been speaking to a number of officials at the airport in the last few days in anticipation of speaking to Group No. 1. They have raised serious concerns about the impact the $24 fee will have on the short runs.

These are the areas at which the new small airlines are specifically looking. Because they work within very close margins, the concern is whether the fee will be enough to dissuade them from further exploring coming into the Windsor airport. They have done an excellent job promoting the airport and now they are being confronted with this fee or tax which is a much more severe burden on the people who are travelling than on the general public.

Everyone recognizes that sufficient security has not been provided at our airports in the past. I have had many conversations with the workers over the years. They would probably be the first ones to tell us that they are not paid or trained well enough and are not provided with enough equipment, and any equipment they have is out of date.

We know it is going to cost money. That is not the issue and everyone accepts that. However, in order to bolster security, should the individual passenger have to bear the full brunt of that?

Security is not just an airline issue. The tragedies in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania showed that all sorts of other people were affected, a great many of whom lost their lives as we well know.

In doing the tax planning to deal with the social issue of security, the issue then becomes, from where does the government derive the revenue? The issue should be one of fairness, obviously, as in all cases of taxation. How do we spread the cost of the security fairly across the whole of society?

The obvious answer is it is not done by putting the entire burden on the travelling public. One can accept that some of it should be borne by them, almost on a user fee basis, but not the entire amount as is proposed in the bill. It is unfair to the travelling public. Society as a whole should bear more of the burden from general tax revenues.

With regard to the Windsor airport, it is expected that a number of new flights also may not proceed from Air Canada and Air Ontario as we have them now. Not only are we dealing with a situation where the new airlines may not proceed with new flights, but we may lose more of our flights. We recently have lost some. Rather than having any increase, we may lose more short hauls. The biggest number of flights out of Windsor go to Pearson in Toronto. There is some risk that we may lose those as the cost of flying goes up.

Going back to the parliamentary democracy issue, this is a flagrant example of the government running roughshod over it. There is great reason to have proper representation on the agency. There cannot be proper representation unless the labour movement and the workers in the industry are represented at that level.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49. The bill deserves the confidence of the House of Commons. Our Minister of Finance and the government introduced a budget on December 10, 2001. The bill would implement the provisions of the budget, a budget announced in the midst of almost unprecedented uncertainty with a slowing economy and the events of September 11.

The Minister of Finance listened to Canadians who asked him and the government to do a number of things. I was and still am on the House of Commons finance committee which travelled across Canada during prebudget consultations. We heard unanimously from Canadians on a number of key points. First, Canadians want the Minister of Finance to protect the largest tax cut in Canadian history: the $100 billion the government announced in the year 2000.

Second, they want the government to protect the $23 billion it negotiated with the provinces in the fall of 2000 for investment in health care, post-secondary education and early childhood development.

Third, Canadians want the government to provide funding for a national security agenda to deal with the events of September 11 and move forward. The finance minister provided $7 billion to deal with a range of issues including cross border security, immigration, investing in CSIS and the RCMP, and a whole host of other initiatives that were tied to the terrible events.

Fourth, they do not want the government to go back into deficit. Canadians have fought long and hard to cut programs and reduce expenditures to get the economy and the fiscal position of the government in good order. They do not want the government to go into deficit.

I am delighted to stand here today and say our Minister of Finance listened to Canadians and did exactly the things they asked of him. As a result of stimulation of our economy, tax cuts, and investments in R and D and infrastructure we have not gone into deficit or recession.

We have missed a recession notwithstanding the comments of members on the opposite benches who have said we are in one. We are not. We missed going into recession because the government has a sound fiscal policy, the Bank of Canada has a sound monetary policy and the two are working together as they are supposed to. That is why jobs are being created, our economy is moving forward and we have the lowest interest rates in 50 years.

I will talk about some of the specifics of the bill. We sometimes get caught up in detail, albeit important detail, but I want to highlight the context within which the minister brought forward his budget in December of last year. It was a difficult budget to deal with in trying times. However the government brought in sound fiscal and monetary policies and we are starting to reap the rewards.

There has been much discussion about the air traveller security charge. I share the concerns that have been raised particularly about short haul fares and the impact the fee might have. The fee would be $12 one way with no stopovers and $24 return with no stopovers. The point has been raised many times that for small communities and short hauls a ticket of $100 to $120 would be a significant amount. The government has said it understands this and is prepared to monitor it closely. The finance committee could undertake this. If airlines began to cut back services we could be in a predicament where it would be too little too late.

