Bill C-49 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

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

Helping Families in Need Act

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thought for sure the NDP members would finish their debate first, but you are the person in charge so I will go on your advice.

It is a great pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-44. It is important and worthwhile legislation. The committee has been somewhat seized by it the last number of meetings and by very compelling testimony, which I will refer to as I make my remarks.

At the outset, the Liberal Party believes in the spirit and intent of the legislation. Since the bill was brought forward by the government, It has supported the legislation throughout the process.

The essence of bill is to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act, to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the income tax regulations that will offer support to families facing unthinkable and traumatic sad events.

Over the past month, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has heard from medical experts, social service experts, charities, not-for-profit groups and others that are doing good work to help families through incredibly difficult times, trying to care for a critically ill, missing or murdered child.

Most important, we heard from the families. I want to thank them first and foremost for the strength and courage they brought to these meetings and for their ability to advocate for the types of support that would have helped them through times of unfathomable grief.

As I look around at the members in the House today, I think we can all agree that regardless of what the legislation might be, when the bill goes to committee, we have access to people, experts in the field. Many times we are inundated with numbers in the millions and billions. The testimony through these hearings and through the review of the bill was not about millions or billions; it was about the one child who had gone missing or the one child who was lost because of a critical illness. The testimony was about knowing that this was more important than anything else in the lives of people.

It was a very emotional time for those witnesses who came to our committee and shared their stories. I know they hold the appreciation, the thanks and the respect of our entire committee.

Some who gave testimony said that this was a first good step, but there was more that could be done. I will speak about that a little later on when I talk about some of the amendments put forward.

Bill C-44 could have been improved. Many of the witnesses made some very concrete and positive recommendations to strengthen the bill. I had hoped that those recommendations would not have fallen on deaf ears, but unfortunately the government did not feel changes had to be made. The way that the bill was presented certainly took a couple of those amendments off the table. In fact, none of the amendments offered either by the NDP or by the Liberal Party made it through.

We based our amendments around the testimony we heard. We went through the process of gathering that information, and we made the amendments according to the facts that were established during the course of the hearings. We certainly put our amendments forward in the spirit of making the bill better for Canadians.

A number of amendments were declared out of order on the grounds they were beyond the scope of Bill C-44. It was disappointing they were not implemented and the opportunity to strengthen the bill was overruled by the government.

I would like to talk about a couple of the amendments. On behalf of our party, I raised two categories of amendments to Bill C-44. These would have made changes to the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code.

The first one was to extend the leave of absence for a parent of a critically ill child from 37 weeks to 52 weeks. We heard from parents and other stakeholders that 52 weeks would be an absolutely reasonable period of time. Critically ill children are often struggling for their lives well beyond 37 weeks and it seemed unfair and unreasonable to restrict the period to 36 weeks, especially when the legislation would provide for 52 weeks for parents of a missing or murdered children.

As a person, not even a member of Parliament, how do we quantify the amount of pain and grief that one experiences when one has a missing and/or murdered child? What that would take from a person, mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually, would be enormous. However, if parents have to watch their sons or daughters battle with a critical illness, are we in a position to judge which is more distressing or more hurtful? We thought we could apply the same grace to parents of critically ill children by increasing the employment insurance benefit to 52 weeks from 37.

The other amendment was to extend the unpaid leave in EI benefits to 14 days after the day on which a recipient's child died, instead of the last day of the week, to provide parents with additional support during a period of grief.

Both of these amendments asked that the parents of children who died from a critical illness be afforded two additional weeks to grieve. As it stands in Bill C-44, special benefits for parents of a critical ill child would expire on the last day of the week in which the child died. This means that if a child passes away on a Thursday, the child's mother or father would be required to return to work that following Monday. Therefore, the parent loses a child on Thursday and has to return to work on Monday.

If bereaved parents returned to a workplace that required a degree of concentration, maybe it would impact on the safety of others working around them. We would expect people in a position of trust or responsibility to be sound of mind and mentally prepared to perform the duties that are asked of them on a daily basis. I would think if parents are dealing with the death of a child, they would want some time to come to terms with that, to work with their families, their spouses and their other children. We thought it would have been in order to extend that benefit for an additional two weeks. That was ruled out of order as well.

Our amendments would have increased the supports for the parents to receive the same types of benefits through this incredibly dark time.

The other amendment was to eliminate the unequal and unfairness of the labour force attachment by reducing the number of labour force attachment hours required of employment insurance claimants from 600 to 420 that would have to be worked over the six-month period. Reducing the number of hours required would have the effect of extending benefits to part-time workers. We know the number of part-time workers has grown in the country.

In 2004, one in eight jobs were of a part-time nature. Now, one in seven jobs are of a part-time nature. That is fairly significant. It is a big change in the fundamentals of the workforce structure in our country. The amendment we put forward would have addressed the number, especially if a primary caregiver were the mother. The number of women in the workforce who work part-time far exceeds the number of men who work part-time.

We asked the government how it arrived at this number and it could not really provide a legitimate rationale for the 600 hour requirement. We quizzed officials on this and they said that they chose this number because that was what was required to receive special benefits. It was synchronized up like that. There was no other rationale for it. If they had looked at the changing nature of the workforce and the fact that the part-time worker segment had grown so much over the last eight years, they may have been able to alter their perception to improve the legislation.

In analyzing how many parents could potentially qualify, we found a significant percentage would not meet the minimum hourly requirement. In 2011, 25% of parents of children under age 18 worked part-time, a very substantive number, part-time being fewer than 30 hours a week. These parents worked an average of 16.5 hours a week. Had they worked continuously for six months, they would have only worked 430 hours, not enough to qualify for the EI benefit. In fact, 80% of fathers and 75% of mothers who worked part-time, worked fewer than what would be required to reach the 600 hours over the course of 26 weeks. That means 275,000 fathers and 680,000 mothers would not qualify for this new special benefit. It is just wrong to take that number of Canadians and tell them they will be unable to receive the same support as another group of Canadians. It is truly unfortunate and is a missed opportunity.

Had the bill not been introduced so quickly, the opposition may have had time to make improvements at second reading. We heard time after time, almost to a witness, that the age requirement of 18 should be increased. Certainly both opposition parties made a point of this knowing that parents did not stop caring for or trying to support their children just because they turned the magic age of 19. Parents are in it for the long haul. The witnesses believed that the age requirement should be increased.

The bill was brought forward and rushed through second reading. The minister announced the legislation on September 20. The next week, on September 26, the debate at second reading of Bill C-44 began.

However, the technical briefing on the bill, which would amend three pieces of legislation, did not occur until after second reading debate had already begun. We were in the midst of that when the technical briefing took place.

That is the devil in the detail aspect of the way the government has decided it is going to put forward its legislation. We have seen that in the omnibus bill and in a number of other pieces of legislation. Probably the most egregious example would be the budget bill. If they can jam as much as they can in there and run it through as quickly as they can, it would serve some type of purpose. However, if had been given a real opportunity to refine that piece of legislation, we could have put forward the amendments to increase the age and changed the allowable number of hours for part-time workers from 600 down to 420. These changes would have included a greater number of the Canadians who really live on the edges.

However, that is not the way the Conservatives decided to go about it. Indeed, considering the expertise within the public service in the Department of Human Resources, it would have been very useful to have the briefing well before the debate at second reading to provide adequate time to prepare amendments to strengthen this legislation.

I bring members' attention to the fact that in 2002 the Liberal government of the day passed Bill C-49, and I was fortunate to be part of that government. That bill amended the Employment Insurance Act to make the stacking provisions more lenient. The intention of the bill at that time was to ensure that a person who fell ill during a parental leave could also collect EI sickness benefits. What unfortunately happened was that the bureaucracy did not follow the intent of Parliament's legislation and refused perhaps thousands of parents who fell ill during their parental leave.

It was only after one lady appealed the denial of her benefits that the real issue came to light. In 2010, Natalya Rougas, a Toronto mother, was diagnosed with breast cancer while on maternity leave. However, after applying for EI sick benefits her claim was rejected on the grounds that she was on maternity leave and therefore not available for work. She appealed the decision and won her case last year, entitling her to a maximum of 15 weeks of sick benefits in addition to the 50 weeks of maternity and parental benefits that she took after her son was born in January 2009. In his ruling, released in 2011, Justice R.J. Marin said that the legislative changes in 2002 in Bill C-49 were intended to make sick benefits available to women who became ill immediately before, during or after receiving maternity benefits.

Justice Marin later explained that “If the (Employment Insurance) Commission were to give a more liberal interpretation to the provisions of the Act in relation to women who are able to establish a serious illness at the end of their maternal/parental leave, its approach would be consistent with the will of elected officials”. That is a key point, which has been reinforced by a further ruling. Marin also stated that the law was not being interpreted “in the way in which Parliament had intended”.

The lawyer for Ms. Rougas, Mr. Stephen Moreau, expects there are 3,000 or 4,000 such people out there to which this applies. It was funny too that when Bill C-49 was being put forward to make people eligible for those stacking provisions, the Conservatives voted against it. One of their favourite lines is: “These guys voted against it”. Well, they voted against this stacking provision. I do not know where this stands right now and whether these people are being allowed to receive the benefits. However, Judge Marin certainly believes these have always been in order.

I look forward to answering some questions.

Public Safety Act, 2002

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the transport minister on at least waking up the justice minister to his wonderful display of arm waving which was good.

First, I want to comment on his final comments with regard to airport traffic. I will move specifically to Bill C-55 in a moment. The minister said that airport traffic is back after September 11 and somehow that is a great feat by the government.

First, airport traffic is back because people already bought their tickets prior to April 1, so they did not have to pay the $24 tax. Second, people are booking their flights today for the summer to avoid paying the $24 tax and it is the travel season. Third, the vast majority of air carriers are having broad seat sales right now because they are scared of going under because the government is taxing them into the ground.

I rise on Bill C-55 which is an act to amend certain acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention to enhance public safety. It is also known as the public security act.

Bill C-55 gives cabinet members acting alone outrageous and broad new powers with limited checks and balances. If these powers were exercised to their fullest possible extent, they could represent a grave threat to the notion of parliamentary democracy that Canadians hold so dearly.

We were glad that the Liberals withdrew their Bill C-42, but they seem to have missed the entire reason why so many members of the House and so many members of the public were exercised with concern about the problems of Bill C-42.

Specifically, the concerns that Canadians had with Bill C-42, which are still present in Bill C-55, are the capacity of cabinet ministers to invoke a number of interim order measures and the capacity for the minister of defence acting alone to create military security zones. Both of those aspects of Bill C-42 are alive and well in Bill C-55. It is because of those aspects that a number of Canadians will continue to have concerns about the bill and that the official opposition will oppose the bill and encourage all others to do so as well.

As I said, the government can still create a military security zone to protect, as the bill says, “property that is provided for the armed forces for the department and is situated outside a defence establishment”.

In the old bill the government could have declared an area like Kananaskis where the G-8 summit will be a military security zone. It still can in Bill C-55. All it has to do is put some military equipment like a jeep or a helicopter in the zone and they can therefore declare it a security zone under section 260.1(3) which reads:

A controlled access military zone may consist of an area of land or water, a portion of airspace, or a structure or part of one, surrounding a thing referred to in subsection (1) [basically equipment and personnel]...The zone automatically includes all corresponding airspace above, and water and land below, the earth's surface.

This power should not be in the sole, arbitrary hands of the minister of defence.

A recent poll has shown that 69% of Canadians see our federal political system as being corrupt. Canadians are unlikely to be thrilled by this legislation such as this, where the government grabs more unchecked power for ministers. At present the public's faith in democracy is tainted more than ever by the Liberal government's track record on things such as imposing a $24 air tax, despite the fact that air security at most airports has not been improved as the minister says and that the transport committee recommended against such an extreme airline killing measure.

Also, the government invoked closure to impose the legislation, Bill C-49, and which imposed the tax. These things do not build confidence with Canadians. The government also has a lack of respect for free votes in this place and the treatment of private members' bill. It has a lack of commitment to a democratically elected Senate. It has muzzled politically free speech for their own backbenchers. It has a lack of free votes allowed by Liberals in this place. There are also countless other examples and they do not build the confidence of Canadians.

The government should be building the confidence of Canadians in democracy and governance. Bill C-55 will only work to continue the downward spiral of public faith in the institution of governance.

Bill C-55 is a vast and comprehensive bill affecting some nine federal departments. It amends 20 federal statutes and implements in domestic law an international convention that Canada ratified back on March 26, 1975. That treaty is the biological and toxin weapons convention and it shows a stunning lack of vision that it has taken us a quarter of a century to finally make it part of our laws.

In times of trial lucky nations remember great leaders. The British remember Winston Churchill. His unbroken spirit strengthened British resolve during the darkest days of the second world war. Americans remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the president who led their nation to great victories across two different oceans at a time when freedom itself was at stake.

All those who are alive today know that President Bush, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and Prime Minister Blair will fare similarly well with historians. As we struggle to deal with the aftermath of September 11, now roughly eight months ago, these three leaders have set the standard by which the world will judge political courage in a time of crisis in the years to come.

Those standards are tough. They mandate a committed ongoing and continuous fight against terrorism and the defence of our way of life, the rule of law, pluralism and democracy. Tougher still, they will require respect for diversity and understanding through dialogue so that in our zeal to protect the democratic Liberal values, which the western world so shares, we do not inadvertently diminish or deny that which we are striving to protect.

Finally and perhaps most important, those standards require firm, principled leadership. That leadership requires two very simple things: a clearly identified goal and a precise way of reaching it.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11 President Bush led. He set a goal of making America safe against further terrorist attacks and of restoring the confidence of Americans. He launched six different initiatives.

The first was the office of homeland security to deal with threats against American territory and appointed Vietnam veteran, former army ranger and former Pennsylvania governor, Tom Ridge as its director.

Second, he created a military campaign to fight terrorism abroad and involve America's allies in that campaign.

Third, he launched an aggressive worldwide campaign to identify and prosecute those who were responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Fourth, blocking of terrorist financing was a priority and access to international banking networks was fought.

Fifth, he launched a concerted diplomatic effort with America's allies to secure the co-operation of the United Nations Security Council, NATO and the Organization of American States in collectively fighting terrorism.

Sixth, he established a fund to help Afghan children, recognizing that they too were victims of the events of September 11.

Each of President Bush's initiatives were and are distinct and well designed, rather like the blades of a Swiss army knife. Each has a specific purpose but the six together are a powerful and comprehensive combination. Quite simply, they have been designed like a Swiss army knife, to work well together so as to be greater than the sum of their parts and like a Swiss army knife they are designed to get the job done.

If we think of President Bush's initiatives as a Swiss army knife, this government's attempts to deal with the aftermath of September 11 are rather like the tools we might find at the bottom of a box at a rummage sale. Some are good, some are missing pieces, some are quite beyond redemption and even the ones that work are not necessarily designed to work together.

Of all the governments on this continent, the Canadian federal government has by far the most legislative and administrative power. An arrogant Prime Minister can appoint his cabinet ministers and he can make them do his bidding or face political exile in the obscurity of the government backbenches. His decisions are supported by 170 plus Liberal voting machines. Their unquestioning support of every piece of government legislation gives the Prime Minister a degree of concentration of power unseen in other liberal democracies.

Given the vast powers of the Canadian Prime Minister, virtually any bold incisive solution was possible in response to September 11. Whatever measure, whichever regulation desired would have easily become a legal reality. Given such latitude, it is sad, perhaps even a bit frightening, that with respect to the public safety act this is the third time in three attempts that the Liberal government has dropped the ball.

When after September 11 Canadians clamored for a collective sense of security, the government increased taxes on air travellers. Today in reaction to polls showing that Canadians do not trust government, the federal Liberals offer up not accountability but a power grab for the cabinet.

Bill C-55 is another omnibus bill that the government has tabled since September 11 and the tragedy therein. The first was Bill C-36 which the government introduced on October 15, over a month after the tragedy and which amended over a dozen statutes and added a new one.

Bill C-55, the public safety act, is just as cumbersome and every bit as complex as Bill C-36. Indeed this bill's complexity and the ham-fisted way incompatible themes have been duct taped together into one bill is obviously a sign of a government unable to and arguably incapable of leading in a time of crisis.

On November 20, 2001 at about 5.25 in the evening the government House leader sought unanimous consent to suspend the standing orders and introduce a government bill at 2 p.m. the next afternoon. The bill, “An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety”, would be complex and a briefing to staff would be offered. After two months of hibernation on aviation security legislation, there was now a flicker of hope that our government would finally react.

At 2 p.m. on November 21, 2001 the promised bill was nowhere in sight. Last minute problems delayed its introduction. Bill C-42 was introduced the following day on November 22 and contained some 19 parts dealing with everything from money laundering to the implementation of a 1977 treaty on biotoxins. A miniature section on aviation security was thrown in for measured optics.

With the same deft touch that marked the bill's introduction on Wednesday, November 28, within a week of its first reading in the House, the government House leader was again on his feet to state that unanimous consent had been required and obtained to delete clause 5 which dealt with section 4.83 of the Aeronautics Act regarding the provision of information. The clause was to be reintroduced in Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, which was ordered for consideration at second reading a mere two sitting days later.

Examination showed that the clause which was deleted had been written to comply with section 115 of the U.S. aviation and transportation security act which had been signed by President Bush days prior. In short, airlines would not be able to fly into the United States after January 18 unless they provided certain information to the U.S. customs service.

There was one problem. The clause allowing Canadian airlines to comply with the U.S. legislation was buried deep in a massive omnibus bill and there was no hope of getting the omnibus bill passed before January 18, 2002. The government took the only possible option. It took the useful clause out of Bill C-42 and introduced it as Bill C-44, a one clause bill which was passed in the House on December 6 and received royal assent on December 18.

The Liberals' stunning mishandling of the public safety act is underlined by the fact that more than five months after Bill C-42 was introduced we are discussing and debating a virtually identical bill with most of the same problems. The government seems to have learned nothing.

Bill C-55 addresses a number of totally unrelated ideas. It should be broken up. Just as it made sense last November to put clauses of Bill C-42 into a separate bill, Bill C-44, it now makes sense to break Bill C-55 into separate bills so they might in turn get the committee's scrutiny. This is what our system of government was designed for. It is what Canadians expect. It would allow the various committees of the House to study the relevant parts of the bill instead of sending the entire bill to a single committee, in this case the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations.

Bill C-55 deals with money laundering and the implementation of a 1977 treaty on biotoxins, topics which would hardly be considered the domain and responsibility of a transport committee. Having said that, I will deal in specific terms with the sections of the bill that deal truly with transport. It is our intention to give each of our party's critics the opportunity to speak to the parts of Bill C-55 that would affect the departments they monitor. It is also our intention to allow our justice critic the hon. member for Provencher to address the parts of the bill that would give ministers the power to make interim orders with respect to unforeseen threats in their departments.

I will address the key areas with respect to transport. The first is the apportionment of security costs. As members opposite may notice, this is not dealt with in Bill C-55. That is part of the problem. Bill C-42 which Bill C-55 replaces was also called the public safety act. It contained a clause which would have introduced a new subsection to the Aeronautics Act. Proposed subsection 4.75(1) read:

The Minister may apportion the costs of any security measure between the persons to whom it is directed, or by whom it is carried out, and any person or persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, would reasonably be expected to benefit from the security measure.

In the context of passenger screening this might have apportioned costs among the flying public to whom it was directed, the airlines and airport authorities who carried it out, and any person who could have reasonably benefited from it. Given that the September 11 victims were mostly in office towers and on the ground, this might well have been the general taxpayer.