However we need to understand a couple of economic truths. If people are travelling on a short haul, let us say from Vancouver to Kelowna, the fact that they must go through airport security costs the same whether they are travelling from Vancouver to Kelowna or getting on a flight in Toronto and travelling to Vancouver. It is a fixed cost. Travellers must go through the same security measures. The argument, and it is a fairly good one, is that people must pay the cost irrespective of how far they are travelling.

The result of not doing that would be to cross subsidize. Someone who was travelling from Toronto to Vancouver and return would have to pay more and would subsidize someone who was travelling from Vancouver to Kelowna, for example. There is an argument for that but frankly I do not think it is strong enough. We need to test the system.

We have been reading about how air travel has been picking up in Canada. I looked at some of the numbers.

During February 2002 Air Canada experienced 3.1 billion passenger miles. That is up from February 2001 when it was three billion revenue passenger miles. That is not insignificant when we consider what went on after February 2001.

In February 2002 WestJet had 199 million passenger miles compared to 126 million passenger miles. That is an increase of some 58% over February 2001. In the interim, there was the issue of Canada 3000 and I accept that.

What I am trying to say is that people are starting to fly again. WestJet has a pretty robust business model. It goes for no frills, low cost travel. I think the jury is still out.

If a $24 fee is put on a return trip between Calgary and Edmonton, I am not sure that the demand is such that it is going to make a huge difference, but perhaps it will. Perhaps that has to be monitored. To go into the smaller centres perhaps it will make a difference, but I suppose one has to look at what the alternatives are.

No one likes to charge additional costs to get from point A to point B . The government has indicated it is prepared to monitor the situation very carefully. If WestJet , Air Canada or other companies were to indicate that the demand had fallen way off, I am sure the government would look at that and decide whether there was a more reasonable alternative.

Also in the bill is the establishment of the Canadian air transport security authority. The authority would oversee the security. I believe there is room on the board of the directors of the authority for one union representative. In fact, I supported that at committee. I would hope that over time the government would revisit that.

We have heard stories of people having little pairs of nose scissors taken from them when going through airport security, but then being able to buy little pairs of nose scissors on the other side and take them on the plane.

Workers on the front line could have some valuable input and would feed that to the union rep on the board of the authority. I support that. I supported it at committee. I wish the government would reconsider that and put a union rep on the board. There would be better decisions as a result.

A number of other different initiatives are funded through the bill. There is the $500 billion for the Africa fund and the $2 billion for the Canada strategic infrastructure program. These initiatives are worthy of the support of the House.

There are a number of other more minor items, for example the one regarding mechanics tools. This is not minor to mechanics I am sure, especially since it is targeted to apprentices who have to build up their tool kits. The bill gives them a tax deduction for extraordinary costs.

The bill deserves the confidence of the House to implement an excellent budget that was delivered in December by the Minister of Finance and the government.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to members of the opposition this morning. There is a far greater challenge that we have in the House in dealing with the budget implementation bill.

I will speak a little about how the public perceived the work of the House over the last few months and I will specifically limit my remarks to the greater Toronto area.

The budget asked us to approve spending in the neighbourhood of some $150 billion. The greater Toronto area would receive about $28 billion from the budget approval process that we are talking about in the House today. It would include transfers to the provinces, municipalities, grants from various government departments, from agriculture right through to veterans affairs, environment, and heritage.

This amount of government expenditure has been going on in the greater Toronto area for the last four years. To put it all in perspective, the taxpayers of the greater Toronto area send close to $35 billion to the treasury. That means there is close to $7 billion that is used for interest payments, debt reduction, and equalization to those regions of the country that do not have the economic opportunity of the greater Toronto area.

My point today that I think is extremely relevant for all members of parliament has to do with the communications that flow from the budget exercise. Over the last three months we have heard repeatedly in the Toronto media that the Government of Canada presence in the Toronto area was marginal. Headlines in our largest newspaper, the Toronto Star were saying that members of parliament in the greater Toronto area were missing in action and that there was no federal support for activities in the GTA. The mayor of our city, on radio, television and print, publicly called for the defeat of all Toronto members because he believed that there was very little Government of Canada activity happening in the greater Toronto area.