These sentiments were expressed in recommendation 14 of the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations, “Building a Transportation Security Culture: Aviation as the Starting Point”, which was released on Friday, December 7. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport is here because the report which tabled 15 recommendations on airport and airline security was supported unanimously at committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the hon. member of parliament from Chicoutimi, said the government should not impose a $24 tax and put it all on the shoulders of passengers. He said we should spread out the costs. The view was supported unanimously but the government rejected it. It rejected its own parliamentary secretary and the hard work of the committee.

The recommendation I am referring to reads:

All stakeholders--including airports, air carriers, airline passengers and/or residents of Canada--contribute to the cost of improved aviation security. In particular, the amounts currently spent by airports and air carriers should be continued--

They are not now continued by law. The recommendation goes on:

--with appropriate adjustments for inflation. A ticket surtax could also be implemented, and any funding shortfalls could be financed out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The initial apportionment of security costs was a good idea. It was in the spirit of what the transport committee had recommended. I was surprised the clause was not included in the new public safety act Bill C-55. After all, we read constantly in the press that the Liberals want to listen to Canadians and their concerns.

When I heard WestJet was cutting 13 weekly flights between Edmonton and Calgary and dropping its Victoria-Kelowna service as a result of the oppressive impact of the Liberal government's air tax on short haul carriers, I hoped the Liberals were listening. I thought maybe they were having a change of heart. Then I noticed the apportionment of costs clause was gone from Bill C-55. If Bill C-42 had not been withdrawn and had been reintroduced in virtually its original form with only a number change, the apportionment of security costs would have ended up being debated and scrutinized by the transport committee which had recommended an apportionment of security costs model in the first place.

Given that the model was rejected by the finance committee after the Liberals who supported it were removed and by the Liberal voting machine which heeded the Prime Minister's orders on Bill C-49, the government did not want the apportionment of security costs clause going back before the committee. Since it was the only way to avoid having such a clause debated by committee the government pulled the bill, deleted the clause, renumbered the bill and reintroduced it as a brand new piece of legislation in Bill C-55. After all this government members wonder why 69% of Canadians think federal politics is corrupt.

The second transport related clause of Bill C-55 that I will address is the new anti-air rage provision. Clause 17 of Bill C-55 would introduce a new section to the Aeronautics Act, section 7.41. In many ways the section would build on concepts contained in the 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft which Canada ratified on November 7, 1969, and the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation which Canada ratified on June 19, 1972.

Essentially these treaties make interference with cockpit crew an international offence. Clause 17 of Bill C-55 would make it an offence punishable by a $100,000 fine and/or up to five years in jail to interfere with any crew member in the performance of his or her duties or anyone who is following the instruction of a crew member. We in our party fully support clause 17 of Bill C-55 and applaud its introduction by the government.

Clause 5 of Bill C-55 deals with the type of information an airline or other transport authority may provide to authorities. It would modify sections 4.7 and 4.8 of the Aeronautics Act. Under clause 5 of Bill C-55 the new subsection 4.82(4) of the Aeronautics Act would read:

The Commissioner, or a person designated under subsection (2), may, for the purposes of transportation security or the identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued, require any air carrier or operator of an aviation reservation system to provide a person designated under subsection (2), within the time and in the manner specified by the person imposing the requirement, with the information set out in the schedule

(a) that is in the air carrier's or operator's control concerning the persons on board or expected to be on board an aircraft for any flight specified by the person imposing the requirement; or

(b) that is in the air carrier's or operator's control, or that comes into their control within 30 days after the requirement is imposed on them, concerning any particular person specified by the person imposing the requirement.

The modified subsection 4.82(5) of the Aeronautics Act would enable the RCMP to share this information with CSIS. These powers, correctly used and perhaps modified by committee, might give Canadian intelligence authorities access to the same type of information the Americans have in their Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System or CAPPS. It is imperative that this be the case.

For years Canadians have bragged about having the world's longest undefended border. We have had access to America like no other nation. Those days are over because of the government's mismanagement since September 11. Armed national guardsmen now protect the previously undefended border. That single fact, breaking with years of tradition, is a damning indictment of the government's post-September 11 record. By guarding the border the Americans are sending Canada a simple, four word message: “We don't trust you”.

Sunday's 60 Minutes report may help convince some of the voting machines opposite of the urgent need to act. We face a choice as a nation. With regard to the new fortress America we can either be inside looking out or outside looking in. We are on probation. It matters greatly what we do in the coming months.

It is critical that we build computer system like the one America has, the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System or CAPPS. This would show we were serious about protecting our border from terrorism and those who would use our tremendous support of legitimate refugees as a cover for criminal acts. A cornerstone of CAPPS is getting information from airlines. Bill C-55's modifications to subsections 4.82(4) and 4.82(5) of the Aeronautics Act are a step in the right direction.

It may come as a surprise to members of the House that airlines maintain two types of files on their passengers. First, they maintain a passenger name record or PNR. This is the file airlines create when they reserve a seat for a passenger. It contains information such as the passenger's name, address, phone number and form of payment. It also contains reservation information such as boarding city, destination, connections, flight numbers, dates, stops and seat assignment. Based on this information the manifest is prepared for each flight showing who is sitting where. Routinely at present this is the information handed over to authorities when there is an airline accident.

Second, airlines maintain the APIS or advanced passenger information system data. It includes five fields: passenger name; date of birth; citizenship, nationality and document issuing country; gender; and passport or document number. Other than the passenger's name this information is not normally collected by the airlines. Unless passports are machine readable much of the information must be entered manually. For this reason airlines only collect it when they must provide it to immigration authorities.

The U.S. currently requires this type of information for U.S. bound Asian passengers transiting through Vancouver under the Canada-U.S. memorandum of understanding which allows such passengers to go through U.S. customs without first passing through Canadian customs. It is not immediately clear whether the modified subsections 4.82(4) and 4.82(5) of the Aeronautics Act would apply only to PNR information which airlines normally have in their reservations systems or also to APIS information which may be collected as passengers board flights overseas destined for Canada.

In the U.S. the new aviation and transportation security act mandates that the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration require air carriers to expand the application of the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System or CAPPS to all passengers regardless of baggage. In addition, passengers selected under the system are subject to additional security measures before boarding including checks of carry on baggage and of their person. Both the PNR and APIS information is sent electronically to the U.S. customs supercomputer in Newington, Virginia where the CAPPS system enables the passenger profiling that keeps America's skies safe.

The U.S. is actively fighting a war on terrorism. It is walking the walk, unlike the Liberal government. Given that page 95 of the budget allocates $76 million to improving co-ordination and information sharing among government agencies, I call on the government to follow America's lead and send both PNR and APIS information to a single agency so Canada can create its own CAPPS system to enhance intelligence gathering on would-be terrorists. This would keep Canadians safe in the air and on the ground. More importantly, it would help restore America's trust in Canada's commitment to fighting terrorism as opposed to merely talking about fighting terrorism which is all we have seen from the government. It would be nice if the government would make the real legislative and budgetary commitments to send that signal. With a view to enabling this type of information gathering the Canadian Alliance will be tabling amendments at committee.

I conclude by calling on the government to divide Bill C-55 so the appropriate standing committees may give the bill proper examination. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, since the Bill reflects several principles unrelated to transport and government operations rendering it impractical for the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to properly consider it”.

Excise Act, 2001

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me once more in this debate. I will make the link between Bill C-47, microbreweries and the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry.

Why? Because this is another opportunity to point out that there is a microbrewery in his riding, Brasserie Saint-Antoine-Abbé. I hope the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry will stand up, just as we do to defend the people and the small businesses of Quebec, for a microbrewery that needs his help. I explained this morning why it needs help.

In the last two days, the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot be discussed in committee. If I am singling out the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry, it is because there is a microbrewery in his riding. He too is aware of the problems it is struggling with, or he should be. But I hope things are working out nonetheless.

In the last five years, 38 out of 86 microbreweries have gone under. Why did the government refuse to talk about this problem in the context of the excise legislation? It was a golden opportunity to do so. In the last five years, people have been working hard to find a solution. The government said it needed some data to determine whether the taxation should be reduced.

The Brewers Association of Canada mentioned, in a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, that it supported a tax reduction, but that this reduction should not be included in the bill.

How can the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry that his government should behave in this way? This is a fine mess. Last week, in my riding of Châteauguay, this same member declared that the Bloc Quebecois was against Bill C-47, while he was talking about highway 30. Imagine how well he knows this issue. Today is the day we are debating Bill C-47.

The member actually wanted to explain why we voted against Bill C-49. He made the headlines, saying that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to highway 30 and to the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund. How demagogic can one get? The member did not even refer to the right bill, and then he wondered why the Bloc Quebecois voted against Bill C-49, not Bill C-47.

Many reasons justified our position. It was not only the establishment of the fund. There was also the whole issue of the employment insurance fund, all the money not available or not transferred for health. There were also airfares in the regions. So, there were many reasons for the Bloc Quebecois' opposition to Bill C-49.

However, the member would rather keep saying that the Bloc Quebecois is against legislation. I would like him to count the number of times when I, as member for Châteauguay, and the Bloc Quebecois have talked about highway 30, have asked that the project be made a reality and that the necessary amounts be invested in the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund. Then I would like him to count the number of times when he, the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry, dared to ask the House to invest those funds. The result of those calculations will indicate who wants highway 30 the most, the member for Châteauguay or the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry. The answer is obvious.

Once again, I am calling on the member to stand up, but this time I am talking about Bill C-47. The newspapers are talking today about Bill C-47, not Bill C-49. I hope the member will meet the management of the microbrewery in his riding and ask those people “Is it true there are taxation problems?”

I hope he will get some information and find out that, currently, in Quebec and in Canada, microbreweries have to pay a 28 ¢ tax on each litre of beer whereas their foreign competitors, the microbreweries of Europe and the United States, pay a 9 ¢ tax.

Worse still, large Canadian breweries have dared to sign distribution contracts with foreign microbreweries, which therefore compete with our overtaxed microbreweries. Moreover, large breweries are making money by doing this. We can imagine why the government wants to protect these large breweries.

We must not forget where a large brewery such as Labatt is located. It is in the finance minister's riding. In 1997, microbreweries had a 5.5% share of the market. Now, five years later, their share has dropped to 4%.

We see very well what large breweries are up to in delaying a tax reduction for microbreweries. When microbreweries lose 1% of the market , do members know how much more money goes into the pockets of the large breweries' shareholders? An amount of $17 million, for a 1% drop in the share of the market. It means a net increased revenues of $17 million in the pockets of the large breweries' shareholders, those who will donate money to the Liberal Party's coffers. This is the truth of the matter.

We saw what happened in committee. We saw why the Liberals voted against Motion No. 2 that changed the powers of this government and gave greater powers to committee chairs. The chair used these powers. I will not go back to the issue, I talked about it for 20 minutes. The chair's husband, Mr. Barnes, was sitting on the taxation committee of the Brewers Association of Canada. Incidentally the chair did not have the honesty to tell members sitting on the committee: “In these circumstances may I withdraw to allow a discussion on the amendment put forward by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot?” She did not do so. I do not want to revisit the issue. I have talked enough about it earlier.

I go back instead to the case of the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. He is an hon. member from Quebec. Quebec microbreweries are not the only ones experiencing losses because of the current situation. In Ontario, 13 microbreweries have closed. In Quebec, we have lost 11. There were also seven in British Columbia, one in Manitoba and another one in Nova Scotia that had to close.

When will the Liberals represent their constituents, people who work in small businesses, instead of once again defending their own interests in order to crush the little people, the small businesses and fill their party's coffers? This is incredible.

I hope the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will meet the people who work in the microbrewery in his region and ask them if the numbers given today are correct. Is it true that microbreweries are part of the new association, the Canadian Council of Regional Breweries? I would like to know if the people in his riding belong to this association. Why? Because the regional council has asked my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to put these amendments forward. The government refused to consider this possibility. The Bloc Quebecois was not the only one asking for this. The request came from businesses, people who need to have the tax on their microbrewery reduced to be able to survive. This is incredible.

When I was saying that I was making the link between the member and these microbreweries, it is because he mixed things up in the media. It is today that we are talking about Bill C-47 and it would be time for him to really deal with Bill C-47.

He would realize then why he should be working with us to defend our people, our businesses. I am being told that I do not have much time left, so I will conclude by stressing the fact that the Bloc Quebecois truly disagrees with how Bill C-47 was handled by the Standing Committee on Finance.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, for four days this week the House could have had thoughtful and fulsome debate on the report stage of Bill C-5 about species at risk. Unfortunately, the official opposition did not appear particularly interested in that.

Nevertheless, I will continue to consult with opposition House leaders to try to reach agreement on how to complete the debate on that very important legislation and I hope that there will be more interest shown than we have seen so far.

In the meantime, the House will proceed this afternoon with consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-15A, amending the criminal code. Tomorrow we will debate Bill S-34, respecting royal assent, followed by Bill S-40, respecting financial clearing houses.

On Monday we will return to any unfinished business from this week and, if there is time, we will turn to Bill C-15B, which of course is another criminal code amendment.

Later next week, if Bill C-50, the bill dealing with the WTO, and Bill C-49, dealing with excise, are in fact reported back to the House from committee in time, we will deal with their final stages as well as concluding any business left over from Monday.

As the House already knows, Tuesday, April 23 and Thursday, April 25 will be allotted days.

An Act to Amend Certain Acts and Instruments and to Repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-43 is to make minor technical amendments and corrections to various statutes and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act.

The enactment would make technical corrections to the Access to Information Act, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, and a number of acts that come under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Canadian Heritage and Finance.

The government announced in December 1994 that it would streamline government agencies, boards and advisory bodies. Much of the so-called streamlining simply removed appointments from parliamentary scrutiny by what had been order-in-council appointments. Following the December 1994 announcement the board ceased operations on March 31, 1995.

This is the third time the repeal of the Fisheries Prices Support Act has been before parliament. It was first introduced in June 1996 as Bill C-49 but did not get beyond second reading prior to the call of the election. The repeal was reintroduced as part of Bill C-44 in June 1998. Once again Bill C-44 did not get beyond second reading and was not reintroduced prior to the last election. The repeal of the act has had a low priority for the government as have all matters relating to the fishery.

The Fisheries Prices Support Act was passed in 1994 establishing the Fisheries Prices Support Board which was responsible for investigating sharp declines in fish prices and, where appropriate, recommending price support. The board was empowered to purchase fish products, to sell or otherwise dispose of these products, and to make deficiency payments to producers. The intent of the act was to protect fishermen against sharp declines in prices and consequent loss of income due to causes beyond the control of fishermen or the fishing industry.

The board has not undertaken any significant price support activities since 1982 except for the purchase of fish as food aid for distribution by CIDA.

Bill C-43 can be considered a hybrid of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act. Bill C-43 contains a number of provisions omitted from the draft of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, MSLA, Bill C-40. The miscellaneous statute law amendment program was initiated in 1975 to allow for minor, non-controversial amendments to federal statutes in an omnibus bill. A draft version of Bill C-40 was submitted to the standing committees on justice of the House and the Senate.

The MSLA process requires any item objected to by a Senate or House committee to be withdrawn from the bill. To be included, the proposed amendments must meet certain criteria. They must not be controversial, not involve the spending of public funds, not unfairly affect the rights of persons, not create a new offence, and not subject a new class of persons to any existing offence.

The procedure is designed to eliminate any potential controversial items ensuring quick passage of the bill. Bill C-43 contains items objected to in Bill C-40 and also contains new items regarding the repeal of the Fisheries Prices Support Act as well as items that did not make it into Bill C-40 on time.

While Bill C-43 contains minor technical changes similar to an MSLA bill it cannot be treated as an MSLA bill since a few of the amendments did not meet the criteria for an MSLA bill. Quick passage could not be granted and a committee hearing was deemed necessary.

Both the House and Senate committees objected to clauses in Bill C-40 that appear in Bill C-43 as clauses 2, 3 and 4 because they allowed the minister to enter into agreements with the government of any province or provinces in Atlantic Canada respecting the carrying out of any program or project of the agency. This is a change from cabinet authority to ministerial authority.

The Senate and House committees objected to a clause in Bill C-40 that appears as clause 21 in Bill C-43 because it would require royal recommendation. Clause 21 would repeal a section of the National Film Act that limits the National Film Board's ability to appoint staff with salaries of over $99,000 without seeking the approval of cabinet. The clause is viewed by the film board as an unnecessary administrative requirement. The original intent of the provision dates back to 1939. The change would not increase the film board's budget that is approved by parliament.

We in the official opposition support Bill C-43. However it is the first fisheries legislation the government has enacted since coming to office in 1993. It would repeal the defunct Fisheries Prices Support Act that has been little used since 1982 and whose board was shut down in 1995.

The Canadian Alliance would support a fisheries policy that protected the public fishery, fish stocks and fish habitat. We would support a policy that provided for a fishery with equal access for all, healthy sustainable stocks, and a habitat that ensured stocks for the future. The CA supports the strategic purchase of surplus fish products by CIDA for use as part of Canada's food aid programs. The continued existence of the Fisheries Prices Support Act with its defunct board has not contributed to nor has it been a necessary precondition for a healthy fishery.

Bill C-43 is a reminder that fishermen, fisheries legislation and fisheries policy have not been a priority for the government.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-51, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002— Chapter No. 5.

Bill C-52, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2003— Chapter No. 6.

Bill C-39, an act to replace the Yukon Act in order to modernize it and to implement certain provisions of the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement, and to repeal and make amendments to other acts—Chapter No. 7.

Bill C-30, an act to establish a body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada, to amend the Federal Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Judges Act, and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts—Chapter No. 8.

Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001—Chapter No. 9.

It being 11.50 a.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 8, 2002, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.

(The House adjourned at 11.50 a.m.)

Criminal Code

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

moved that Bill C-304, an act to amend the criminal code (prostitution), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting Bill C-304, an act to amend the criminal code (prostitution). First reading was deemed to be March 19, 2001. In the summary of the bill it states:

Under this enactment, the offences related to prostitution that are provided for in section 213 of the Criminal Code from now on will be either indictable offences or summary conviction offences.

My private member's bill is deceptively simple. It is a minor technical point in the criminal code, but it is my belief that the clarity and improvement it makes can bring a significant positive result for communities to take back their streets, for local merchants to have their sidewalks back again and for parents to renew their confidence in the safety of local schoolyards.

However, the main reason I am bringing the bill forward again is that it addresses the main point of the ease of access for juveniles to get involved in the sex trade in the first place. My bill would mitigate against children getting involved in the beginning. It is about crime prevention.

Bill C-304 would amend section 213 of the criminal code to change the kind of process available against a person being investigated for talking in a public place about buying or selling sex. It would change the street prostitution section.

I propose making the existing offence a hybrid or electable offence so that an investigator can proceed either summarily or under the rules of the list of indictable offences. Critics wrongly get hung up on the theoretical higher penalty from the indictable route, which of course is never applied, rather than the process and identification tools which is what the bill is really all about.

In Canada it is a criminal code offence, a crime to buy and sell sex in a public place such as a street corner, a taxicab, a bar, a pub or a hotel lobby. That is the law. We have had a national conversation about whether that kind of activity should be controlled by criminal sanction and, consequently, it is a crime.

It is also a crime to live off the avails of prostitution, to be a helper or employer to benefit from the trade, or to keep a place of prostitution. Involving juveniles is a very serious crime. However, existing rules for the streets seems to approve in a backhanded way.

The private act of prostitution itself is not a crime. I do not know why it is not a crime, as the history of abuse, exploitation and degradation associated with those who tend to become sex trade workers appears to be condoned here in a double standard. However, that is a completely different debate and beyond the scope of what I am trying to do here today.

I am sure that I will hear from my critics a reference to that false argument to cover their own lack of courage to act, and their lack of understanding of street realities. I have observed that a helpful procedure is to respond more directly to the street trade in prostitution. Capacity creates its own demand. If there were no buyers there would be no sellers, and if there were no sellers there would be no buyers.

We have a societal problem. Mitigating against exploitation is historically the Canadian way. We must provide the legal symbols which provide the appropriate social context for citizens to voluntarily do the right thing, while we defend the helpless and help them, rather than allow them to be exploited.

My proposed change is important for broad societal reasons. There is a national problem of street prostitution across the country that did not exist in such a pervasive way just a few years ago. Since the advent of the charter and the repeal of vagrancy laws the legal capacity has created its own demand. Whenever we create a loophole for the perverse the legal vacuum is soon filled.

Street prostitution goes far beyond just being a local nuisance. Wherever it takes a foothold the surrounding communities soon learn that the drug crowd follows, as does breaking and entering, theft from cars and an attraction of those with criminal histories. All these become entangled in the culture of the street. These trends develop wherever prostitution is openly traded. It is a money producing activity that supports organized crime, the drug trade and the foreign trade in people. It is a sad fact that our pathetic law gives an opening for international operatives to exploit.

Communities are victims too. Mothers do not appreciate walking their children to school over needles and condoms along the schoolyard fence. Merchants should not have to patrol their front sidewalk and doorways cleaning up after the night trade.

However, the fundamental point I observed as a probation officer before I came to this parliament attempting to bring social services to bear to individuals caught up in this sad cycle is that street prostitution itself is the wide open door for the young to become involved. That is my main point.

It is an issue of crime prevention. Runaway children can too easily stand on a street corner and get involved in prostitution as a way to support themselves. The wide open door and the legal and social tolerance of street prostitution is a major source of the national problem, how it is fed and kept going.

My experience in attempting to help young people in conflict with the law and those who were on the street made me acutely aware of how the summary conviction status of communication for prostitution was so much in conflict with all of our concerns and expenditures to help street kids preserve the peace and safety of our neighbourhoods.

Politicians on the Liberal government side have in the past been very sanctimonious about juveniles and prostitution. NDP members also talk about the awful violence against sex trade workers and claim to be concerned about children on the street. Yet historically they have resisted suggestions to mitigate against allowing kids to be on the street supporting themselves through the sex trade.

This is not a new problem. Today we in parliament after years of talk are still dithering about this matter. Past Liberal justice ministers have not responded to my requests. Moreover, previous Conservative governments were no better. There were reports and plenty of consultation but during their tenure the whole prostitution file was not effectively dealt with. Even worse the NDP appeared to support prostitution itself through the advocacy of what it affectionately called sex trade workers. I believe the NDP would like to unionize them and give them police protection right on the street as well as employment insurance.

I come from a different perspective, one that is rather pragmatic. We may not like prostitution in society. We also may not like the overwhelming violation of rights it might take to eliminate most of it. Nevertheless, as parliamentarians we also do not need to pave a golden street for the sex trade to flourish. Therefore, as an interim measure we need to pass my bill so we can get on with the more important comprehensive measures that the government claims it is considering and that the justice department has been studying for years.

Prostitution is exploitive and a lot of other crime and degradation seems to go with it, especially the drug trade and drug abuse. All these tragedies are tied together so there are practical reasons to have the public communications section of the code made as flexible as possible in its application.

The police are also using sections of the code to sometimes issue what is called a no go order for repetitious, obnoxious and aggressive prostitutes who are leading the trade and shepherding others into the trade to be subject to geographic prohibitions of not entering into common strolls. If the recognizance is breached it becomes an offence and is easier to enforce than gathering new evidence under section 213 every time. These restrictions are time limited and tied to the process of other charges, hence, of limited value.

Although section 213 is gender neutral, gathering evidence against buyers is somewhat difficult. Police are unlikely to assign much of its precious police time resources to respond to a problem if the offence is only a summary one and after the expenditure of thousands of dollars in enforcement routines only results in an occasional charge and nets the perpetrator a $100 fine which becomes just another cost of that kind of nuisance.

Flexibility rather than a heavy-handed approach is what I am promoting. The change would allow, if needed, to fingerprint and photograph if cases were proceeded with through the optional indictment process. It would be used as needed and would form part of a broader tool kit of resources that would support crime prevention objectives. It would greatly enhance breaking the cycle of lifestyle for some youths and more effectively get them into community remedial programs. My change would support social programs that focus on deeper causes.

We must have the political courage to intervene so that the inherent discretion that lies throughout the justice system can flexibly respond to the individual need.

In the 1995 interim report of the federal-provincial-territorial working group on prostitution the results of national consultations indicated several recommendations to combat prostitution, one of them being the change to section 213. The deputy minister of justice of the day established the working group in 1992 from the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The most important factor for change was not to punish prostitutes but rather for identification purposes. In many cases prostitutes use false identification. Many in Vancouver and Toronto are not Canadians and are not in the country legally. It is a serious immigration problem which my bill would address.

The Identification of Criminals Act states that fingerprints and photographs cannot be taken when a person is charged summarily. With fingerprints and photographs police would be able to track down runaways and to clear the backlog of outstanding arrest warrants of prostitutes who have used false identities. It would solve some serious crimes. It would send a most necessary and needed message to the community, to both customers and sellers, that such acts are not to be taken lightly and that they are not in society's interest. We would not likely have some 50 dead street workers in Vancouver if my provision had been in place over the last few years.

The response from the working group on this matter stated that the identification of prostitutes, along with the use of false identities, was considered a serious problem by law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, one which might have been solved with such amendments. The ability to fingerprint and photograph would make it easier to identify and prosecute repeat offenders.

Something most people are not aware of is that many street prostitutes are runaways living under false names and identities. They become involved and perhaps trapped in a dangerous subculture. Parents of these children desperately want to find a way of tracing their children's whereabouts but because of false identities little can be done. They desperately want to find a way to bring their children home.

The research that has been done on street prostitution suggests that decisions to enter into the prostitution trade are decided in the time of youth. In 1984 the Badgely committee on sexual offences against children and youth found that of all the prostitutes interviewed 93% of females and 97% of males had run away from home.

In another report, a 1990 journal of Canada's Mental Health , authors Earls and David found that the average age of female prostitutes leaving home was 13.7 years.

People who support the sex trade say it is really not a big problem and that politicians are blowing it out of proportion. I have three comments from those affected by street prostitution. The first is from a Vancouver resident:

When prostitutes operate openly in a neighbourhood, all women in the area become targets for cruising johns in cars or on foot. Soon every female from 8 to 60, from your daughter to your mother, will have been on the receiving end of some sort of disgusting advance from a stranger while walking to the store or playing in the park.

The second is from a Toronto resident:

My apartment has become a refuge from streets which become enemy territory every night, streets where I am approached by drug traffickers, accosted by cruising johns and insulted by hookers; streets where menacing groups of young people take over the corners to haggle over drug prices and yell out to people in passing cars.

Appearing before a parliamentary committee in 1989 the former mayor of Toronto and current Minister of National Defence stated:

I support these changes to Bill C-49 as well as other recommendations our police are putting forward to help us once again regain control of our streets, namely that this offence be changed from a summary offence to a hybrid offence requiring that those arrested be fingerprinted and photographed, which is important in dealing with runaways who can change their identities and their names, and others who are trying to avoid prosecution, and that it remains, in addition to that, within the absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court judge.

The Minister of National Defence clearly stated that such a small change to the criminal code could make a huge difference in the fight against street prostitution. I hope he will be a man of principle and lean on his cabinet colleagues to help me so that we can all do the right thing.

In 1995 the justice minister introduced an omnibus bill that touched on the criminal code changes to prostitution. Unfortunately section 213 was not changed. Today communication offences are still mere fines or slaps on the wrist. Street prostitutes are not afraid of being caught nor are they deterred in any way to give up this dark and sad way of living. Their controllers are also allowed to continue their exploitation.

I advocate the passage of my bill for several broad reasons. There are symbolic sociological and national policy reasons why we should do this.

In addition, the local communities most affected are aghast at the lack of action to preserve the safety of their neighbourhoods. We can do it for them. We can do it for our children. It is important that we act on behalf of victims, whether those trapped in the lifestyle or those in the community.

Administratively we need to provide more flexible tools for police officers so they may exercise discretion in dealing with local variances and emerging problems. Moreover, we need to narrow the door which permits kids to get involved in prostitution in the first place and provide other legal ways to get them into social services.

In closing, I ask members of the House not to obfuscate and confuse what I am talking about. I ask them not to get off track by talking about the generalities of prostitution in society, violence against women, developing legalized brothels or any of the related topics not appropriate to the narrow proposal I have brought forward to the House.

My bill is a small technical amendment which could help victims and bring safety to our neighbourhoods. I hope it will receive non-partisan support in that light. It is time we had the political courage to act. Our communities which have sent us here expect no less.

Highway Infrastructure

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Minister of Transport to tell us whether Bill C-49 contained any reference to the highways I mentioned earlier.

March 31 is 12 days away. Not only did the government make all sorts of election promises with respect to Quebec's highway system, but it promised $2 billion in its budget for infrastructure.

What does it intend to do between now and March 31? Will it use these 12 days to hand over this money in order to keep its promises, which everyone, including the government of Quebec, is waiting for it to do?

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-49.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

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

Madam Speaker, I have only a few minutes remaining in this debate but there is enough time for me to give you a number of reasons you can share with the government as to why it should step back and reconsider its new air travel tax.

I listened with interest to the previous speeches made by the government members and I think it is far too easy to rely on the events of September 11 to justify this decision. The government says that it was forced after September 11 to hurry up and implement security measures. It is too easy to refer to a tragic event such as this to justify the quasi-insane government policy of levying a new tax in an industry that, even prior to the events of September 11, was already experiencing a downturn.

Years ago it was clear that there was an obvious lack of competitiveness. To demonstrate this, since the mid-1980s until last year the cost of air travel in Canada has increased by approximately 10%. Some might say that over 15 years, this is not so bad. Yet while the cost of air travel in Canada jumped 10%, over the same period in the United States it dropped by 43%.

Already, due to this country's geography, population density and the populations requiring service in remote areas, the airline industry in Canada does not have the levels of profitability and operating costs that would allow it to be extremely profitable.

A tax such as this one would only adds to this situation. The government is saying to the industry “You are having problems being competitive, you are already experiencing problems maintaining service to remote areas, in particular, well, now we are going to saddle you with a new tax”.

Earlier, members were saying that it was not that much, that is was not a heavy tax. Yes, but it is enough to jeopardize the profit margins of a number of airlines, especially small and mid-size air carriers. It is also enough of a tax to put an end to air service in remote areas. It will no longer be profitable. It is also enough to lead to several economic development projects being dropped.

This government slaps on taxes willy-nilly, without even carrying out impact assessment studies. The general director of the Tax Policy Branch, in Ottawa, was candid in admitting to us that there were no studies carried out on the levying of such a tax. These people would do well to visit remote areas.

It is all very fine and well to ask small communities to take charge of their own lives, to develop tourist attractions using what is available to them and what they have but without an air link, which is often the most effective link and the only link in certain areas, their development is threatened.

They can be told to take charge of their lives, to work together, to invest, but, without an air link which is maintained, or which in many cases could be improved upon, in terms of the lack of frequency of flights, these communities are not being given a chance.

It cannot be that all the people who were with the opposition parties yesterday, the people representing all aspects of the airline industry, are wrong.

Yesterday, at the initiative of the Bloc Quebecois, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, the Air Transport Association of Canada, and the Association of Canadian Travel Agents, joined forces here in Ottawa. All these people stood behind the opposition parties, and behind the Bloc Quebecois' initiative calling on the government to cancel this new tax in Bill C-49. All were unanimous that this tax made absolutely no sense and that it would not encourage economic development or put the economy back on track.

It is rather outrageous to have a government that is juggling with surpluses, even during an economic slowdown. In a few days, the government will be announcing a net surplus of over $9 billion. While it is already squeezing out of the taxpayers' pockets more money than necessary, it has the nerve to introduce this new tax, which will not bring in $2.2 billion over a five year period, as the government claims, but $1 billion more than that. This tax will bring in more than $3 billion to the government, which is already juggling with surpluses.

As we are launching the debate on tax imbalance, the government is creating additional pressure regarding surpluses, by accumulating hundreds of millions of dollars more annually, under the pretence of improving security. Let us face it: this is outrageous.

What we are asking the federal government—and the coalition made it clear yesterday—is to use its surpluses to invest in security. It has enough money to do so. The Minister of Finance is juggling with surpluses. It is incredible. But the government is adding yet another tax.

In conclusion, the government must come to its senses and give up this idea of imposing a new tax. It is not true that this tax will be reviewed in six months. It may be reviewed in six months, but Canada's tax history tells us that when a new tax is introduced, it is very hard to get rid of afterwards. Once it is in effect, forget it. The personal income tax collected by Ottawa was supposed to be a temporary measure. It was meant to finance the war effort. We have been waiting 60 years to see it abolished. Obviously, once a tax is in place, it cannot be removed.

I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to immediately withdraw this bill.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the legislation as part of the overall government budget and overall government agenda.

When the Minister of Finance presented his budget to the House it focused on two elements: the economic security of Canadians and the personal security of Canadians. They are the themes of the budget because they reflected the priorities of Canadians. When Canadians were asked to define the two most important issues concerning them, they outlined the questions of economic security and personal security.

I do not want to spend too much time talking about the economic front because today we are dealing mainly with the part of Bill C-49 that concerns the security component of the budget.

The government predicted economic growth in 2001-02 in the vicinity of 1.1% to 1.3%. If we look at the international and North American climates our forecasts are very objective and very well balanced. From all economic indicators we have seen so far we are not doing that bad at all. In fact we are doing a lot better than we forecasted.

It is important to note that after 28 years of deficit year after year and government after government missing their forecasts, this government was able to end the deficit. We were able to post close to $17 billion in surplus in the year 2001-02.

As well we were able to pay in excess of $36 billion on the national debt. We balanced our books. We were able to free in excess of $2.5 billion to $2.6 billion on an annual basis, money which otherwise would have gone to pay interest on the debt.

In addition, the government was able to do a tremendously positive thing with regard to interest rates and inflation. Canada has the lowest interest rate and the lowest inflation rate in close to 40 years.

All this came about without hurting the government's commitment to our social programs. On top of what I have mentioned the government has committed in excess of $100 billion in tax reductions. Canadians can see the benefits of good, sound government policies.

Canadians have told us they are exceptionally concerned about their personal security. That is why one component of the budget dealt with this issue very directly. The government has committed close to $7.7 billion over the next five years toward enhancing security for Canadians. Another $6.5 billion has been dedicated to securities and to the Canadian military. More than $1.2 billion were for initiatives designed to make Canada's borders more secure and efficient.

Let us look at some of the specific things the government has clearly stated. The approach of last year's budget was to ensure that security is paramount for Canadians and to ensure that the government has put more emphasis on increasing intelligence in policing, enhancing screening of arrivals at Canada's airports and border points, and to ensure that our people, both civilians and military, are better prepared for cases of emergencies.

On the intelligence and policing side the government has committed in excess of $1.6 billion over the next five years. Some of that money will go toward equipping and deploying more intelligence officers and frontline investigative personnel. This funding will go to federal departments and agencies including the RCMP and CSIS. The government has also provided resources to improve co-ordination among different law enforcement agencies in different parts of the country including the territories and to ensure that there is more sharing of intelligence between national and local security agencies.

The government is ensuring that we have more resources for marine security through greater funding for coastal surveillance and to strengthen the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada so we can deal with some of the offshore terrorist financing.

On the other front, that of the screening of entrants to Canada, the government has invested close to $1 billion to ensure better and more accurate screening of people who arrive on our shores. We will have more resources for detention and removal of those who arrive illegally, a quicker determination of refugee claimants and a system that is fraud resistant when it comes to people wanting to obtain visas or those who arrive in Canada with fake visas.

The third front is emergency preparedness and support for our military. The government has invested, as I said before, close to $1.6 billion. Some of that money will go to doubling the capacity of joint task force 2 which is doing a marvellous job right now in Afghanistan. Part of that money will go toward military funding, including support for participating in the international war on terrorism.

We have put more emphasis on enhancing the different networks to improve on the types of equipment and infrastructure systems our security agencies use. We have put more emphasis on protecting critical national infrastructure such as highway and airport facilities for water treatment, hydro systems and other infrastructure systems across the country.

One of the things that the government came forward with in budget 2001 was a new approach to air security. That is where Bill C-41 comes into the picture. The government has committed to allocate close to $2.2 billion over the next five years to make air travel more secure and to ensure security for Canadians who travel.

Some of the money will go to new air security measures such as armed undercover police officers on Canadian aircraft. The other day members of the opposition asked questions specifically to find out how many armed personnel would be on aircraft. The minister rightly said he would not tell them because those operations were supposed to be undercover and would continue to be undercover in many situations.

Some of the money will go toward training personnel at airports, screening passengers and carry-on luggage, state of the art explosives detection systems at Canadian airports, enhancing policing in airports, replacing aircraft cockpit doors to make them more secure, and enhancing security zones at the aircraft handling facilities on the tarmac.

These measures will be funded by a new air travel security charge to be paid by air travellers effective April 1, 2002, for travel in Canada. The cost of that is $12. That is what this whole debate seems to be about today. It seems to be focusing on the issue of $12, not on the issue of the importance of having a system that responds to the needs of Canadians.

If Canadians were asked whether or not as travellers they would mind paying the additional $12 for peace of mind that they would arrive at their destination safely, the answer from the vast majority of Canadians would be an unequivocal yes.

The bill would provide key air transport security services that are consistent and wholly integrated across the country. As well, it would provide an enhanced security performance standard in services across the country. Bill C-49 sets out a comprehensive strategy that responds to the needs of Canadians.

Bill C-49 would also see the establishment of an authority. That authority would first be responsible for the effective and efficient screening of people and their belongings that access aircraft or restricted areas through designated screening points at aerodromes and regulations.

One responsibility of the authority would be to ensure a highly visible role to reassure all Canadians of the Government of Canada's commitment to security in the air transportation system. It would also be responsible for screening duties which would be carried out by a stable workforce of people with the right skills and equipment. Another part of its responsibility would be to ensure consistency and the seamless delivery of screening across Canada. It would also be responsible for carrying out other security functions as the Minister of Transport may assign on behalf of Canadians.

I do not really understand the fuss being made by my colleagues. Is it the $12 issue or other issues that are bothersome to them? Having heard what I had to say on this issue, it is my hope we will see unanimity in the House in order to pass this legislation as efficiently as possible so that it can go to the other house and become law. Then Canadians would have the peace of mind they have asked for and we would respond to the priorities they have identified not only over the past few months but over the past year or so.

Let us make no mistake about it. September 11 was a tragic event of great proportion. Through this legislation the government is merely responding to what Canadians have asked it to do. I am pleased to have added my voice to the voices of wisdom of my colleagues on both sides of the House and to support and congratulate the Minister of Transport on this wonderful initiative. It is my hope that it will be passed through the House as quickly as possible and become law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise I suppose on the bill. I am displeased that the bill represents the 75th time that the government has invoked closure or time allocation since it came to power in 1993, abusing that very significant power to limit and shut down debate in this place more than any other government in Canadian history.

This is parliament. Parliament is derived from the French word “parler” which means to speak. It is the place where the representatives of the common people speak to issues that affect the common good.

For the government to, for the 75th time, prohibit members from speaking on behalf of their constituents and to the national interest on matters of grave concern, such as the budget implementation bill, is yet more unfortunate evidence of the government's growing arrogance and contempt for our conventions of parliamentary democracy.

Bill C-49 seeks to implement the provisions announced in the budget of last fall. First, I will direct my comments to that budget, then to the bill and then specifically address the air transportation tax which I raised in question period moments ago.