Toronto would receive $28 billion of appropriations from the budget. I believe this is a problem not just in the greater Toronto area. Most government grants and allocations of funds that flow from the budget are essentially handled in a way where there is little communication with the people in the community.

It has come to a point where we now have a crisis in the country. More and more people are asking, and I have heard this in other regions of the country as well, “What do you do when you go to Ottawa?”

The reality is there is not a member of parliament, whether a government member or an opposition member, that is outside the loop of receiving from some department or another government support to help stimulate the economic activity in his or her community.

My own view is that 99% and maybe even more of this money is essentially managed and allocated through the bureaucratic process in government. Many times MPs do not know how that money is being disbursed. The only people who really know are the few people receiving it because the federal presence around this money is not there.

By contrast, in the province of Ontario which I come from, people can go to any radio station or read any newspaper and they will see SuperBuild ads everywhere. These ads indicate what the province of Ontario would do through SuperBuild in the province and in communities in Ontario. People cannot drive down a new piece of paved road without seeing half a dozen SuperBuild signs educating the public on where their provincial tax dollars are going.

I seek unanimous consent of the House to propose an amendment to Bill C-49, the budget implementation bill, before us today by adding a new clause after line 22 on page 112 that the governor in council shall allocate one-half of 1% of all moneys appropriated by this act for the purpose of disseminating information concerning the provision of programs and services by the Government of Canada under this act to ensure that the people of Canada are properly informed as to those programs and services.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would have been more pleased had you invited them to be quiet and listen to what I had to say because I think it is important.

My former colleague from Grasslands in Saskatchewan said that his years here were a waste of time. This is what I am starting to feel.

We have had a number of good times in the finance committee over the last three or four years. I have served with some enthusiasm on that committee. We have had a considerable impact. We have had a good collegial attitude. We have been professional. We have listened to witnesses and have included what they have said in our reports.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my speech on the budget, most of our budget recommendations were not included in the finance minister's budget this year. However, we worked independently as a committee to give the finance minister advice so that the tax burden and the expenditure of public moneys would be in line with what Canadians wanted. That has now completely deteriorated. That is so frustrating.

All the Liberals just voted for closure. They said that they want to stop debating this. I have an inkling that most of them have not read the transcripts from our committee. They do not know what the issues are. All we are told is that they want to get this thing on the road so they can start collecting a tax so please stand up when told to. All of the members, including those who crossed the floor from the opposition benches to the Liberal benches, voted to shut down the debate.

Closure and time allocation would not be necessary if we treated with dignity the ideas and the conclusions of members of parliament and, as a matter of fact, the recommendations of the witnesses at the committee and the questions and concerns expressed by all committee members. I emphasize that all members of the committee were interested in hearing more details. This did not happen.

Instead, when it came time to vote, the members who had heard the witnesses, who had been there to hear our arguments, for the most part were pulled off the committee. Substitute members were put in whose only credentials were that they were able to vote the way they were told.

In other words, every amendment that came from an opposition party would be routinely defeated. A number of amendments came from the Liberals because the legislation was not perfect. They found a whole bunch of areas in this legislation which they wanted to change at committee stage and so they did. They brought in their amendments and all of those amendments passed and for good reason.

As a matter of fact, if members came to committee with an amendment and said that they had missed something and wanted to fix it, I would vote in favour of it at committee. Why not? My job is to do what is best for the citizens of Canada.

Yet in Bill C-49 there is the imposition of a tax. The parliamentary secretary will use perfect hindsight next fall when he looks at this new tax. He will look in his rearview mirror and will see all of the airlines that have gone out of business or that have cut services. Then the government will adjust the tax, after the damage is done.

Time allocation would have been unnecessary if members of the committee had been free to exercise their own judgment and to recommend to the Minister of Finance that the tax should be revised now to prevent the damage that it will do instead of looking at it in the fall to see what damage has been done. It is atrocious. Parliament is totally missing its responsibility and the opportunity to do what is right. I am appalled by that.

Those members very gladly step up to the plate for the Prime Minister and say that they will have more dignity because the Prime Minister will arrange for them to have bigger and better salaries. I say let them have the dignity of thinking and voting for themselves, whether it is on time allocation or in committee.

Let Liberal members get that dignity, then they will earn their salaries. Right now they could all be replaced by a bunch of little pneumatic dolls with little buttons that run a little air pump so that they stand up to vote on command. That is really atrocious.

I am very appalled. Perhaps next fall we will see on the news the impact this will have had on the airline industry and in services to small communities. Perhaps next fall when we look back at the damage that has been done the Liberals will say that a member of the House and the finance committee had the foresight to see this and warned the members, but they did not pay attention. They blindly went ahead and imposed a head tax for security instead of actually doing what was recommended by common sense, by the witnesses, and I am sure by economists, if they had had a chance to study it.

That brings me to another very important point. Why is closure being used when an economic impact study has not been done? It is incredible that we would put our country's airline industry at risk by imposing a tax when the department officials have admitted that they have not done an economic impact study on what the results of the new tax will be. They are just guessing. The finance minister pulled $12 and $24 out of a hat. It is incredible. In the United States the fee for airline passengers is $2.50 U.S. with a maximum of $5 on a trip.

Earlier today the parliamentary secretary said it is a very simple tax. That is not what the witnesses told us. That is not what people from the airline community have told us in their submissions to us. They have said this is an incredibly complex tax. It is based upon where a flight starts, where it ends and in some cases where it has been in between.

Did the passengers have to go to a major airport to make a connection to another little town? Perhaps they went from little town A to little town B , but they happened to go through Vancouver or Toronto to get there. What is the impact and who will pay the security tax? In some cases the passengers do not even go through security because the same gate is used. It is absolutely incredible that these people should be taxed.

The most important consideration is that the burden of funding the security issue is being placed entirely on airline passengers. We are ignoring the fact that on September 11 most of the people who died were not in airplanes. It is of public interest to have secure airways. The excessive tax will kill the very industry that needs to provide safe services. Sure, it will cut off airline terrorism, because there will be no more airlines on which to fly.

Words fail me, which does not happen often. I am out of words to say what a huge error we are making here and how despicable it is that this parliament with all this collective talent, and intellect presumably, is unable to see the situation which is so obvious.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last year the pre-screening of passengers cost $1.10 per passenger. Under Bill C-49 the government would charge passengers $12 a head. Can the secretary of state tell the House if Canadians could expect tenfold the security measures they experienced last year? Precisely what would they get for ten times the amount of money?

Last year the Air Transport Association of Canada estimated that 43 million people walked through airport security checkpoints in Canada, and last year was the worst on record for commercial air traffic. The government's tax and its revenue is based on an estimated 36 million passengers. How did the government arrive at such a low number of 36 million given that WestJet last week bought two brand new 767s, Air Canada has rehired staff and its March traffic is equal to last year's prior to September 11?

If this year's traffic matches last year's of 43 million people, which again was the worst year on record, we could raise the $430 million the finance minister needs this year by asking each passenger to pay $9.14 rather than $12. Why is the government proposing to charge $12 if $9.14, given the traffic of last year which was the lowest ever, would give it the same revenue? Why is it overtaxing?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. One wonders why the government is so anxious to quickly pass this bill, when it is so controversial. The more we talk about this legislation, the more issues are raised.

WestJet was mentioned, but the whole tourism industry is affected. Witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance to condemn Bill C-49 and the air transportation tax.They all said that it will have a disastrous impact on their industry. It is the same thing for regional carriers and small airports.

I have a question for the secretary of state. When he told us about the impact of that new tax, how could he state that it will have no or only insignificant effects and that our questions regarding this new transportation tax were totally ridiculous, as he did not have any impact study on the implementation of such a tax?

How can he be so sure when his comments are not based on anything?

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your Honour has indicated that pursuant to Standing Order 67.1(1)(a) there will be a 30 minute period for questions. You have indicated that the government will be represented by the hon. Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. I would refer Your Honour to Standing Order 67.1(1)(a), which states:

When a motion has been proposed pursuant to Standing Order 57 or 78(3), there shall be a period of not more than thirty minutes during which time Members may put brief questions to the Minister responsible for the item which has been subject to the motion--

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 is presented in the name of the hon. Minister of Finance, not the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. This arrangement violates the standing orders. I, on behalf of this party, would request that Your Honour suspend this question period until the minister responsible appears in the House and is available for questioning.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and two sitting days shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the second day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Question No.100—

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it has not been possible to reach an agreement under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10, 2001.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) therefore, I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst, his predecessor, Doug Young, was a typical example of a chihuahua's behaviour. Doug Young was a typical chihuahua.