The government seems to have no limit in its ability to pat itself on the back for its alleged self-proclaimed success in fiscal policy. However, as we see from even yesterday's contentious remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, Canada's economy and our standard of living has not in fact made progress under the government in the past 18 months, nor indeed in the past nine years. Canada's productivity and standard of living, its tax rates and its public debt have all taken a turn for the worse. Taxes are up and productivity is down; debt is higher and our competitiveness is down; unemployment is twice the rate here as it is in the United Kingdom; labour productivity grows here at half the rate as it does in the United States.

Over the past 15 years we have lost 20% of our standard of living and the average Canadian family now has a standard of living one-third lower than that of an average American family. We are becoming poorer as a nation as a result.

This ultimately is reflected in the devaluation of our currency which has lost 25% of its value since the government took power in 1993, going from nearly 79¢ in 1992 to the current trading level of around 63¢.

What does the government do? Does it take responsibility? Does it provide us with an action plan for reducing taxes and reducing debt to increase incentives for capital infusion and productivity? Does it do those things? No. What it does do is blame the private sector, the very engine of economic growth in this mixed economy. It blames the private sector for not investing enough.

In the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, “It is up to them, it is up to the private sector, it is up to companies to increase Canadian productivity”. He said “They must make the investments”.

There is a reason Canadian companies are not making adequate investments to include productivity in areas of research and development. It is because we have created an entire economic structure that mitigates against those kinds of investments. We have some of the highest corporate income taxes in the developed world. We have the highest marginal income tax rates among the seven largest economies of the world, the highest income tax to GDP ratio in the G-7. We have the second highest level of public indebtedness in the G-7, federal and provincial debt, at about 80% of gross domestic product, and the third highest in the OECD.

All of these things mean that it is harder to raise capital, which ultimately is the fuel that drives a free market economy, in Canada than it is in our major economic competitor, the United States and many other emerging economies, like the United Kingdom, Ireland and New Zealand, countries that used to be far down the list in terms of productivity and standard of living but which have in the past decade leapfrogged Canada.

I do not really think this is a partisan point because some of the senior members of the government opposite have admitted that there is a problem. The Deputy Prime Minister has been quite outspoken about this and even the Minister of Industry, in his recent innovation paper, has admitted there is a problem, but they do not seem to have a grasp on the solution. The clearest evidence of that was the budget, which the bill before us today would implement.

Remarkably, the government framed the budget at a time of economic and security crisis, post-September 11, a time of recession and drag in the economy. Instead of making the difficult decision to get its priorities straight and re-allocate resources from wasteful and low and falling priority areas to the urgently high priority areas of national security, defence and economic growth, the government did not do that. It failed when it came to getting its priorities straight. In fact it increased overall program spending in that budget by 10%, the largest program spending increase we have seen in the federal budget since the disastrous years of the mid-1970s, a government in which the Prime Minister was a senior minister.

We believe the government missed an enormous opportunity in that budget. It provided no plan for debt reduction over the next five years and eliminated the modest $3 billion to $5 billion contingency and prudence reserves it had originally established for debt reduction. It made minimal investments in national security, such that CSIS and the RCMP will not even be back up to their 1993 funding levels in real inflation adjusted terms after taking into account the cuts imposed on them in 1995. The defence department of course is left out in the cold while Canada will continue to have the second lowest defence expenditure as a percentage of national income in NATO, second only to the tiny duchy of Luxembourg.

Every organization, from the Conference of Defence Associations all the way to the NDP and the Auditor General of Canada in between, have called for an immediate injection of at least $2 billion as an increase in the base budget of the Department of National Defence to bring our military up to a minimal level of operational effectiveness. The government failed the test in its budget to provide for that in the new security environment and, unfortunately, missed the ball completely on tax reduction.

The government implemented some modest tax cuts 18 months ago but this year Canadians will be paying higher taxes than they did last year, particularly in payroll taxes because of the massive 12% increase in CPP premiums which far outstrip the measly 5% reduction in employment insurance premiums.

The decade of economic drift will continue because the government failed to get its priorities straight.

I will turn now to some of the specific provisions of Bill C-49 but I will come back later to the air transportation tax and the air transportation authority.

As I have said before, the official opposition supports the provisions of the bill that deal with extending employment insurance benefits to parents of ill children. We commend the government and the finance committee for having adopted our long standing recommendation to change the provision surrounding the gifting of stock shares to registered charities, and we support that.

However, we have very serious concerns about the Canada strategic infrastructure fund, a $2 billion potential pork barrel slush fund. We have seen in the past how the government has misadministered programs of this nature, how it has provided grants for bocce courts, canoe museums and luxury boxes in hockey stadiums that do not represent real, hard, meaningful infrastructure to improve our economy but rather represent pork barrel projects.

The infrastructure fund is a potential boondoggle of pork. We are very concerned. The finance minister had originally proposed a fund that would be arm's length from politicians but the Prime Minister's Office did not like it. It grabbed it back and now the strategic infrastructure fund will be operating under the direct influence of the government in the person of the Deputy Prime Minister. We have learned from the past that we should avoid politicizing funds of this nature.

On the Africa fund, there is very little in terms of scrutiny or accountability. While we support in principle effective foreign aid, we do not support programs that are not properly accountable to parliament, which cannot be scrutinized by the auditor general and which do not fall under the aegis of the Access to Information Act. We are very concerned about some of the enormous waste that has actually fuelled corruption in developing countries in Africa in the past.

I will now turn my attention to the most contentious element of the bill, the $24 return trip tax on air travel. Immediately following September 11, we in the official opposition called for additional airport security measures, in addition to a whole suite of national security policies. We applaud the government for adopting our recommendation for air marshals. Originally it was not going to do that, stating that it was not the Canadian way, but it listened to public opinion, and we appreciate that. We also understand there will be additional air security measures and costs associated to that.

However, the question is, what would be the most efficient way of paying for those costs? This is very serious. It is quite clear to us and anybody who has looked at this, including the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, the travel agencies of Canada , the airlines themselves and the regional airport authorities, that this policy was designed on the fly without regard for the impact it will have on the airline industry.

Shockingly, at the finance committee, government officials actually admitted that they had not done an economic impact analysis of the consequences of the $24 tax. Imagine, a massive new tax on a specific industry already ailing, an industry without competition and an industry that has lost six airlines in the past seven years, is being assessed a new $24 tax which, according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Air Transport Association of Canada, could result in a reduction of air passenger loads by as much as 6%, and the government has not engaged in an economic impact analysis.

This is flagrant irresponsibility. The government does not know how negative the effect will be. It does not know whether or not short haul, low cost airlines, like WestJet, Canada's only profitable airline and its principal hope for long term competition in that industry, will survive this discriminatory prejudicial tax.

The transport committee examined the issue at some considerable length and the government, in its typical arrogance, ignored the advice of those parliamentarians, including Liberal members, when they recommended that additional airport costs be paid for by all stakeholders.

Recommendation 14 of the December 7 report of the Standing Committee on Transport to the House stated:

All stakeholders--including airports, air carriers, airline passengers and/or residents of Canada--contribute to the cost of improved aviation security. In particular, the amounts currently spent by airports and air carriers should be continued, with appropriate adjustments for inflation. A ticket surtax could also be implemented, and any funding shortfalls could be financed out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The transport committee looked at this and said that the only way the additional security costs could be financed would be through a blended approach with the airport authorities, the airlines, the passengers themselves and the government's general revenues because airline security was not just an issue for the passengers on those flights. As my colleague for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam pointed out, most of the people who died tragically on September 11 were not aboard aircraft.

We are implementing these additional measures precisely because airplanes can be used as weapons of mass destruction against civil society. We have a collective responsibility to increase security. We should finance it collectively.

Every witness who appeared before the finance committee regarding Bill C-49 opposed vigorously its provision for a $24 air tax. Neil Raynor, director of the Canadian Airports Council, said the council believes the “current fee structure will create disproportionate price increases on short haul and regional flights, unfairly penalizing smaller carriers who provide these services.” Raynor maintained that “acts of terrorism were acts against the state and government bears a major responsibility to fund the essential costs of policing and security.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said:

The one-way cost of the Air Travellers Security Charge of $12, represents almost six per cent of the average price of a one-way domestic ticket sold in Canada in 1999...If a one per cent increase in ticket prices represents a one per cent decrease in passenger travel then the average air traveller security charge of six per cent will have a significant effect in terms of the number of air passengers.

The Canadian Air Line Pilots Association said:

The proposed legislation does little but create an expensive bureaucracy that will be unresponsive to the insights and interests of the people on the front lines of aviation security...it will be particularly crippling to short-haul domestic carriers such as Air Canada Regional and WestJet. We find it ironic, to say the least, that legislation intending to improve security of air travel in Canada could assist its very demise--

The Tourism Industry Association of Canada said:

This tax will hurt an industry still recovering from the September 11 terrorist activities and the economic slowdown...The traveling public does not support this tax. Combine this with the major administrative and logistical difficulties this tax will create for the air industry, travel agents...it is clear that a user-pay system to offset costs for security and policing is inefficient and a terrible precedent.

The Air Transport Association of Canada said:

The implementation of this new tax or charge...is frankly extremely complex. We've spent hundreds of hours trying to figure out how to do this. It's not going to be easy.

Mark Hill, the vice-president of WestJet, said it would be prejudicial to his airline. He said:

Once the tax is implemented, we believe the traffic will evaporate off the short-haul routes. Once the traffic goes, we'll have to back out of some of our short-haul flying, and once that begins, the genie is out of the bottle, and it's very hard to stuff the genie back into the bottle once that happens.

The Canadian Automobile Association said the current fee of $12 on a one way ticket appeared high when compared to the U.S. fee of $5.

Even the Liberal member from Prince Edward Island said he was not in favour of the $24 fee. He said he invited the Department of Finance on two occasions to come forward with a detailed analysis justifying the fee and that on both occasions it failed to do so.

The $24 tax would be prejudicial. It would not be sensitive to price. If one flew from Vancouver to Halifax on a $4,800 business class ticket the $24 fee would amount to a .5% tax. If one flew on a $100 ticket from Edmonton to Calgary on, say, WestJet one would pay a total tax burden of 86% after all airlines taxes were factored in.

I urge my hon. colleagues opposite to listen to the facts, listen to the testimony and hear the concerns expressed by their own members about Bill C-49. It could be the death knell for airline competition in Canada.

I ask the government to reconsider the bill. It should look at the constructive amendments we have brought forward to amortize the costs of new infrastructure. It should bring in a pro rata fee to blend the costs the transport committee has proposed. These are not partisan recommendations.

Before the government implements the tax I hope it will seriously consider the fact that even the junior finance minister was not properly briefed about elements of the bill which would be prejudicial.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I think some of the flowers they picked were obviously dead. In any event, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-49, the budget implementation bill.

The bill would implement several measures of the 2001 budget. As hon. members will recall, the 2001 budget was introduced after the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11 in the United States.

While the budget builds on the government's long term plan for a stronger economy and a more secure society, it also addresses the immediate economic and security concerns of Canadians as a result of those events.

The government initially responded, and swiftly I might add, to the events of September 11 with legislation that takes aim at terrorism and enhances Canada's ability to identify, prosecute and punish terrorists, and measures to cut off sources of financing for terrorists.

The 2001 budget builds on these initiatives through a comprehensive set of security measures designed to keep Canadians safe, terrorists out and our borders open. It provides $7.7 billion over the next five years to enhance security for Canadians and make Canadian borders more secure, open and efficient.

Included in this amount is $2.2 billion in funding for air security and the creation of the Canadian air transport security authority which will deliver enhanced security services at airports and on board flights according to rigorous new national standards set up by Transport Canada.

Established under Bill C-49, the new authority is to be responsible for the certification of screening personnel and for providing pre-board screening of passengers and baggage, armed police on board aircraft and the acquisition and operation of screening equipment, including that used in searching for explosives.

An air travellers security charge that comes into effect April 1, 2002, will fund these new security expenditures. The charge will be paid by air travellers, the primary beneficiaries of these enhanced security measures, and will be collected by air carriers or their agents when airline tickets are purchased.

For travel in Canada, the charge will apply to flights connecting airports where the air transport security authority will be responsible for passenger screening. The charge on domestic travel will be $12 for a one way trip and $24 for a round trip.

The charge on a ticket to the continental U.S. will also be $12 and $24 for travel outside Canada in the continental U.S.

All proceeds from the charge will be used to fund the enhanced air travel security system and, if revenues exceed costs over time, the charge will be reduced. The government, as the minister has indicated repeatedly in the House, will review the charge in the fall.

This enhanced security system will assure air travellers that Canada's air transportation system remains one of the safest and most secure in the world.

Along with addressing the immediate security concerns of Canadians, the 2001 budget also addresses immediate needs through targeted investments designed to boost the confidence in the economy in a fiscally affordable way.

By investing in strategic infrastructure, skills, learning, research, health, aboriginal children, the environment and international assistance, the 2001 budget reflects the government's long term plan while providing important support now for the economy

One way in which the budget achieves this is through the Canada strategic infrastructure fund which would be implemented through Bill C-49.

The modern economy of the 21st century requires a backbone of sound fiscal infrastructure to sustain the nation's growth and our quality of life.

Previous budgets allocated funding to improve provincial and municipal infrastructure. The 2000 budget, for example, introduced both the infrastructure Canada program and the strategic highway infrastructure program.

The government recognizes the need for additional support for large strategic infrastructure projects which can bring lasting economic and social benefits while providing both stimulus and long term productivity benefits. To address this need and to implement other federal infrastructure initiatives, the government is creating the Canada strategic infrastructure fund with a minimum federal contribution of $2 billion in funding.

Working with provincial and municipal governments and the private sector, the fund will provide assistance for large infrastructure projects in areas like highways and rail, local transportation, tourism, urban development, and water and sewage treatment.

A moment ago I mentioned international assistance as one of the strategic investments in the 2001 budget. Canadians have not lost sight of their obligations to help less fortunate peoples of the world. At the G-8 summit in Genoa last July, African leaders presented their proposal for a new partnership for Africa's development and the G-8 leaders pledged to support this initiative.

Since then the Prime Minister has restated his commitment that the development in Africa will be one of the main themes in the G-8 summit that Canada will host in June in Kananaskis. In recognition of this commitment, the 2001 budget announced $500 million over three years for African development to help implement these objectives.

The new Canada fund for Africa, which would be created through Bill C-49, will establish a government program to provide funding for activities that will help reduce poverty, provide primary education and set Africa on a sustainable path to a brighter future.

The government is committed to providing every opportunity for Canadians to upgrade their skills. Whether through the education system, through on job training or through universities and other centres of advanced research, the government has long recognized the value of investing in people.

That is why we introduced the Canadian opportunities strategy in the 1998 budget. The 2001 budget further encourages the acquisition of skills and learning by Canadians.

For example, Bill C-49 provides tax assistance to help apprentice vehicle mechanics registered in a provincial program cope with extraordinary tool costs. Beginning in 2002, they would be able to deduct for income tax purposes the cost of buying new tools to the extent that these costs in a year exceed the greater of $1,000 and 5% of their apprenticeship income.

Another measure provides tax relief for adult students who receive government assistance for basic education at the primary or secondary school level. Bill C-49 exempts from income tax any tuition assistance for adult basic education provided under certain government programs, including employment insurance.

The bill also helps more students undertake lifelong learning by extending the education tax credit for people who receive taxable assistance for post-secondary education under certain government programs, including EI.

As hon. members know, the quality of life of Canadians is closely tied to preserving and improving our natural environment. The 2001 budget includes new spending and tax measures intended to ensure continued progress toward a cleaner and healthier environment.

One of these measures is included in Bill C-49 and concerns commercial woodlot owners who can currently be subject to income tax when transferring woodlots to their children. As a result, woodlots may have to be harvested prematurely to generate the revenues required to pay the tax on the transfer, which can be detrimental to the sound management of this resource.

Bill C-49 extends the existing intergenerational tax deferred rollover for farm property to intergenerational transfers of woodlot operations that are farming businesses managed in accordance with the prescribed forest management plan.

I should mention too that the budget initiatives with respect to renewable energy and energy efficiency are being implemented through the amendments to the income tax regulations which have already been released in draft form.

The 2001 budget also contained a number of other tax measures, all of which are designed to improve fairness in the tax system. The bill makes permanent the 1997 budget measure that provides special tax assistance for donations of certain securities to public charities, and the 2000 budget measure that reduces the tax on employment benefits for donations of eligible securities acquired through stock option plans.

Another measure improves the system for providing GST credits. Beginning in July 2002, GST credit entitlements for a quarter will be based on the individual's family circumstances at the end of the preceding quarter not at the end of the previous calendar year.

To provide a cash flow benefit for small businesses the federal corporate tax installment payments for January, February and March, 2002 would be deferred for at least six months without penalty. To make it easier for foreign investors to use limited partnerships in structuring venture capital investments, Bill C-49 would ensure their non-resident partners were not considered to be carrying on business in Canada solely because investment management or administrative services were provided by Canadian residents. The final tax measure would allow full deductibility for the cost of meals provided to employees at construction work camps where the employees could be expected to return home each day.

A remaining measure relates to improved parental benefits under the Employment Insurance program. The current 50 week cap on the combined amount of sickness, maternity and parental benefits an individual can receive under EI means women who become ill may not have full access to extended benefits. To enable a mother to receive her full entitlement to special benefits, effective March 3, 2002 the cap would increase by one week for each week of sickness benefits she took while pregnant or while receiving parental benefits. A second EI measure would improve on the parental benefits that could be claimed following the birth or adoption of a child. It would provide parents a window of up to two years within which they could claim.

I have given members a brief overview of some of the key measures of Bill C-49. I remind the House that the events of September 11 have not changed the government's fiscal resolve.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the 2001 budget builds on the government's long term plan for a stronger economy and more secure society. It also responds to the short term concerns of Canadians. We will continue to invest in people, cut taxes, reduce debt and build a stronger economy. Above all, we will continue to pursue our long term plan to invest in the future without going back into deficit.

I will conclude by paraphrasing the Minister of Finance who said the 2001 budget was about dealing with the present so we could seize the future. The measures of Bill C-49 would help us achieve that. I urge hon. members to pass Bill C-49.

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

Mr. Speaker, probably my colleague and I share the concern about the effectiveness of the committee on Bill C-49. I would like to have the member state his position on this issue.

The committee at some expense had a number of witnesses come before it, both in the prebudget consultations and also on Bill C-49 specifically.

During the prebudget consultations there were numerous witnesses who said that the donations to private charities should receive the same tax treatment as those to public charities. The witnesses were unanimous in their statements on that. The committee recommended it to the finance minister, but it is nowhere to be seen in the budget implementation act.

During the discussion on Bill C-49 witnesses unanimously said that the structure of the security tax would be devastating to the small carriers. Again, the committee in this case chose to ignore it with highhandedness from the Prime Minister's Office. Other coercive tactics were used as well.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that. I hope he is as angry about that as I am.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will conclude the third reading stage of Bill C-49, the Budget Implementation Act, 2001.

Monday and Tuesday shall be allotted days.

Next Wednesday we will consider report stage of Bill C-15, certain amendments to the criminal code. On Thursday, March 21, I expect to return to report stage of Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation or perhaps other unfinished business. On Friday, March 23, we will again consider Bill C-50 respecting the WTO followed by Bill C-47, the excise tax amendments.

With respect to the specific legislation that the House leader for the official opposition has referred to I will pursue that matter with the solicitor general to determine what plans he may have.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49 or just pleased once again to have the opportunity to comment on the government's performance and its commitment to Canadians which is sorely lacking.