A chihuahua is a little dog that barks a lot but does not bite. That was the case with Doug Young. He barked about everything, but his bark was worse than his bite, as they say, like the chihuahua.

Since I must get back to the crux of the matter, and the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry knows what I think of him, I would like to say that Bill C-49, particularly in connection with air travel, will penalize the regions.

The present Minister of Transport, an MP for the Toronto area, has the good fortune to work in Ottawa, which is served by RapidAir. There are Ottawa-Toronto and Toronto-Ottawa flights hourly. In peak periods, there is one every half hour. Can the Minister of Transport not understand how the regions, and the human beings living in the regions, can be penalized by his acceptance of this surtax, when he works in an area where airlines are not in a position to meet the demand?

Can the job done by the Minister of Transport. as far as air travel is concerned, be considered to have been effective? We need only think of the bankruptcies of InterCanadian, Royal Aviation, Region Air and Air Alma.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on Bill C-49.

I would like to focus mainly on Motion No. 2 which reads, and I quote:

That Bill C-49, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing subsection 10(2) with the following:

“(2) Two of the directors must be nominees submitted by the representatives of the airline industry designated under section 11 whom the Minister considers suitable for appointment as directors, and two must be nominees submitted by the representatives of aerodrome operators designated under that section whom the Minister considers suitable for appointment as directors.

An amendment put forward by my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle said, and I quote:

That Bill C-49, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 10, page 6, with the following:

“for appointment as directors, and two must be nominees submitted by representatives of aerodrome operators designated under that section whom the Minister considers suitable for appointment as directors;

and two must be nominees submitted by the bargaining agents representing the largest number of screening officers working at Canadian aerodromes.”

Today, the minister is putting forward in the House an amendment excluding workers' representatives.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this important matter. There are a number of points I wish to make. I listened to the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I found it curious that he took a shot at the official opposition on the question of free votes, in that when we vote in unison somehow that is free votes, but when the government does not do it that is not somehow imposing party discipline.

Coming from the authority he has as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I find it absurd for him to stand in the House and lecture anybody on the issue of free votes and represent democracy. Consider the debacle that happened in the second election of the chair of the finance committee and how much of an embarrassment that was, not only to the Liberal government, but to the entire House and to democracy.

What is more, consider the lack of democracy at the finance committee when the Liberal member of parliament for Hillsborough, Prince Edward Island, dared to say that he might vote in favour of lowering a tax. Then the committee was gaveled and shut down. We came to the House to vote 15 minutes before any of the other committee meetings broke to come to the House for the vote. Moreover, the chair of the committee would not entertain a vote prior to us coming here even though there was nobody left on the speaking roster.

Clearly, the whip appointed chair of the finance committee did not like what was going on. When we came back to the committee after the vote, the member for Hillsborough was nowhere to be seen for close to half an hour. Then when the Liberal member for Hillsborough came into the committee, he said that he had been made aware that the government would be reviewing this tax sometime in the fall. Therefore, he was not going to vote for my amendment to cut the tax in half.

It was curious given that he said he learned that information in the previous half hour while we were voting. The government said that back in December. Somehow it was a revelation to him even though the information had been made public almost two and a half months prior.

I want to speak to Motion No. 10 which is to remove northern airports from this list. In the House of Commons the finance minister said and I quote:

--the charge will not be applied to direct flights to and from the smaller and remote airports that make up the vast majority of the airports in the north.

I challenged the finance minister and the Liberal government to live up to that recommendation at committee. I tabled a bunch of small and rural communities and airports at committee for them to vote on, to put some muscle behind their rhetoric.

I put the Inuit village of Rankin Inlet which has a population of 2,500 people on the list. It is exempt from the tax. I also put the smaller community of Kuujjuaq, with a population of 1,470, on the list to have exempted. In Liberal math 1,470 is bigger than 2,500. For some reason the people of Kuujjuaq with a population of 1,470 will have to pay the $24 round trip air tax, but the people of Rankin Inlet with a population of 2,500 will not.