Bill C-49 was presented as a budget bill. As has been stated in the House, it really does not do a whole lot to provide the funding needed for Canadians in a number of areas.

It does not provide the dollars needed in health care funding throughout the nation. The premiers of all provinces called on the government to once again take its 50% share of health care funding. Was there even a point to getting to that level of funding by increasing it to 25%? Let us get on the road to improving the health care situation in Canada. That was not there.

There is nothing to assist post-secondary students with funding. However in the past we surely saw attacks on students by not allowing them to claim bankruptcy at the same level as other Canadians if they were in financial difficulty. It must be recognized that something like 92% of students pay back their loans. Compare that to corporations that receive government loans but do not pay them back at near that level. A great deal of dollars are owed.

The government has failed to put enough dollars into the employment insurance program to provide needed benefits to workers and the unemployed in Canada as well as to provide dollars for training needed throughout the country.

It is recognized that there are huge gaps in our workforce where training is needed. The government could use those EI dollars to do that. Instead it is using employment insurance premiums to provide the finance minister with a surplus that he keeps touting has come about by his great management of funds. The bottom line is that the surplus came about mainly by taking pension dollars and EI benefit dollars.

There was a very minimal approach to put dollars into infrastructure. The $2 billion infrastructure fund does not nearly address the infrastructure needs. The government consistently has not funded infrastructure over a number of years. We all know if a leak is not fixed, pretty soon the roof will need to be fixed, or pretty soon the walls will need repairs and then there will be nothing left. That is pretty much what the government has done to Canada's infrastructure over the last number of years.

Talking about leaking roofs, there is the housing situation in Canada. There is a need for affordable housing throughout the nation.

As far as Bill C-49 being a budget bill, it really was not much. Maybe people do not realize that the bill has over 70 pages on how the government will collect a $24 security tax. There are over 70 pages to get that additional $24 security tax, and it is a security tax. It is not an airline flying tax. It is not a user fee. It is an airline security tax.

The bottom line is we are not just dealing with airline security. What took place on September 11 was not just about airline security. It was about a nation's security. That is what we are talking about.

Have we resorted to charging individuals for their security? Is that what we are doing here? What will happen down the road when there is a robbery in a community? Will we charge the family for the police to respond? Is that what we are talking about in Canada, that individuals pay to get security?

Since when should the victims, and quite frankly I believe them to be the airline passengers, become the victims of the September 11 attacks? Those airline passengers lost their lives. What are we saying to airline passengers now? They are being told they will pay a security tax because by golly those other passengers got themselves killed. Is that what we have resorted to? It is despicable.

It is utterly despicable that any party or any member of the House would support a user fee on security, or even for one minute would suggest that it should be $2.50 or $5 or whatever. We are a nation that should be standing together recognizing that what happens in those airplanes could affect each and every one of us. That was proven on September 11 when those aircraft flew into the World Trade towers. That is what this is about.

I believe that as a result of what happened on September 11 the government is exploiting the airline industry and airline passengers. It is making them responsible for paying for security. It is not acceptable. It will cause devastation to a good number of smaller airlines and a good number of smaller communities and to individual travellers who are already paying high airline costs.

On that note, I have heard the transport minister's comments and answers, that if $24 is too much for people to handle, make the airlines reduce their fares. For crying out loud, he has been trying to make the airlines reduce their fares for years and he cannot do it. He has reduced the airlines. He has certainly been the transport minister while we have watched one airline after the other die in Canada. That is a given. What is his answer? Make them lower their fares.

After years a number of communities finally have low cost carriers which provide those lower fares. Now he is saying they should reduce the fares even more because he wants $24 from them as an airline security tax. If that is the answer the transport minister has, he should not be there. He could not get those airlines to reduce their fares. Actually he could by putting some regulations in place to get them to do it. That may not be the answer either, but the answer is certainly not to say that because he wants to charge a tax, the airlines should reduce their fares.

If I thought for one second that this was strictly an airline security issue and it was because of something the airlines were doing, then I would say we have to do this, but that is not the case. We are talking about national security and about taxing individuals because of that. It will not just apply in the airline industry. If it is allowed to proceed, this is what we will be looking at in each and every instance of some kind of terrorist attack.

What if something happens in one of the ports? Will we charge a security fee for any person hopping on a ship in case something happens? Will each and every passenger on buses crossing the border be charged a security tax? It is not the answer.

The answer is to take those dollars that are needed out of general revenues. The minister touts his surplus. I have indicated where I believe it came from. Until such time as it is realized whether there is a need for the security tax, or if there are additional dollars, it should be taken out of the surplus.

I have listened to the finance minister over the past number of weeks comment that he will review it in the fall. I then listened to the transport minister who believes that somehow the airlines should reduce their fares. That is his answer. I have listened to the finance minister say he will review it in the fall and I have listened to the transport minister say there will not even be a security agency up and operating by the fall. Boy, that is one heck of a picture.

There have been comments. I will read a couple of headlines: “Air security test results kept secret. September 11 attacks make documents too sensitive”. After September 11 we will no longer be able to find out whether there is good security at the airports because now it is a national secret. It is for national security. If it is national security then we cannot release those airport security test results. Why are individual passengers paying for security? “Airline security tax will raise $130 million surplus”. It sounds like a bit of a windfall to me. “Air security fee a rip off. Critics say a $24 ticket charge a revenue grab”. “Air safety tax hits new heights for waste”.

Let me just read from the Toronto Sun . It talks about the bomb detectors. My colleague from the Bloc mentioned the bomb detectors. It states that the leading manufacturer of these particular machines, one of only two U.S. approved suppliers, put out a press release a few weeks back indicating that Canada was ordering maybe five of the devices.

The government had indicated earlier that it was going to get 600 of them. It has ordered five so far and that leaves only 595 more units to order. It has $992,500 or whatever left. The U.S. for all of its airports is only ordering 100 scanners.

There was no impact study done by the government as to what would be the results of its security tax. There was no study done of the impact on the airline industry, the tourism industry and numerous other industries that will be hit by this. There is no understanding that municipalities will have those additional dollars taken out of their local economies any time someone needs to fly.

In the past I have listened to the Alliance members tell the Liberals that every time they cut a tax point more money goes into the local economies. How many tax points did the government just add to dollars coming out of the local economies? It is shameful.

It is hard for me to get my head around this whole picture when the transport minister says it should not be called a tax, that it is a user fee. If it is a user fee I present to the House that yes, the government is charging a security user fee and we can call it a user fee. If it is a user fee there is an understanding in Canada that the government has done some consultation and impact studies. The government members do not pop out of bed one morning and say “How much can we get out of these Canadians? They are afraid, so let us go big. We will not go just for two bucks or five bucks. Let us go big because we will have much more money”.

I and Canadians in general will have to be forgiven for not believing that it will only be used for airport security as such. Quite frankly, just too much money will be coming in. Not for one second do I believe that is strictly what will happen to the money. The way the bill is presented the money will go into general revenues, except for a certain amount which will be allocated to the Canadian air transportation security agency which still has not been set up.

On that note I have a question for the government. I ask Canadians to question the government as well. Why on earth are we setting up a separate agency for security at airports? What ever happened to the solicitor general's office, to the RCMP, the most trusted security people in Canada, those who know the business? Why are they not looking after airport security? Why are they not setting the rules and the guidelines? Why are they not putting the practices in place?

Why are we putting in place a number of government appointees who will get paid Liberal patronage dollars, probably $100,000 to $150,000 to be on this new airport security agency when there is a department that is supposed to be in charge of security for Canadians? Between the RCMP and CSIS certainly we are capable of doing that. Or is it that somehow we have more faith in the transport minister than the solicitor general as the head of that security agency? Maybe that is the case.

It is wrong. If we are talking about the security of the people in this country, a security agency should be in charge of it. It should not be the transport minister. What the heck does the man know about security? He is not even going to be dealing with those who fall under his department and are specialists in security. It was the Department of Transport that was in charge of security when those numerous incidents came before the House. There were numerous cases of failures within the system. The security at airports and the baggage checks went out to the lowest bidder. Is that the transport minister's idea of security? Whatever we could get for the cheapest price, we got it.

We do not have a system in place that is seamless. We do not have a system that people consider safe. I ask the House and Canadians to challenge the government on what it is doing. This is literally the security of the nation and the lives of the people travelling in Canada. We are leaving it up to the transport minister who, quite frankly, has done a very poor job.

Another issue that came up in discussion on the bill and was approved in committee dealt with representation on the board. I want to go on the record as saying that I firmly recommended, as the critic for the NDP on the transportation committee, that this issue should be under the solicitor general's office. It should be under a security agency. We do not need a separate agency of Liberal appointees, making $100,000 or $150,000 a year, using that money which could be used for other things. That is where I stand.

We talk about this security agency and about who would be appointed to the agency. We had a committee agreement that there would be representation from labour groups as well as government appointees. We would have representatives from the airline industry. It was bidding out the contracting of the security services to the lowest bidder. We would ensure they are on there because this is a business decision.

We would have the airport authorities on there because we all know that the airport authorities are not trying to make a buck. Who are we trying to kid? That was recognized. The airport authorities are now competing with each other so if they have to somehow cover the cost of the security they would put it out to the lowest bidder because they are trying to make a buck.

Who is really caring about the security of Canadians and passengers in our airlines? It was suggested that there be some labour appointees to represent the workers in the industry. We have the airlines, the airport authorities, and the Liberal government appointees. We all know that the airport authorities are Liberal appointed airport authorities so it is a double whammy.

It was recommended and agreed to by the committee that we would have labour representatives. What did we see in the House? The government brought an amendment to not have any labour reps. Why? What did the transport minister say? He said that it would only be the one union right now and what would we do when it is representing another union and what if there are other workers involved or labour groups involved? So what? It is a labour rep.

It did not recommend one union, one particular person or individual. All workers involved would have some representation. They are being recognized to have a say in the security. How many members of parliament from the Liberal side were on those planes when they went down? I can say that there were a lot of workers. There were pilots, flight attendants and other crew members. They deserve to have a say in what happens with the airport security after September 11. But not this minister. It is more important that we look at the business aspect. That is much more important.

The government has exploited the September 11 issue, pure and simple, no question about it. It is exploiting the September 11 incident to get more money so the finance minister can talk about a surplus. It is absolutely wrong to charge Canadians for security.

I will not call on the government to lower the tax. There should be no tax. No individual in the country should have to pay for his or her own security. No one industry should be made responsible for the events of September 11. That responsibility belongs to each and every one of us. It is time that we stood firm and said that this should not happen and we should not allow the government to pass the bill.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of September 11, the Minister of Finance brought down in December his budget entitled “Securing Progress in an Uncertain World”.

Now, as then, the minister has not succeeded in convincing anyone of the merits of his budget, which many criticized then, and are still criticizing today. The government was going to make security its top priority and relegate its health funding obligations to second place.

During the prebudget consultations, the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, heard from many witnesses, here on the Hill, and during cross country meetings. Many people recommended that the federal government give the economy a boost. Instead, the Minister of finance was satisfied with a budget just for the sake of form, without any measures to revive the economy and reverse the slowdown.

This budget boils down to a series of spending programs, the main purpose of which was to reassure the Americans. It contained very few measures to ensure the economic security of our citizens. The budget contained nothing new for health, the government merely reiterating old announcements, and nothing, of course, about equalization.

Sticking with the approach it has taken since 1994, the federal government decided to leave the provinces to find their way out of their financial difficulties. The Minister of Finance preferred to turn a deaf ear to the requests for assistance he received.

I also wish to speak about part 1 of the budget, which deals with air transport security. Having turned over responsibility for airport security to the airlines, the government has decided to take back control by establishing the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. The agency's mandate is to provide key air transport security services in a uniform and comprehensive manner throughout the country, and to provide performance standards and improved security services.

Just days away from the introduction of this new federal agency, air industry officials note that its mandate is not clearly defined. It has the mandate to screen persons and their belongings at airport screening points. But what about the people working in proximity to airplanes: mechanics, baggage handlers and others? The Canadian Air Line Pilots Association has not hesitated to criticize the oversights noted.

Does the Minister of Transport intend to hand over other responsibilities to this new agency? If so, why not have spelled them out?

In connection with the training of security personnel, creation of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority suggested improved quality. The general principles call for staff less subject to turnover, and equipped with the appropriate skills and equipment. Now we learn that this federal agency can contract out airport security to the companies already providing it. Will this bring any new and real improvements?

Passengers are already undergoing longer and more stringent controls before takeoff, yet their baggage is being loaded onto planes without a proper inspection.

The act contains transitional provisions to ensure a smooth transition from the old regime to the new. The minister has, however, taken care not to indicate exactly when these new measures and new equipment will be in place.

The government has not succeeded in convincing us of the utility of creating a new authority to provide security services. This is, in fact, just one more structure and one more expense.

What more is this new agency going to do to provide security that is not already being done in our airports? What is this highly professional service the Minister of Transport is promising?

The second part refers to the security charge. According to the announcement, the creation of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority will cost $2.2 billion. One cannot oppose a good thing, of course. Improving security is a laudable objective in itself. The bad news for air travellers is—and this is the rub—they are the ones who will be paying for the measures put in place.

Many feel that security is a national issue. What then are we to make of the decision this government has made to make air travellers pay? Why not extend this to all taxpayers? Is travel by ship, rail or road any less risky?

The Minister of Finance's decision is unfair and certainly will not help the tourism and airline industries get back on their feet again after the events of September 11. In addition, already in the first year of this new tax being implemented, there is a surplus of approximately $223 million being forecast. The tax then will be bringing in more money than needed. Perhaps the Minister of Finance is not aware that this is called a surplus, that it can be forecasted, that it matters and that it comes out of the pockets of taxpayers.

The Liberals would like everyone to think that they are a good government that is ensuring everyone's security. However, it is travellers who are footing the bill. Not only must they pay for the cost of these new anti-terrorism measures, such as the presence of police onboard aircraft, but they will also pay for passenger screening, something that used to be done by airlines and airport authorities.

This September 11 tax is regressive and does not amount to any savings, particularly since it is added to the list of fees that are paid when purchasing a plane ticket. It is in addition to the fuel surcharge, airport improvement fees, the GST and other security charges that are paid out. Now, on a ticket that costs $800 with Air Canada, or $150 with WestJet, consumers will have to pay a $24 fee for a return trip, while the American government is charging a maximum fee of $10. This suggests that security is more expensive on our side of the border.

If the mandate given to the new security authority is similar to that of Nav Canada, how can the government justify a new structure? Why should we pay more when the airlines were providing the service for $72 million?

Does the Minister of Finance believe that this tax grab of $2.2 billion from travellers' pockets over five years will improve the situation of this industry that has been badly shaken since September 11? Is he not aware that there have been significant financial losses suffered by travel agencies and others, to the tune of more than $20 million, and that he has done nothing to respond to demands from the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and airlines, for compensation for the losses incurred when airspace was shut down?

Do our constituents not have the right to expect adequate security? From that perspective, these measures should have been implemented a long time ago. The commitment to improve aviation safety made in the 2001 budget will be financed through this new airport security tax that will take effect on April 1. It is not an additional cost to the government. Travellers are going to be paying for that. As surprising as it may seem, the government is going ahead with this initiative without first assessing the impact of this new tax.

The government does not yet know what the economic impact of this new measure could be. It is an aberration.

The Minister of Finance and the secretary of State have both been telling anyone willing to listen that the introduction of this tax would have hardly any impact; we even heard them say it would have no impact on demand in the air travel industry, regional development and tourism. On what basis did they make such statements? There was no basis. These were totally unjustified. Does the government realize how serious this is? Since when do responsible politicians manage by instinct?

We asked that all impact studies related to the introduction of this new tax be tabled, but to no avail. The minister's officials remained silent. The Minister of Finance told us on several occasions that he had to act quickly. It was our American neighbours who were targeted in the unprecedented events that occurred on September 11.

With this kind of approach, the government is giving us the impression that it neglected our own security.

The Liberal government is invoking the urgency of the situation, but the evidence heard by the powerful Standing Committee on Finance should not be ignored. Witnesses from all sectors of the economy told members that this new tax will have devastating effects. Airline carriers fear that it will result in fewer people flying. Why did the government not conduct studies? What good would be the hours spent in committee if the government turns a deaf ear to our recommendations? By acting in this fashion, the federal government is being irresponsible.

The government, which has a duty to ensure national security, could have fully funded the improvement of security on board aircraft and at airports, with the budget surpluses that it has, without imposing another tax on users.

Instead, the government smelled an opportunity. A sniffer dog would certainly think that it stinks. But the minister is going ahead anyway. The Minister of Finance will become the minister of surpluses, and his security tax is just one more tool in his hands.

Somebody once said “Why have teeth so white when your tongue is so dirty?” Why is the Minister of Finance promising to review the relevancy of this tax in the fall, when his party got elected on the promise to abolish the GST?

The government is in such a hurry to tax travellers that it has not yet put everything in place to ensure the smooth implementation of that tax. It is surprising to read that, with less than 19 days left, the travel industry is still wondering how to accurately measure the impact on airfares. There are still doubts as to whether that tax may be imposed on stopovers and connections.

Airlines must prepare for major changes to their computer systems. Will these changes be completed on time? And has the minister included a grace period, in case mistakes are made in collecting the tax?

The stakeholders whom we met suggested that, while the tax seems easy to understand—$12 for a one way trip and $24 for a return trip—calculating it may be complicated. The definition of a continuous trip is not clear and suggests that a traveller could sometimes be taxed twice when he makes a stopover or catches a connecting flight.

The vice-president of the Air Transport Association of Canada feels that the number of hours that a stopover can last without imposing a new security tax on the second leg of a trip is ambiguous.

What will the government do in the case of clients who believe they have paid too much for security on their tickets? To whom do they file a complaint? The agency that issued the ticket, the airline or directly with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency? These are questions that have yet to be answered.

The government ministers are not acting on this issue with the same sense of urgency. The Minister of Finance sets a tax, in a rush to take action, he says, because of events. His colleague over at Transport however, is unable to say exactly when the new measures will be implemented and the new equipment will be in place.

Our neighbours to the south say that all baggage will be screened for explosives before the year is out. In Canada, the Minister of Transport raises his eyebrows at the Americans' assertions and admits that it will take us between three and five years to get there.

The government announced that it would spend $1 billion to purchase explosive detection systems, provided such equipment is available. As I have already said in the House, there are only two companies in the entire world that manufacture this equipment, and they cannot keep up with the demand.

After the explosion of the Air India flight at the Toronto airport, we implemented a system whereby baggage was matched with the passenger list. The purpose was simple: preventing baggage from traveling without its owner. Many airlines found the idea to be a good one and implemented it. However, this system does not eliminate the possibility of a suicidal passenger being on board.

In the new security measures it announced, the government decided to put undercover police officers on board aircraft. While the cabinet is unanimous that this should occur, union representatives of both pilots and flight attendants have yet to see them. The only times that these constables have been seen was on flights to Reagan airport in Washington.

The government has yet to set up its software to screen passengers that may represent a threat to security. The software should be able to do this by reading the passenger list. The plodding pace of progress on this is causing concern among airlines that travel to the United States.

We know that no system is failsafe, but a good knowledge of the identity of passengers, combined with explosives detection and stricter security screening measures at boarding can improve our security.

Not only do we need to wait for these mechanisms to be put in place, but as well the government needs to demand more of the RCMP and CSIS.

It is particularly disturbing to see this Liberal government putting its hands on $2.2 billion over five years without being in a position to provide us with a detailed breakdown of the costs that make up this amount.

Are we going to be witness to another misappropriation of funds, like what this Liberal government has done with the EI fund? We are not the only ones to doubt the government; the Canadian Taxpayers Association finds that there is something a bit fishy about this. The associations representing travel agents and the tourist industry are opposed to this tax. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the imposition of this tax, imposed willy-nilly as it is. Our colleagues in the other opposition parties also agree with us on this.

The Canadian tourism industry, ACTA, describes this tax as punitive and feels it will have serious impacts on their industry. A poll by Ekos, a firm known to those across the way, which was commissioned by the CAA, produced some food for thought. It reports that 16% of people who currently travel by air have said that they will travel less once the tax is in place.

Is this what the secretary of state calls minimal impact?

Even the representatives of WestJet told the Standing Committee on Finance that this new security charge will have a negative impact if it is imposed regressively, as is the plan at present. Why? Because this approach means that the amount paid is a higher percentage of the cost of short flights, and this will be counterproductive, stopping new competitors from entering the market. We must not forget that Air Canada has a virtual monopoly.

By maintaining its decision to impose this tax, the government is acting in a remarkably cavalier way.

We are afraid that smaller communities will no longer have air service, because it is not cost effective. A number of regional airports have already been dropped by the major carriers in recent weeks.

The people of New Brunswick can attest to that. The Charlo airport has never recovered from the disappearance of InterCanadien when Canadian merged with Air Canada. In January 2001, Air Labrador also packed it in, so this airport no longer has any regularly scheduled flights.

Most fortunately, a new airline, Baie Chaleur Air, will soon be plying the skies over Montreal and Toronto. Baie Chaleur Air will be offering service to the peripheral regions of Quebec and Canada, regions that are experiencing difficulty maintaining air service.

Will the impact of Bill C-49 undo the efforts of areas such as the Gaspé, Lac-Saint-Jean and the North Shore, to name just a few, which have been fighting for years to find a viable solution to the monopoly of Air Nova, Air Canada's regional service in Quebec.

The number of questions which remain unanswered show just how imperative it is that there be studies of the impact of this tax on air fares. Candidly admitting that none were requested shows an unacceptable lack of concern.

Part 3 of the budget deals with employment insurance. As we have been telling people for years, the Minister of Finance is helping himself to the surplus in the EI fund in order to pay for the measures in his budget.

The Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly said that this diversion of funds must stop, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation supports our position. My colleague from the Lower St. Lawrence can attest to this, as he has been denouncing what can practically be described as the theft from the EI fund since we have been here, in other words since 1993-94.

We were expecting reductions in EI premiums, as were workers and employers.

True to form, the government is using the surplus in the fund to improve its financial situation.

This budget contains nothing for workers, and SMBs are fed up with paying more than necessary for the EI fund.

Instead of getting the message, the government conceals from us the report of the actuary for Human Resources Development Canada, a report that would show us the real needs of the fund so that premiums could be set accordingly. That is what clarity means to this Liberal government.

Part 6 of the budget deals with the Canada strategic infrastructure fund. Another aspect of this bill particularly caught our attention: the decision to invest $2 billion in this fund, with part of it to be available for fiscal year 2001-02. We are a few days away from the end of the year and all signs are that the fund is empty.

I am dismayed. The Minister of Finance said in his budget, and I quote:

This budget commits a minimum federal contribution of $2 billion...with an initial allocation from this year's surplus funds at year-end.

More recently still, on February 5, the backgrounder put out when the bill implementing the 2001 budgetary initiatives was introduced says:

In the 2001 budget, the government announced that it would provide at least $2 billion for major infrastructure projects. These goals and this $2 billion initiative, as set out in the budget, are those of the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund

My hon. colleague from Jonquière who has a special interest in regional development and the implementation of infrastructure projects, has tried several times in this House to get information concerning this fund and to find out when the money will be made available.

Time is running out and the government must act quickly if it intends to use the surplus from the current fiscal year, since March 31 is the deadline. What makes it even more troublesome is that no amount appeared for the Strategic Infrastructure Fund in the Supplementary Estimates tabled on February 28, 2002.

Need I remind the House that Bill C-49 has yet to be passed and that the infrastructure fund has not been officially established yet? Therefore, the money that was announced cannot be made available. Once Bill C-49 is passed, we will need another bill to allocate part of the surplus to the fund.

Given the situation, how could the Deputy Prime Minister maintain, in an interview he gave on March 6, that this $2 billion fund is a good start?

The Deputy Prime Minister then added that the launch of this program would probably be postponed until next autumn and that the eligibility criteria would be submitted to cabinet somewhere around April or May.

This total lack of planning makes the government look pretty bad.

I am curious to hear how Liberal members will explain the fact that all the highway construction projects that they promised are now at risk because of a lack of funds.

Voters should know that this government is incapable of fulfilling its commitments. Back home, this is called lying through one's teeth.

It may be that members opposite have a rabbit hidden in their hat. They should bring it out soon. But we all know that the Liberals, and particularly their leader, do not really take seriously the promises they made during the last election campaign.

If these election promises were fulfilled, it would force the government to come up with $1.9 billion, that is 50% of the money needed to complete the projects that they pledged to do, and 80% of the funding that is necessary for highway 185. The Liberals promised a federal contribution of $1.1 billion for highways 175, 185 and 30. Currently, there is only $108 million available, over a four year period, for these projects.

Where is the money that should come from the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund for this year? What is the basis of the comment made by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry during the election campaign, to the effect that the bridges on highway 30 were a done deal?

In conclusion, the federal government has been achieving significant surpluses since the mid-nineties. Since 1997-98, federal budgets have always generated surpluses ranging from $2.9 billion to $17.1 billion in 2000-2001.

The conference board itself feels that the current positive gap between federal revenues and expenditures will continue in the future and will even increase, because the debt is going to be paid off with the employment insurance surpluses, with the new tax on security and with the unpaid benefits to seniors under the guaranteed income supplement program.

From the time he delivered his budget until the time he introduced this bill to implement it, the minister has missed the boat.

This government does only as it pleases. It did not take into account the work of parliamentarians and the needs expressed by the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance.

The government keeps governing by acting unilaterally to ensure that it enjoys surpluses.

The provinces, the workers, the employers and the unemployed all told this government what they expected from it. The government replied by tipping the scale in its favour and by ignoring the needs of these people. The government let them down, as it always does when there is a consensus.

Sovereignty is the only option for Quebecers who want to get out of a system that stifles them.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

My hon. friend says it could have bought a report for that. It is a good point.

Given what we have seen in the last few days with the missing report, some of the scandal that has come out of public works, and the Canada Lands Corporation scandal if I can call it that, we have good reason to wonder what is going on with the $400 million in repayable loans that has been handed out to different companies through ACOA. We know the government is prone to helping its political friends with taxpayers' money. What has happened to the $400 million? If the government cannot answer the question the money should not be spent. The government could get funding for its security measures from this area instead of driving up spending by a whopping 9.3%.

As an aside, between 1996-97 and 2005 the government will increase its overall program spending by around 33% or somewhere in that range. The overall level of spending will go up dramatically. We should be concerned about that. I will say more about some of the big reasons we should be concerned about it in a few minutes.

There is another example of how the government has been lax with taxpayer money: the GST home heating rebate. The auditor general's report pointed out that “At least 4,000 Canadian taxpayers who did not live in Canada and 7,500 deceased people received cheques”. It also said “about 1,600 prisoners could have received cheques”. It is pretty obvious the government does not have its eye on the bottom line when it comes to expenditures.

An example I hear about over and over again in my riding is the firearms registry. It is an especially sore point with people who are being required to register their firearms. My hon. friend from Yukon is here. I have no doubt he is getting lots of calls about the issue. People are concerned because they think the firearms registry will be completely ineffective. I agree with them 100%. They think it will breed false security. They have concerns about privacy. Their other big concern is how inefficient the government is when it comes to big registries.

I talked about the home heating rebate and how frequently the government got it wrong. I will tell the House about other things I am hearing from people in my riding.

A fellow contacted me the other day who said he had already registered handguns on the handgun registry. He is now being asked to re-register them. Why is that? I did some poking around to find out. It is because the government has lost the information for about 300,000 registered handguns. That is unbelievable. Speaking of things that go missing, there is still the half million dollar ACOA report that went missing.

There have been more mess ups in the firearms registry which I could talk about endlessly. Recently my hon. friend from Yorkton-Melville got up in the House and told the story of a man in Vancouver who heard a knock at the door. The man went to the door to find a SWAT team. Someone had told the SWAT team the man had unregistered firearms that he owned illegally. The SWAT team came to the door only to find a man who was able to produce a certificate showing he was registered with the government.

My point is this: The government is famous for being inefficient when it comes to the delivery of programs and services. There are billions of dollars it could find if it wanted to reduce overall spending. The firearms registry is costing around $640 million. It was supposed to cost $72 million when the government announced it in 1995. It is now approaching a billion dollars. The government is completely out of control when it comes to these issues.

I could give many examples but I will touch briefly on some of the big areas where there is tremendous waste. Aside from ACOA there is waste in other regional development programs and western diversification programs. All these departments have oodles and oodles of waste. We completely disagree with the idea that government should be involved in funding businesses. It is crazy but that is what the government does.

We disagree with the ridiculous spending that occurs in departments like CIDA. We have deep concerns about it. The previous auditor general said many programs did not have proper monitoring or accounting so the government could not tell whether the programs were working. This seems a rather obvious criteria for going ahead and funding a program. The government should know if a program it is funding is working. However that is another example.

Let us look at Indian affairs. Auditor generals have said much of the money that goes to Indian reserves and band councils disappears. A colleague told me the other day about problems on one of the reserves in Alberta. The chief is being paid $400,000 and there is no money left for some of the health care services on the reserve. That is obviously a concern. Perhaps the government should propose deep reform of Indian affairs before it advocates spending more money.

There are many other examples. I could talk about them all day. The Department of Canadian Heritage devotes much of its efforts to handing out grants and subsidies. There are deep concerns about whether that is the best use of taxpayers' money.

I will not go into all the examples. Suffice it to say the government has not done a good job of managing the public's money. It has not been a good steward of precious taxpayer dollars. We disagree fundamentally with the idea of raising spending as dramatically as the government has done in the budget.

That is one of the big reasons we oppose Bill C-49, the budget implementation act. However it is not the only reason. I will say more about that in a moment.

Another thing that concerns us, which I mentioned at the outset, is that the government has no vision or strategy for making Canada more productive and competitive in the world. This is obvious in the budget which does not even give a nod to the need to dramatically reduce taxes.

People on the government side will say they have reduced taxes. To be fair, they have reduced some taxes. Others have gone up. The government has reduced income taxes a little. That is fine. However we need to understand that we are not in a closed environment. Canada, the businesses that set up shop here and the people who earn their livings here are in competition with other countries around the world, primarily the United States. Having the United States on our southern border should be a huge advantage but because of the business environment in Canada it is not.

What happens is that instead of people mining that $11 trillion economy, the largest economy in the world, with 25% of the world's GDP coming from the United States, instead of using it to our advantage, too often we are becoming victims of that big economy because people are leaving Canada and going to the United States to set up shop. We could do so much more in Canada. What I mean by that is that we should be lowering taxes. We should have a long term strategy for lowering taxes of all kinds, personal income taxes certainly, but also getting the high marginal rates down and much more aggressively than the government has already proposed.

We think corporate taxes have to come down. I know that members on the government side will say that overall corporate tax rates are lower in Canada than they are in the United States, but that is only one of the factors when it comes to determining where a company will set up shop. We need to be quite a bit lower in order to lure some of these companies and this investment into Canada or to keep companies here that are already here. It is only one of the factors.

Another factor is access to the U.S. market since September 11. A large business casting about for a place to set up a new factory or plant might have considered Canada before September 11, but now because of increased uncertainty about the ability to have access to the United States from Canada because of border restrictions and that kind of thing, it will say that this tiny little difference in tax rates on the corporate side really is not enough of a difference to cause it to stay or to set up shop in Canada. Those companies will go to where they have access to the U.S. market. They will go directly into the United States.

We need to have a strategy which guarantees that Canada will be a leader when it comes to luring investment from around the world and keeping investment here. Part of that is lower taxes of all kinds. On capital gains taxes the government will say it has lowered them, but it has not lowered them anywhere near enough to encourage investment in Canada and to lure people to Canada as opposed to other places around the world.

It is almost as though the government, and I would characterize the government as operating this way on just about all issues, always manages the issue by taking it off the front burner and putting it on the back burner. It does not fix the problem. It does just enough to remove it as a constant irritant in the public's mind. It just pushes it off onto the back burner where it simmers and is not dealt with completely. It simmers away until it starts to boil over again and then the government again manages it a bit and it goes away for a little while. That is how the government deals with many issues.

We believe that taxes have to come down dramatically across Canada, but what else should the government be doing? One thing it should be doing is dealing with issues like internal trade barriers. In the Canadian constitution it is left to the federal government to establish the rules for commerce in the country, but for some reason over a period of 100 years in Confederation the provinces have started to set up interprovincial trade barriers.

I saw one report from the Fraser Institute, from a number of a years ago now, which indicated that internal trade barriers were costing the country between $6 billion and $40 billion a year in productivity. That is a tremendous amount of wealth that we forgo because of internal trade barriers. I think it is time for the federal government to assert its authority when it comes to commerce and knock down those trade barriers.

When we do that we should do some other things too. We should re-balance the federation and allow the provinces some freedom in areas that they currently do not have freedom in. I think that would be a good quid pro quo, but again, this is a federal power that the federal government has ceded to the provinces over a number of years and in my judgment it should not have done that.

There are many other things we could do. We should be freeing up trade with our trading partners because that benefits everyone. One of the big frustrations for me is to know that on the one hand Canada claims to care about continents like Africa, and my friend across the way spoke a few minutes ago about the Africa fund, but it is also true in Canada that we have tariffs in place, for instance, against textiles and agricultural products from developing countries.

If a developing country's biggest exports are textiles or agricultural products, which very often they are from these developing countries, it cannot easily get things into Canada. Why? Because we have tariffs in place. We never do allow those countries to become developed countries. We stand in the way of that, so how can we make any claim to be truly compassionate about these other countries when we do those sorts of things?

Again, the quid pro quo is that we should have access to their markets and we should be allowed to sell products into their markets. In doing that, every economist will tell us that free trade improves both parties when they engage in these voluntary exchanges. It does not matter whether we are trading with somebody in the next room or around the world. It makes no difference. The fact is that trade always leaves both parties better off. We should be encouraging that. I think that the government has not done a good enough job on encouraging trade around the world.

To be fair, I realize that sometimes, for instance, the United States does not play fair when it comes to trade. The softwood lumber dispute is a perfect example. I would even point to the tariffs it has raised on steel, which are not affecting Canada because we are part of NAFTA, but the big tariffs it has placed on steel imports from around the world into the United States to me demonstrate that the U.S. has lost its way to some degree when it comes to free trade. However, having said that, I will say that Canada could do a lot more to push trade issues. If we did those sorts of things, Canada would be a lot wealthier.

Another thing we need to do is undertake regulatory reform. I will tell the House about something that people should do once in a while just to get a sense of how overregulated Canada is. Some day people should go to the Government of Canada website on the Internet and look at the website that displays regulations in Canada. It is absolutely amazing. It is a website without end. It goes on and on and on. There is no question that this costs business in Canada today tremendous amounts of money.

When President Reagan was in office in the United States the Americans undertook regulatory reform. They reduced regulations dramatically. I have forgotten just how many. I think they cut something like 50,000 regulations. They knew at the time that there would be a direct impact from doing that. Of course the direct impact is that the compliance costs for business go down so they have more money for other things, rather obviously. One of the things they did not realize is that by reducing those regulations they dramatically improved the efficiency of the trucking industry in the United States, because there were so many regulations that bogged down the ability to move trucks across state lines and that kind of thing. As a result of that, the concept of just in time delivery was born or at least realized in the United States and it had a dramatic impact on improving the output of the economy, the productivity of the economy. It was not something that people really predicted, but it was a result.

The same sorts of things can happen in Canada if we start to take that issue seriously. That is something else the government should be doing when it comes to bringing down budgets. It should be producing budgets always with an eye to making Canada more productive. The former chair of the finance committee often spoke of the need for a productivity covenant in Canada. Although we crossed swords from time to time, I think my friend was on to something when he proposed that. Unfortunately his own government has not adopted it.

We do need a government that takes the issue of productivity seriously. These are some of ways in which we could start to deal with it: lower taxes; reduce spending; deal with regulatory reform; knock down interprovincial trade barriers; and promote free trade. Those things all make the economy much more productive.

Why is it important to make the economy more productive? Because that is how real incomes are raised. The only way we can become wealthier is to produce more. It does not mean we have to work harder, but it means that we have to produce more by using our enterprise and our knowledge and by using capital to invest in machinery and equipment that will allow us to produce more goods and services. If we do that, everyone benefits, but do we know who benefits most? It is people on the low end. It is counterintuitive, I know, but it is people on the low end of the income scale.

Why is that? Because, rather obviously, an already wealthy person who has enough to look after all of his or her needs does not benefit nearly as much when the economy picks up or when the nation produces more goods and services. It is the people on the low end, the people who are unemployed or underemployed today, who are working in entry level positions at middle age, for instance, who could be doing much better if there were more activity in the economy, so that instead of three people chasing one job we would have three jobs chasing one person. If we had that kind of an environment, that kind of an economy, people on the low end, who are struggling to find work that will allow them to look after their families, pay for the basics, buy homes and those sorts of things, will benefit the most.

That is one of the big reasons why the government should never take its eye off the ball when it comes to improving productivity. It is not just because we get those big boxcar numbers in terms of our overall GDP. Yes, we want to see the GDP grow bigger and we want to see more wealth created, but really it is the people who have not had the opportunities thus far who would benefit the most.

I have often used this example in the House, and at the risk of doing it to the point of boring people I will do it one more time. The best example of how this can work is what happened in the United States during the recent expansion. At the height of the expansion, the poorest quintile, the poorest 20% of the black population in the United States, which is the poorest population overall in the United States broken down by ethnic groups, by race, had an unemployment rate of 7%. That was the same average that we had across Canada at the very same time.

We would think that the unemployment rate of those people would be 15%, 20%, 25%, but because the economy was so hot in the U.S. and it was producing so much wealth, what we found was that all these businesses could not find workers so they went into areas of high unemployment and offered jobs to people. They said to people “We know you don't have any skills, perhaps, in this line of work, maybe you didn't finish high school or maybe you've been on welfare your whole life, but we will give you a job because we need workers”. These people, who had no hope previous to that, who could not find jobs and were trapped in this cycle of poverty, finally were given jobs and given contacts. They got a paycheque and of course they got some hope, which is what governments should be doing.

Another example is Ireland, a perfect example. It is a country that for 150 years had as its biggest export its people. Ireland decided to change how it structured its economy, saying that it could not continue to try to get by on the sort of semi-socialist economy it had. It was losing people. It had unemployment rates that were through the roof. It was a disaster. It was running big deficits.

Ireland took a different approach, saying that it would buy some labour peace, settle down and see if it could work out something with the unions. Ireland bought labour peace. It balanced its budget and dramatically lowered taxes. As a result, it saw billions of dollars of investment flow into Ireland, to the point where it now, with 1% of Europe's population, gets 20% of all the new investment. There is so much money coming in the door in Ireland right now that it is able to provide its people not only with very low taxes, cutting the corporate rate from 40% to 10%, but it also has so much money coming in now it provides all its people with free university education.

That is what can be done with an economy that is really on fire. The way to do that is to give the rest of the world an incentive to come to that country and invest. That is what Ireland did. Just ahead of St. Patrick's Day we thought we should pay a compliment to the people of Ireland on the fantastic job they have done in turning around their economy. They really are a fantastic example. I will point out, too, that Ireland is a country that is stuck out in the Atlantic, a long ways away from big markets and a long ways away from having resources. It does not have resources like we do.