Frankly, the government did not fulfill the spirit of what was said by the finance minister in the House. What was very interesting was I said that Miramichi, New Brunswick, another small community, should taken off the list, the argument being that there was no air service to its airport. Somehow the government said that it needed 90 airports, a round number, so Miramichi, New Brunswick was left on the list. There is no air service to Miramichi, New Brunswick, none whatsoever.

Liberals at the committee and all the genius that was mustered said that they would agree with my amendment to take Miramichi, New Brunswick off the list.

After that we voted on taking Dawson Creek off the list, another small city in British Columbia. The Liberals said no, that we could not do that. They also voted to keep Churchill Falls on the list. Churchill Falls has a population of 717 people. It is a small, rural, northern community which is trying to pull the community up, expand it and grow it. However the government is going to tax that community $24 round trip on air service. Then there is Miramichi, New Brunswick. Its airport is dead. Therefore because there is no revenue for the government, it is not going to charge it the tax. Only when an airport is dead will the government say it should be taken off the list. I will bet that if Miramichi airport at some point in the next year or so, if one Dash 8 flies out of that airport, the government will come in and nail that community for the $24 tax again.

There are many reasons the $24 tax is bad public policy. First, it is not revenue neutral. The government's own numbers in Bill C-49 contrast with the budget it announced in December. In year one there would a $90 million surplus. That is not revenue neutral.

Second, I sat for hours at the transport committee and we unanimously came up with a list of recommendations for airport and airline security. Not one of the recommendations found its way into the law that is supposed to improve airline and airport security.

At the finance committee the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance seemed to be an expert on airport and airline security. However he was not on the transport committee so he knows not of what he speaks when he talks about the recommendations.

Recommendation 14 was unanimously supported by the Liberals including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. It states:

All stakeholders--including airports, air carriers, airline passengers and/or residents of Canada--contribute to the cost of improved aviation security.

The transport committee's recommendations were totally ignored and brushed aside. The finance minister said he wanted tax revenues to go to the general revenue. The government has ignored the recommendation of the transport committee and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. The Liberal arrogance on display in the House is quite typical. The Liberals see a tax grab and they like it. They throw corporate welfare to the people in their constituencies. It is a huge a tax grab.

The government did not do one impact study on the tax. Government members should know WestJet's profit margin is four passengers per flight. We have heard from industry people that WestJet may eliminate its Calgary-Edmonton run. Today WestJet flies 14 or 16 daily round trip flights from Calgary to Edmonton. It may completely eliminate the run from its schedule because of the air tax. The government did not ask one air carrier or industry official what the impact of the tax would be on their business. WestJet's profit margin is four passengers per flight.

WestJet may kill its Toronto-Calgary run altogether. That is the route on which it built its business. It may lose the run because of Liberal policy. The government did no impact study or assessment whatsoever.

The tax would be collected on April 1. All the money from it would go straight into the general revenue of the government. Air carriers and travel agents would cut cheques to the receiver general which would go straight into the general revenue. The money would then go to the new airport authority the government is supposed to be creating. The airport authority would not be created until November or December of this year. In other words, from April 1 until November or December of this year Canadians would essentially have taxation without representation through the authority they are supposed to be financing.

What are Canadians to expect during that time? The $24 fee is supposed to finance $2.2 billion in air security improvements. More than $1 billion of the $2.2 billion would be for new technology such as bomb detection equipment, metal detectors and so on. There would be a one year backlog in getting the equipment because of the attacks in the United States. However the government would pay cash upfront in 2002 for equipment it would not receive for a year. It would pay 100% of the cost upfront.

If the government had any common business sense it would do what people in small business do all the time: amortize the cost of the equipment over the life of the equipment. It could do that. It would cut the tax in half. However the government would rather put the money into the general revenue. After the government paid upfront for equipment it would not get for a year, the same amount would keep pouring into the general revenue. The Liberals could keep throwing it at corporate welfare and their friends. They could keep spending the way Liberals love to spend.

I encourage all members of the House to support the transport committee's amendments and bring sanity back to the House. We studied the issue for hours and spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. The member opposite may not care because he is a Liberal, but taxpayers care about their money being wasted.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to motions put forth on Bill C-49. Motion No. 1 states:

The Authority must, before December 31 of each year following the Authority's first full year of operations, submit an annual report for the preceding fiscal year to the Minister, and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.