If we applied that same approach in Canada, can we imagine what would happen? We are a country that is blessed with resources, really unparalleled in the world. We sit north of the United States with an $11 trillion economy, the biggest economy in the world. Can we imagine if we applied the same sorts of policies in Canada? Our economy would go through the roof. It would be unbelievable. People from around the country who have never had a chance at getting a good job all of a sudden would be breaking down doors for people to hire them to work at different things.

The government cannot seem to get out of the rut it is in. It only moves in fits and starts when it absolutely has to and put band-aids on whatever is the problem. It never fundamentally takes on this challenge. That is a shame because if it did Canada would blossom as a country. Unfortunately we do not see any sign of that happening.

I want to talk for a moment about the air traveller security charge which is part of Bill C-49. The official opposition is very concerned about what the government is doing with the air traveller security charge. This charge, by the way, will raise the cost of a ticket to $24 for a round trip fare. Previous to this about $72 million a year were being spent by airlines to provide security for the travelling public around Canada. This will raise the average cost per passenger for security from about $1.10 to $24. That is a huge increase. On a one way fare it would go up $12 or over 1,000%.

The impact that has on short hop flights rather obviously is dramatic. If someone was paying $60 for a ticket and now has to pay $24 more to meet the security charge, all of a sudden there is a big incentive not to fly. People will find other ways of travelling or they simply will not go. That is bad for the economy. That is a disastrous thing for the economy and certainly a disaster for airlines like WestJet that really rely on a lot of the short hops. We think the government has made a grave error.

Actually I am pleased to announce that many government members are deeply concerned about this matter. The member for Hillsborough from Prince Edward Island spoke up when he was on the finance committee. He thought the government was out to lunch in this regard. I have some quotes which I cannot find right now, but he pointed out at the finance committee that this would have a dramatic negative impact on small airports like the one at Charlottetown where people have to make short hops, or Victoria to Vancouver or Calgary to Edmonton.

These short hops for some people will not be economical any more so they will simply not do it. Airlines like WestJet and some of the smaller airlines will face real challenges in staying afloat because of this issue. The government has made a big error.

That is not to say there should not be increased security. Of course there should be. Our party believes that we should first of all respect the recommendation of the transportation committee that any increase in funding for air travel security should be funded both by a security fee and out of the consolidated revenue fund, out of general revenues, because public security is a public good. It is not like a special program that only a few people use. It is really a public good.

We need to remember, as my friend has pointed out in the past, that when the airplanes hit the World Trade Center many people were obviously killed in the buildings themselves. All of the public is in danger when someone hijacks a plane. The entire population of a country could be in some kind of jeopardy when such things happen. We argue it is a public good and therefore at least to a large degree should be funded out of general revenues.

I simply say this is an important fact with which I am not certain the government has ever come to grips. In my riding of Medicine Hat there is a small airport that will be dramatically affected by the security charge. I can assure everyone of that.

People in the past have flown from Medicine Hat to Calgary. Now it may not be economical for them to do it. They may just drive instead, and that would be a real blow to regional carriers. We are quite concerned about that.

When this whole issue was first debated in the finance committee a number of things were raised and good amendments were brought forward which unfortunately were defeated by the committee. One of them was a proposal by the Canadian Alliance that these fees be determined on the basis of distance.

My friend spoke a minute ago about not wanting to do that and suggested that people who go on longer hauls would subsidize people on shorter hauls. I understand his argument, but rather obviously it would minimize the impact of the security fee in terms of being a disincentive to travel. A small percentage more will not necessarily deter those who are already paying $3,000 for a ticket to go across the country, but a $24 fee on a $60 trip could absolutely be a very big deterrent to people travelling. That is something we proposed which the Liberals in the finance committee denied.

We also proposed that there be greater accountability when it comes to the authority that is to oversee the new fee and security at the airports. We asked that a representative of the travel industry be put on that authority. Unfortunately Liberal members voted it down. That is regrettable because it would have ensured some accountability. It would have put people on that authority who understand the issues and who can see the direct impact of that kind of security charge.

Along with my friend across the way we also voted in favour of having a labour representative. My friend spoke on that a moment ago and pointed out that people who were a part of the labour force understood better than most the problems when providing security in an airport. It was a very good point. Unfortunately the government has moved an amendment to change that, which is regrettable because it would have been good to have someone from labour on it as well.

These are some of the very specific things we regret in Bill C-49 when it comes to the air travel security charge. We think that the government has not done the country a service by bringing in that security charge without some of the amendments I have just talked about.

As I said at the outset, overall I am alarmed by the budget. I have said that in every speech I have given on the budget. It really misses a tremendous opportunity to improve Canada's competitive position. It misses the opportunity to deal with reckless spending. It misses the opportunity to act aggressively to bring about fundamental change in how we provide security in Canada when the country is demanding it.

We have not done a good job in the past. The government has ripped the heart out of funding for the RCMP, CSIS and national defence. It has not even begun to address the funding issue for some of those agencies even yet, even after the budget. Those are some of the things it could have done and did not do, and that is regrettable.

I will simply conclude by issuing a charge to the Liberals across the way. The government will be in power for a couple more years at least before an election. I urge them to take the opportunity, with the official opposition supporting them, to bring about some of the changes I have talked about that would make Canada a leader again when it comes to providing well-being for its people.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address Bill C-49, the budget implementation act. Although there are things in the bill I will speak to specifically I will start by talking about the overall budget and addressing some issues my hon. friend raised a moment ago.

The hon. member said he thought it was a courageous budget. I could not disagree more. As I have said various times in the House in the last month when I have had a chance, it is the worst budget the government has ever brought down. In the past the government has done things I grudgingly had to admit were good. However this is the worst budget it has ever brought down.

Not only did the government raise the level of spending dramatically in the budget by 9.3%. It was also careless. It brought in all kinds of innovations it later had to turn around and change because the budget was not well thought out. The government had to change how it would handle the Africa fund. The infrastructure program is another example.

There is no excuse. This was the first budget in about a year and a half. The Liberals had lots of time to think about it. It is not like they were pushed into coming up with something at the last moment. They had lots of time to consider it but they absolutely blew it.

As important as what is in the budget are the things the government left out. I will start at the top. The thing that characterizes the budget and the government the most is a complete lack of vision. When looking at the budget there is no sense that the government understands Canada is losing the competitive battle in the world. We are falling further and further behind. This is reflected in our falling dollar and our falling standard of living. It is never seriously addressed. It is like an elephant in the middle of the room that no one wants to talk about. However we face it every day as citizens trying to make a living and scrape by.

As responsible adults we have an obligation to leave the country better than we found it. We are not meeting that obligation. The country is getting poorer and poorer. We are losing many of our young people to the United States. That is the vision that is not in the budget. There is no ability or willingness to confront the fact that Canada is losing the competitive battle in the world.

There are many things we could do. My hon. friend spoke a moment ago about Kyoto. Is it not wonderful that the government is coming to grips with Kyoto? However there are many other issues. The government wants to take the initiative on Kyoto even though we would be completely out of step with the Americans. However in terms of the day to day things that fundamentally affect people the government is completely out of touch.

What could the government have done? There is no question that in the wake of September 11 security spending has been necessary. The government has never addressed the question of why it cut defence and security spending so deeply in the past while maintaining high levels of spending for grants and subsidies.

However let us set that aside for the moment. The truth is that we need to invest more in our military, in intelligence gathering, and in defending our borders through increased enforcement by customs and immigration officials. We need to do these things. The opposition does not quibble with that. We have absolutely no objections.

Instead of raising the overall level of spending we should be cutting spending in other areas. The auditor general brought out her report not long ago which mentioned many areas where the government is failing the test of fiscal prudence.

One example is ACOA. ACOA is a regional development agency in Atlantic Canada. It provides what it calls non-repayable loans to different groups which sounds an awful lot like grants. The auditor general noted in chapter six of her report that ACOA had “not reported publicly on its performance in managing $400 million of repayable contributions”. This should give us pause. An agency supposedly answerable to parliament and the Canadian people has for some reason not reported publicly on the management of $400 million in repayable contributions.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to enter the debate on Bill C-49. This bill would implement the provisions of the budget that the Minister of Finance brought down on December 10, 2001, a budget that was cast in the midst of unprecedented uncertainty, with an economy that was in a slow down and, of course, it was post the terrible events of September 11.

The finance committee, of which I am a member, travelled across Canada on a prebudget consultation exercise and listened to what Canadians had to say. I am very pleased to say that the Minister of Finance and the government listened to the priorities that Canadians reflected in the consultations that we undertook. Basically, there were four main areas that Canadians talked to us about. There were other areas of course, some very specific, and other proposals but there were many common themes. These themes centred on four major factors.

First, Canadians told us that they wanted the government to respond to the national security agenda. They wanted the Minister of Finance to provide the funding that was necessary to assist Canada in dealing with the threat of terrorism that presented itself so horribly on September 11.

Second, they wanted the government to protect the $100 billion tax cut that was introduced in budget 2000 and the economic update in the fall of 2000, the largest single tax cut in Canadian history.

Third, they wanted the government to protect the $21 billion invested in health care and post-secondary education, an historic agreement that was reached by the government, provinces and territories. A further $2.5 billion was dedicated to early childhood development. Canadians told us they wanted us to protect those investments in health care, post-secondary education and early childhood development.

Fourth, Canadians told us that, after all the hard work that had gone into eliminating the deficit, they wanted us not to go back into deficit at all costs.

Those were the main themes that were presented to us as we travelled across Canada. As I said, there were other proposals, propositions and concerns but those were the major themes that were expressed by Canadians.

I can say that our Minister of Finance and the government listened. The minister protected the tax cut in the budget that he delivered on December 10. The government will not be going into deficit this year or for the next two or three years at least. He protected the investments in health care and also provided $7 billion in funding for the national security agenda.

The national security agenda will encompass a range of things. It will include money to deal with the needs of CSIS and the RCMP, as well as the needs at our borders for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to improve the movement of goods and people across our borders in a secure and efficient manner.

The budget will also provide additional funding for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration so that it can improve the processing of applicants for immigration as well as refugees. It will do a number of other things but those are the essentials. It will provide a significant amount of funding to achieve those ends.

I am very happy to speak to some of the detail in the budget because I know there has been a lot of discussion in the House and in committee on the provisions of the airport security fee for example. I for one, and I know the feeling is shared by many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, am sensitive to the fact that the airport security fee, which is $24 for a round trip and $12 for a one way ticket with no stops, should be monitored very carefully to ensure that the small communities which are accessible only through short haul flights are not jeopardized. A $12 or $24 tax on an airfare of $100 or $200 is a very significant amount. We want to ensure that this is monitored carefully.

The fee may end up being too high because the data, that the government had at the time when it had to come up with the tax, was fragile. Looking at the post-September 11 events we were presented with a situation leading into a budget in November where we had to firm up certain assumptions with respect to air travel. One can imagine the situation that put the Minister of Finance in where he had to guesstimate as best he could the air traffic volumes that would be going through this upcoming fiscal year.

The minister sought advice from Transport Canada and the airlines and got whatever information he could. However he was estimating under difficult circumstances. Therefore the airport security fee at $24 for a round trip was developed. That fee will cover the cost of improving security at 90 of Canada's main airports. There will be better equipment and more trained people to process people going through airports.

One of the points that is sometimes lost in the House is that members opposite say it is a fixed fee and therefore for someone travelling on a $100 or $200 ticket that is a huge percentage and is a tough thing to face. Granted that can be a challenge but we need to remember another thing and that is if individuals are going through airport security it does not really matter if they are travelling from Toronto to Vancouver or from Victoria to Kelowna, the same amount of effort is required to process them through security. Basically it is a fixed cost.

We cannot always look at these things in strictly economic terms. There have been discussions and proposals that the airport security fee be based on what we call ad valorem or a percentage of a passenger ticket amount so that, for example, on a longer haul in absolute terms the airport security fee would be higher.

That would mean that people travelling on longer trips would subsidize the cost of those travelling on shorter hauls. There is an argument for that I suppose but there is also an argument to say that if one is presented with a fixed cost then the people who choose to travel, the users, need to understand that there is a cost of processing them through measures that Canadians look to in terms of the standards of excellence and diligence that are required to make sure that people getting on aircraft are indeed secure. That is the reality.

Some ask why that fee would not be abolished completely and be borne by general taxpayers. A good part of the $7 billion that I mentioned earlier for security measures is being borne largely by the taxpayer in general, as a whole. However the feeling of the government was that for the user fee, for the tax, it should be focused on those people who choose to travel.

It is a very small part of the total security cost that the government has absorbed and all Canadians, including those in the gallery and in the House today, are absorbing. This is a very small element of the national security agenda that is being passed on to users.

The Minister of Finance indicated clearly that this situation would be monitored very carefully to determine whether the fee was too high, in other words, whether it was more than was needed to pay for the additional cost of security, as that was the only thing this tax would be used for.

If members opposite would read the budget papers they would see that the revenue that comes in from this airport security fee over five years, if it matches the cost over the five years, would be incurred by the government to increase security at airports.

Of course the costs are higher in the first year because there is the purchase of equipment and the training of individuals who will have to be in these situations. Therefore in the first year the costs are higher than the revenues, but over the five years the whole account balances out.

This is not a money making exercise but an attempt by the government to match revenues to be brought in with the cost of improving security at our airports so that passengers can travel safely and securely. That is what it is about.

If after six months, or a year or two, the government becomes aware that the fee is too high and it is more than what is needed, I am sure that it would review it. The Minister of Finance said quite categorically that he would review the fee and if necessary bring it down. If it has the effect of jeopardizing communities that rely on these short haul routes then that is something I am sure the government would also review.

However there are no easy solutions. For easy answers members opposite would be on this side solving everything in one easy moment. These are tough and difficult times.

The bill would implement another element to establish the authority that would oversee these security measures. It would have 11 board of directors, a broad range of people. There was an amendment considered by the Standing Committee on Finance that would put a representative from labour on the board. I supported that because, as I said in committee, when we go through security at airports we all have various experiences.

For example, the other day I had a pair of little scissors that we use to trim the hair out of our noses or whatever. They went through the screening and the person asked me to unzip my bag. They were taken out and confiscated.

It is a hard thing to take. I have had people tell me, I have never checked it myself but I am sure it is probably true, that one can actually walk from outside the security area and buy a pair of these little nose scissors in one of the convenience stores. I do not know. I have not tried it.

The point is that there are a lot of people who are working in security. They probably see things and have some wisdom and experience to share. I think that if they fed that to a board rep we would probably get some good enhanced decision-making by the authority.

The Minister of Transport has said that he would absolutely make sure that whoever goes on the board would have a knowledge of labour and who are plugged in to labour because this is a resource that we should be tapping into. Why do we avoid it? I do not understand but there are only so many board seats available. I suppose it comes down to that.

I do not know if members read a book that is old now called “Managing by wandering about”. It was written by a former chief executive officer of a corporation. Instead of being stuck in his office with all the trappings of power, fame and all that, he went out and walked around. He visited people at machines, in the warehouse and people who were keeping the cardex of the inventory in the warehouse. He kept wandering around. He said he got more answers about the business than by sitting in meeting upon meeting with all his management staff and executives, and others.

The point is we should reach out to these people. They have a lot of experience. They see a lot of things right at the job site of which we should be taking advantage and I think that our government understands that.

The bill would implement some other important items that were included in budget 2001. One is the Africa development fund, a half billion dollars that would go toward assisting those countries in Africa that have dedicated and committed themselves to good governance and have a respect for democracy and human rights.

Africa is a very complicated place. I know my colleague sitting here has, for many years, worked diligently and forcefully in understanding Africa, so I feel somewhat humbled by speaking on Africa in this House.

We have some significant challenges. We want to help Africans help themselves but by the same token we want to ensure that they are committed to good governance, transparency, accountability and fighting corruption.

The residents in my community are saying that if they send $1 of tax to Ottawa and we send that to Africa, 40 cents of it ends up in some Swiss bank account of some corrupt leader and the other 60 cents goes to help the people. I am sure that is not acceptable to the people in the House and to the people of Canada. We need to ensure that our government is committed to those principles, that we would only support those countries in Africa, and indeed around the world, that need a helping hand and are committed to good governance.

We read in the paper about the various things that are going on in Africa and the troubling news out of Zimbabwe, but we cannot turn back our eyes from this hugely important continent. We need to help those people help themselves. This fund of half a billion dollars would be used for those purposes. The Prime Minister, in chairing the upcoming G-8 meeting in Kananaskis, has said that Africa would be a priority and that this fund would be used to assist those in need.

I have heard some Canadians ask, “Why are we helping them when we have difficulties and poor people in Canada?” That is true. However, as a government, we must take our responsibilities on a number of different fronts. We must ensure, as part of the global world in which we live, that we are playing our role helping others help themselves. That is why this is so important.

Another initiative that is encompassed in the bill before us today would put into play $2 billion of funding that would be earmarked for strategic infrastructure. These would be projects of national significance across Canada. They would depart significantly from the infrastructure programs that the government has put in place already.

There have been three of them and the amount of funding provided has been significant. The last round was approximately $3.7 billion. The federal government puts up money and that is leveraged with moneys from the provinces and municipalities. A whole host of projects are done, from sewer and water systems to cultural initiatives. However, that is a separate program.

The $2 billion announced by the government in budget 2001 would be used for larger projects. They would be strategic in focus and national in significance. This budget would allow for that fund to be set up. Originally, it was to be a foundation. That is how it was announced in the budget. The advantage of a foundation is that it provides a continuity of funding. There is no difficulty in terms of lapsed funds. There is a question of governance and of it being at more arm's length from the government. Some would argue that is a good thing.

The government, in its wisdom, decided to move that from a foundation into an annual appropriation. That would mean that members of the House, people who are elected by the citizens of Canada, would be able to influence the priorities that are established for these national infrastructure projects. The minister responsible is looking forward to working with members on this side and that side of the House for input into what those guidelines should be and what criteria should be applied to the various projects as these proposals come forward.

We need to invest in infrastructure. Not only is it sound public policy but it would create employment, economic activity and makes us more competitive. Many of the projects make us more competitive and some make us a better nation. I am very happy that the budget puts in place the funding required to implement the $2 billion of federal funding leverage with other funds over the next few years.

The budget also implements a number of other measures. What is often lost in the debate in the House, especially by the members opposite, is the tax holiday the Minister of Finance announced for small businesses. Their income taxes will be deferred for about a year. It is especially helpful to them in these difficult economic times in their cashflow management. That is a very significant measure that was incorporated into the bill.

I have other examples. I know there has been much interest and debate in the House about mechanics' tools. I know on this side of the House we have looked at a number of different initiatives. The initiatives that were placed before the House in the past basically did not differentiate between the tools used by mechanics and the tools used by people in other employment. If we had adopted some of those proposed measures we would have left the door open for people who work in offices to write off the cost of their computers, their palms or their research in motion gizmos.

Some would say that would have been a good thing. Any time we cut taxes it is a good thing for taxpayers but taxpayers pay us to manage the fiscal resources in the wisest and most prudent way possible. When we look at a tax measure and say that we will just deal with tools used by employees, and we do not restrict it or ring fence the issue, a term used by the Department of Finance, there could suddenly be a whole host of other implications such as someone who needs research materials for a job or needs to subscribe to publications, et cetera.

The problem with that proposition before the House in the past was that it could be as wide as it was broad and there was no way for the government to contain its exposure. When I say the government would contain its exposure, I mean on behalf of all taxpayers. Many people work as individual contractors, as entrepreneurs and in many different ways. If we had allowed this type of employment expense deduction it would have opened things up very widely. I certainly support the government's decision.