The report must include:

(a) national, provincial and regional data on the effect of the air travellers security surcharge on passenger travel and economic development; and

(b) a review of the impact of all the other surcharges levied on air travel.

I will comment on all the motions being debated today during my 10 minutes and then I will speak about them all in one block.

The second motion has been proposed by the Minister of Transport. It states:

Two of the directors must be nominees submitted by the representatives of the airline industry designated under section 11 whom the Minister considers suitable for appointment as directors, and two must be nominees submitted by the representatives of aerodrome operators designated under that section whom the Minister considers suitable for appointment as directors.

Obviously the amendment was put in to cut out the amendment that would have allowed two representatives from the unions to sit on the board.

Motion No. 10 states:

(a) an aerodrome north of the 55th parallel of north latitude that is not served at least five times per week by non-stop round-trip jet service to an airport south of the 55th parallel of north latitude, or

(b) an aerodrome where the population of the adjoining city is less than 3,000 persons.

This is an attempt to waiver the fee.

The Speaker ruled those three motions admissible. Of those three motions, we would support two. However the third motion on behalf of the minister is an attempt to override the democratic process of the committee. The committee already established a bona fide case and allowed an amendment to be put forth that would allow for fair and equitable representation on the committee, but the minister decided to overrule it. This is very typical of not only this legislation but of a lot of other legislation that the government has passed. It just does not seem to understand the responsibility that we all have as members of parliament to ensure that we put forward legislation that is meaningful, representative of all Canadian society and has some built-in process that allows for accountability.

Bill C-49 needs several amendments. If the amendments are not brought in, then the measures that were announced in the December budget will be.

The specific amendments which deal with the Canadian air transport security authority are most important and should be looked at first. Probably there are two tests that should be applied to all those parts of Bill C-49 that set up this authority.

Given the amount of money it would spend, with the lion's share of the revenue being raised by the $12 ticket tax, is the governance structure adequate to protect the taxpayer money? I argue quite vehemently on behalf of taxpayers that there are not enough sections in the in bill to protect their money.

The second rule that should be applied is if there will be sufficient mechanisms for Canadians to judge whether the authority has significantly improved air traffic security or whether it has just become another expensive and bureaucratic boondoggle. Surely there should be a sufficient mechanism built into the authority that would allow us to establish a scale. Is the system working? How will we know whether the system is working or not? We do not see anything built into this.

A number of areas are troublesome. The tabling of information to parliament is extremely troublesome. The directives from the minister are quite heavy-handed. The process for review for the bill and the access to information and privacy are all areas that were not taken seriously enough when the bill was introduced. All these areas need improvement.

Tabling of information to parliament is the very life and breath of the House. Under clause 32 of Bill C-49, the minister would be allowed to block the tabling of information in parliament under section 10 of the Financial Administration Act if he or she felt it would be detrimental to public security. This would affect three specific types of information: directives from cabinet to the entity, which are under section 89.1(4) of the Financial Administration Act; significant problems that may be found during an annual audit that the auditors feel should be drawn to parliament's attention and to inclusion in that entity's annual report which is under section 132(v) of the FAA; and significant problems that are found during a special examination. The examiner possibly, in this case the auditor general, feels these should be included in the entity's annual report.

A special examination must be conducted every five years. Its purpose is to give the board an independent opinion on whether the corporation's financial and management control, information system and management practices are proper. There are absolutely no safeguards built into the legislation to ensure that the minister does not use transportation security as an excuse to simply prevent publication of embarrassing information. It should be further questioned whether any directive would ever, under the legislation, be allowed to be tabled before parliament. It is very questionable how much information parliament will get under the legislation.

At the very least, the bill should have included a motion that would have forced the minister and the board to table information that could present a security threat and have some type of accommodating legislation to prevent such information that was not a security threat, but would simply prove embarrassing to the minister, from being tabled.

Under the directives from the minister, the minister may issue written directions to the authority on his or her own matters of air transport security without going to cabinet. Maybe the minister should not have to run back to cabinet every time he or she wants to deal with any particular issue in Canadian legislation. However we have seen an increase in this type of behaviour on behalf of the government. It is just sheer arrogance that would allow any minister not to refer back to cabinet and never refer back to parliament. He or she need not consult the board. There is no requirement that any directives be tabled in parliament.

Further, Bill C-49 specifically declares that there are no statutory instruments. There is no mechanism for review. For that matter, there is no mechanism for even informing parliament.

There is much more to be said on this legislation, particularly under access to information and under the Privacy Act. There are major areas of concern, typical of a lot of legislation that the government has put forth which has been poorly crafted, not thought out and absolutely not accountable to the Parliament of Canada.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10, 2001.

First, I would like to concentrate on one of the aspects of this bill that is the most important to us, and I do not necessarily mean that in a good way. It has to do with all of the provisions of the bill that create a new passenger safety tax for air travellers. I have the impression that, when the government, with the help of its officials, developed this type of clause for the bill to create a new tax, they did so in a vacuum. I do not believe that the government consulted with the regions on the impact that such a tax would have.

This morning, my colleague, the member for Charlevoix, gave a somewhat caricatured example, but one that is quite easily understood: when a tax on tobacco is set, or raised, what is the basic objective, in terms of public health? The objective is to discourage the consumer from using a substance that is harmful to health. Obviously, it allows the government to raise money. However, it also discourages the consumer.

In studying Bill C-49, it appears as though the government is not aware of its own policies, which it applies in other areas. What impact will adding a new tax and additional fees have on consumers when it comes to air transportation? It will discourage people from using regional airlines. It will wind up creating a parallel travel network for Canadian citizens. It will mean that people, if they are required to pay more taxes, will end up using their cars. A tax such as this one will therefore reduce air travel among citizens. We can imagine the other consequences that it will have.

When a bill such as this one is drawn up, it cannot simply be considered in a context of specific funding and objectives. I refute the arguments made by the member opposite, who said, some twenty, ten, or five minutes ago, that opposition members were not concerned about air transportation safety. According to him, the opposition is not concerned about providing an airline industry that is dependable and safe. That is not the issue. Instead, he should say “We realize that September 11 significantly changed the way things operate”.

However, could the government not have used the surpluses it has been accumulating for years to pay for air travel security? Is it not the responsibility of Canadians as a whole to have a reliable and safe airline industry? Is it only travellers flying between Montreal and Alma who have to pay this cost? I do not believe so. National airline security must be the responsibility of every taxpayer.

Therefore, we must pay for airline security with the budget surpluses accumulated by the government. What will the impact of this tax be? As I said, it will most likely be a drop in the number of air travellers, which in turn will have repercussions on regional development, our regions' economic structure and also young people.

If we want to stop the exodus of young people toward urban areas, we must give the regions the necessary tools for their development.

At some point in time, business people will be told they have to drive from Alma to Montreal because the Montreal-Alma flight has been discontinued; recently, Air Alma made just such an announcement. If we want our regional economies to flourish, we must give the necessary tools to our business people.

Moreover, this tax is completely irresponsible when Canada is trying to improve its record on the environment and sustainable development. The government is preparing the demise of several airlines in Canada, making sure that Canadians will no longer fly but drive their CO

2

producing cars.

Unwittingly, the government is pushing citizens to no longer use a means of transportation which I would call “mass transit”, namely the airplane--which is what we can call it--in favour of another means of transportation, the car. In environmental terms, the federal strategy is totally irresponsible.

The citizens, the taxpayers, the air travellers will have to assume the cost of this tax. For travel within Canada, the total cost of the charge will be $12 for a one way ticket and $24 for a round trip. The charge on a ticket to the continental U.S. will be $12. It will be $24 for a ticket to travel outside Canada and the continental U.S.

The charge will apply to flights connecting the 90 airports where the Canadian air transport security authority is planning security enhancements. However, it will not apply to direct flights to and from small airports or regional airports not included in the list of 90 airports.

It is obvious that Quebec will be hard hit by this tax. This will affect the regional airports. In Quebec, 20 airports out of 90 will be affected by this bill. This represents 25% of the airports in Quebec. There are 20 in Quebec and 15 in Ontario.

This is not only the fight of the Bloc Quebecois members but also the fight of all the members of this House whose constituents an adequate airline and adequate service. I understand that some government members, including the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, were very critical of this bill. Why is that? Because the regions will suffer, particularly the regional economies.