In budget 2001, the minister came out with provisions that would allow the deduction of mechanics' tools for apprentices if they were part of a recognized apprenticeship program in a province or territory. The amount they could deduct would be limited to the extraordinary costs they incurred and would be based on a certain percentage of income.

We all know that the income of an apprentice mechanic is very low. At the same time the apprentice has to build up his or her tool kit by investing in tools. Therefore the bill would enact those provisions. It states that if one is an apprentice mechanic and part of an approved apprenticeship program in a province or territory, one can deduct one's costs up to a certain point of one's income, and in fact can carry the costs over. Let us say in the first year an apprentice has to buy a big chest and put a lot of tools into it. Because the apprentice's income is low, $24,000 or $25,000, he or she might be limited that year but would be able to carry the amount over. I think that is a fair way to proceed.

Likewise, we had to look at other trades. What about electricians, plumbers and carpenters? The government, through the Department of Finance, actually surveyed the various trades. It discovered in the data, which I think was available at Human Resources Development Canada and from various associations, that mechanics' tools were by far a significantly higher expenditure than the tools used in other trades. That is what the data showed and that is intuitively what one would think.

There is a question in all this. If one were a salaried employee of, let us say, Midas Muffler, why would Midas Muffler not supply the tools? However, it apparently does not. The rationale for that is that these tools walk, and I am sure tools do walk.

We have many situations in workplace environments where organizations, companies, whatever they might be, have to put in controls necessary to safeguard these tools, this equipment, these drugs, whatever they are. I am not sure that is a totally persuasive argument but the reality is that the people working at many of the shops are contract employees.

It is interesting to note that self-employed people can buy tools, set them up as a capital cost and the tools can actually be depreciated for tax purposes. Someone might ask why it would be different for a contractor versus an employee. The rationale is that a contractor, in most cases, has additional business risks.

If a person had one employment contract with one employer, the tax department would probably come along and say that the person was not really a contractor but an employee because the employee was taking his or her direction for the day to day work from the employer.

Since a true contractor has more business or personal risk than an employee, the income tax allows the contractor more latitude with respect to the tools he or she can claim as a business expense through a capital cost allowance.

Bill C-49 would implement the provisions to allow apprentice mechanics to deduct the extraordinary costs of tools against their employment income.

Bill C-49 has other very positive features, basically implementing the provisions of budget 2001. Tax incentives to encourage organizations to move from non-renewable energy sources to renewable energy sources is another feature in the bill. These are tax incentives for producers to move to renewable energy sources as opposed to non-renewable.

I think all of us in the House and indeed across Canada probably support the government in its efforts to reduce emissions and take us toward our Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gases and cleaning up our air. This is one measure, in addition to the many other initiatives, that the government has financed over the last few years. In budget 2000 and in the economic and fiscal update, I think the government committed about $1.2 billion to cleaning up the environment. However, more has to be done. An issue before us is Kyoto and what that does. I am sure the government is examining that very carefully.

We know the United States is doing something but it is certainly not ratifying Kyoto. I for one believe greenhouse gases are a problem and I think most people in the House believe that as well. We need to deal with the problem but with the Americans dragging their feet, we need to be careful.

On the one hand, we want a sovereign, independent policy and we want to deal with the issues as we see them, but if we were to put restrictions or impose conditions on companies in Canada which were not prevalent in the United States, we could create some competitive difficulties for them and that could translate into jobs and economic activity. I am not sure how that will be factored into the equation but I know the government is seized with the issue and wants to ensure there is more data, more information.

Various organizations have said that the costs of implementing Kyoto are in the billions of dollars. We have another study saying that it will cost $500 million at most. The numbers are all over the page. What we need to do in the House, in fact it might make a good study for a committee of parliament, is look at the economic costs and benefits of implementing Kyoto and maybe look at the costs and risks of not implementing Kyoto to see how all those factors fit into the equation.

In conclusion, I believe the bill, which would enact the budget that was tabled by the Minister of Finance on December 10, should be supported by the House. It was an incredibly brave and courageous budget that was brought out in very turbulent times and meets the objectives that were presented by Canadians as we travelled across Canada. It is a well-crafted budget. As the bill would allow the government to implement the budget, I would ask members to support it.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001, be read the third time and passed.

[David Collenette, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-49 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 85 the following:

“22. (1) The portion of paragraph 38(a.1) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(a.1) a taxpayer's taxable capital gain for a taxation year from the disposition of any property is 1/4 of the taxpayer's capital gain for the year from the disposition of the property if

(2) Subsection (1) applies to dispositions that occur after 2001.”

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many areas in which to criticize the government in terms of general fiscal direction at this time. I do not have to remind anyone in the House of the decline of the Canadian dollar by 20% under the government's stewardship as a result of its failure to adapt and develop policies in Canada that reflect the needs of the 21st century, particularly in terms of what has happened in other countries. As other countries have focused on productivity and on the type of tax and regulatory reform to vault their economies proudly forward, the government has dilly-dallied, dithered and focused on short term focus group economics and on next week's polls as opposed to the challenges and opportunities in the next century.

I will not focus on the lack of vision. Canadians are aware of that. Canadians are aware that the government has done nothing for nine years except basically live off the proceeds of the previous government's policies, including free trade, the GST and deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy, which were all the very policies that party opposed in opposition and then swallowed themselves whole in government to accept, to embrace and to live off the proceeds of.

However, I will not be pithy and partisan today in the House of Commons. Instead, I will focus on some of the specific shortcomings of the current piece of legislation at hand.

First, the government has imposed a $2.2 billion tax. It is not just a fee, as even the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons is referring to it. It is a tax on Canada's most vulnerable industry, the airline industry, during a period of time when we see the great and tremendous need for competition in Canadian airspace, which is so sadly lacking. It is a tax aimed disproportionately at discount and short haul carriers, the very type of competition we need across Canada, particularly in regions like Atlantic Canada and British Columbia at a time when those regions depend on affordable access for air travellers.

There has been absolutely no impact analysis by the government, either by the Department of Finance or by the Department of Transport, on what the impact of this new $2.2 billion tax will be on competition in Canadian airspace, on the regions of Canada and on the struggling airports. In and of itself it is dismaying that the government would not do any type of study of what the impact of such a major policy would be.

Further, we have learned this week that the Department of Finance actually based the $2.2 billion tax figure, the $12 per flight or $24 per round trip, on specious data. The bureaucrats in the finance minister's department actually developed their estimate of what that fee ought to be on information that was categorically wrong, on estimates that actually reduced what the realistic number of air travellers would be, in an effort to inflate revenue over the next several years. The government has now created, through this new air security tax, a $1 billion surplus for itself which will go into general revenue.

The Minister of Finance is saying “we will revisit this”. The government is saying “we will revisit this in the future and if it is too high, we will cut it back”. Why should we believe the government when it is the same party that promised to scrap the GST when in opposition and then after forming the government embraced the GST? Now the Prime Minister brags about the GST and takes credit for it during foreign travels.

It is offensive that the government is trying to profit on the back of Canada's most vulnerable industry, the airline industry, and in fact in many ways is exploiting the genuine sympathies of Canadians in a post-September 11 environment to actually create another cash cow for Liberal spending in other areas. That is obviously wrong.

I was disappointed that the government did not move more aggressively on one specific area of policy, one further area: to eliminate the capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities. In the legislation, the government does make permanent the 1997 reduction of capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities to 50%. That is a baby step in the right direction, but the fact is, in the U.S. or the U.K., universities, hospital foundations and general charities all benefit from government policy whereby there is absolutely no capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities. This means that our Canadian universities, our Canadian hospital foundations and our charities, ranging from the big charities like the United Way in Toronto to the smaller charities across our country, operate at a competitive disadvantage with charitable foundations, organizations and philanthropic interests in the U.S. and the U.K.

Clearly this is bad public policy. At a time when the government has so dramatically cut social spending and transfers to the provinces we need to engage our volunteer and philanthropic sectors more fully. At the finance committee we asked representatives of these sectors what we ought to do to increase levels of donation and participation to meet the needs of Canadian communities. Every one of the witnesses before the committee said we should eliminate the capital gains tax from gifts of listed securities.

The government has failed to do this. The previous reduction of the capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities has resulted in over a billion dollars going from private hands to charities in Canada over the last four years. Completely eliminating the capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities would have an amazing impact on the growth of charitable contributions in Canada at a time when social needs across the country have expanded and governments are playing smaller and smaller roles. We need to do everything we can to ensure the volunteer sector has every possible advantage and tool at its disposal to succeed.

The cost to the government today of completely eliminating the capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities would be about the same as the tax revenue loss in 1997 when the government reduced the capital gains tax by 50% on gifts of listed securities. However the impact would be far greater. The United Way of Greater Toronto has received gifts of shares exceeding $10 million since 1997. In every province across Canada, from universities in Nova Scotia to hospital foundations in Toronto and British Columbia, there are examples of charities and community based foundations that have benefited as a result of the policy.

This would have been a simple way for the government to demonstrate that it cares for community based organizations which are trying to meet the needs governments have become less able to meet in recent years. The government has failed to move more aggressively. There were members of the Liberal government on the finance committee who supported a PC/DR motion to amend Bill C-49 to completely eliminate the capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities. The motion exists in the group today because we were successful at the finance committee. The government must now reintroduce a motion to reinstate the previous policy.

We will be voting in favour of making permanent the 50% reduction in capital gains tax. We support it as a baby step in the right direction. However we are profoundly disappointed that the government did not take advantage of an important opportunity to eliminate the capital gains tax from gifts of listed securities. The government ought to move to a broad based policy of eliminating the capital gains tax permanently in any case.

We did not have a capital gains tax in Canada until 1971. No tax has a more pernicious and negative impact on the growth of capital, investment, productivity and jobs across Canada than the capital gains tax. It acts in many ways as a cancer on the types of investment that would lead to the productivity and growth the Canadian economy so sorely needs. Our low Canadian dollar reflects the very opposite of such growth. One of the reasons we have a low dollar is that productivity rates have lagged since 1993 relative to our trading partners, particularly the U.S.

There are many areas of weakness in the government's general fiscal direction. The lack of enough vision to see the need for broad based tax reform focused on productivity, growth and opportunity is probably the biggest leadership deficit Canadians face. The government may be in surplus but there is a leadership deficit across the way.

Canadians are paying a big price for the government's failure to grasp opportunities and challenges. Our low dollar is probably the price tag we have paid for a government that has been on cruise control for eight years. I am afraid this great country of ours will cruise control into a ditch unless the government starts seizing opportunities as opposed to dodging the challenges facing the country at this critical time.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking on a concern I have with the proposed air security surcharge. The Liberals' Bill C-49 introduces an air travel tax of $24 and is set to become effective April 1. As a person who travels frequently, I find this tax outrageous. As a parliamentarian, I find it unnecessary.

On the six month anniversary of the attacks on America and the World Trade Center it is evident that the world is still mourning. As well we see that what happened just a short six months ago is still fresh in our minds. It was these acts that prompted the government, my colleagues and myself to take a closer look at the security measures that we take in this country.

When our neighbour is this vulnerable a target for terrorism, then we have to ask how safe we are. I believe, as do my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, that we need heightened airport security, but to gouge Canadian travellers with this new tax is to wrongly take advantage of their fears and their mourning.

The tax as it stands now will hurt Canadian travellers and ultimately the companies that supply this travel to Canadians. Surely the government would know better than to implement a tax that will destroy smaller air carriers and limit the choices of travelling Canadians. Surely common sense would prevail.

I believe that if one has the courage to stand and criticize someone's ideas, then one must be prepared to give a better solution. The Canadian Alliance, and specifically my colleague the member for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam, has brought forth a number of alternatives and improvements to this tax.

The first suggestion, and probably the most important, is that air travellers should contribute to the cost of improved airport security but they should not bear the total weight of these new improvements.

The approach taken by the United States is to have air passengers pay for part but not all of the cost of aviation security. A fee of $2.50 per flight to a maximum of $5 per day is a much more reasonable and workable fee.

The Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations agreed unanimously that having the travelling public pay for 100% of improved airport security would be an exorbitant tax and would be unfair, yet this is exactly what has happened.

Mark Hill, the vice president of WestJet was quoted as saying “Once the tax is implemented, we believe that traffic will evaporate off the short haul routes. Once the traffic goes, we will have to back out of some of our short haul flying. Once that begins, the genie is out of the bottle and it is very hard to stuff the genie back into the bottle once that happens”.

These comments scare me. They scare me because they affect my constituents directly.

Saskatoon airport services most of my constituents. Its flights service travellers primarily to Winnipeg, Calgary, Prince Albert and Regina. These are all short haul flights. If this tax dissuades short haul flights, then it will destroy the business that is fundamental to the Saskatoon airport. This means not only the loss of valuable resources for my constituents but also the loss of jobs and a valuable part of the Saskatchewan economy.

Doug Schmidt, a WestJet pilot who originated from my area, was in Ottawa recently. As a concerned pilot he presented a petition to the Canadian Alliance opposition critic for transport to be tabled in the House of Commons on behalf of the WestJet pilots, flight attendants and fellow employees.

The petition urges the government to scrap the currently proposed system and replace it with one that is fair and equitable. The petition suggests that a percentage of airfare based formula would be far more fair to all air carriers, air travellers and supportive to airport communities.

The petition also outlined some very stark examples of what is wrong with the tax. On a $57 one way ticket between Edmonton and Calgary, a flat rate of $12 will represent more than a 20% increase in price for travellers. This increase in price could very realistically result in the removal of this short haul flight. However the same $12 fee on a $319 fare from Moncton to Vancouver will represent only a 4% increase. This increase is reasonable for long haul flights. This example clearly shows the discrepancy and the unfairness of the tax.

Mr. Schmidt and his co-workers brought forth this petition because they feel strongly about the company that they work for. They believe in their company. It is also driven from a fear that this tax will destroy this company which is largely based on short haul flights.

I was overwhelmed by the effort made by WestJet employees to save their company. I was even more overwhelmed when at a recent community event constituents rallied to sign the petition and show their support for the short haul flights. These constituents wanted to express personally the value that these short haul carriers have in their lives.

The service provided by WestJet and similar companies, and the affordable rates that they provide, are what Canadians have come to expect. It is what they deserve. Bill C-49 will surely take this away from them. How can we stand by and let this happen?

The Saskatchewan government has also been very vocal about questioning this new tax. Saskatchewan's own highways and transportation minister was quoted as saying that the Saskatchewan government fully supports enhanced security, but it is adding its voice to the growing number of others questioning the federal government's decision to beef up national and international airline security at the expense of local airports and short haul passengers.

I support my provincial government in this line of reasoning. It was clear the government was not willing to help Saskatchewan farmers with this budget, but I am surprised that it would add to this disgrace by destroying our air industry.

David Eckmire, chair of the Air Services Group, said the fee will generate $5 million annually from travellers using the Saskatoon airport which almost equals the airport's entire operating budget.

Many within the airline industry view this new airport security tax as a tax grab. It has not gone unnoticed that the money will go into the general revenues of the federal government and not a special security fund. My airport of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan will pay in taxes what is equal to its operating budget and in the end it will be stashed away into a federal reserve, benefiting no one. Tell me, where is the common sense?

This tax will be extremely detrimental to smaller communities, communities that are in my riding of Blackstrap.

I had mentioned earlier the need for the government to apply common sense to the airport security tax. Now I am going to put forth some common sense statements made in several of the presentations to the finance and transport committees.

Mark Hill, vice president of WestJet, suggested that a flat fee would be simpler to administer. This would mean that the tax would be based on a percentage of the fare and not a head tax. This system would be far less detrimental to short haul flights. Mr. Hill went on to tell the finance committee that this tax will be an auditing nightmare for airlines to try and figure out who owes what to whom and when.

Mr. J. Clifford Mackay of the Air Transport Association of Canada said “The implementation of this new tax or charge is frankly extremely complex. We have spent hundreds of hours trying to figure out how to do this. It is not going to be easy”.

Randy Williams, the president and CEO of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, said “This tax will hurt an industry still recovering from the September 11 terrorist activities and the economic slowdown”. He went on to say that the travelling public does not support this tax.

These are very important points. They illustrate quite clearly that the government ignored the work in committee, the airline industry and the travelling public when it introduced Bill C-49.

This sort of separation between the people and the government is what has caused so much distrust and resentment for the political process. If we want to restore the belief of Canadians that their government is working for them and not against them, then we need to start listening to these common sense statements.

The government ignored them. I am asking members of the House from all parties to think carefully about why they are here. I want them to consider what is best for their constituents and what is necessary for a healthy airline industry in Canada. I am certain when they have done this that all members will vote against the implementation of this tax and they will do so with a clear conscience.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today marks six months from September 11, the day the world was changed and where the protection of human security emerged as a central motif in budgetary planning and process which was finally expressed in Bill C-49.

The protection of human security, as I have said in the House, includes not only funding the components of a counterterrorism law and policy. It includes investing in people, in securing and sustaining a healthy and holistic environment, and in improving the health of Canadians by investing in the environment.

Indeed investment in a healthy environment, as in Bill C-49, can confer an economic benefit in job creation and the promotion of technological innovation, a resource and energy benefit in the conservation of energy and increasing the security of energy supplies, and a health benefit in improving the quality of our air and water and in reducing the toxicity of our environment.

For example, it is estimated that air pollution is responsible for 16,000 premature deaths and hundreds of thousands of incidents of illness. There are at least 10,000 abandoned toxic sites across Canada, including some 5,000 within federal jurisdiction.

It can confer a heritage benefit in the protection and conservation of our natural heritage and a political and juridical benefit in permitting us to undertake our responsibilities as global citizens.

One can only welcome, therefore, the investment in tax initiatives in Bill C-49 intended to promote and protect a cleaner and healthier environment, including a partenariat with communities to help the environment and support for communities both urban and rural that actively contribute toward a healthier environment.

Launched last year and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, part of this partenariat, the green municipal enabling fund and the green municipal investment fund have been effective in stimulating community based feasibility work and investments in more than 100 projects to improve the environment in diverse areas such as energy and water savings, community energy systems, urban transit, waste diversion and renewable energy.

The budget doubles the green municipal enabling fund and the green municipal investment fund at a cost of $25 million and $100 million respectively in the current fiscal year. These funds in addition to the new strategic infrastructure fund and the existing infrastructure fund will help protect our natural heritage while creating jobs, promoting technological information and providing affordable housing.

It will protect air quality and promote energy efficiency through incentives for clean energy and energy efficiency. Renewable energy and reducing energy consumption are essential components of the government's strategy to address climate change and improve air quality.

Budget 2001 supports this objective by investing $260 million in a 15 year program that will offer production incentives for electricity that is produced from qualifying wind energy projects and will encourage investment in these wind energy projects.

Budget 2001 also invests $5 million a year to broaden eligibility for the income tax incentives that apply to renewable energy and certain energy efficiency projects.

It will promote sustainable woodlot management. The budget sets aside $10 million a year to eliminate a provision related to the intergenerational tax deferred rollover for farm property that sometimes led to the premature harvest of woodlots. This will ensure better management of the resource.

The next area is the toxicity of contaminated land. Across Canada as in most countries in the world contaminated land lies unused and unproductive. Such sites known as brownfields may have the potential for rejuvenation, bringing both health and economic benefits to communities.

Therefore a little noticed but very important item in the budget is that in response to the government the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has agreed to develop a national brownfield redevelopment strategy to ensure that Canada is a global leader in remediation.

There is a recent series of federal initiatives in support of the environment such as an initial $100 million for the sustainable development technology fund to stimulate the development and demonstration of promising new environmental technology, a contribution of $60 million to the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences to support academic research on climate change and air pollution, $150 million to renew the climate change action fund, $60 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to lay the foundation for future greenhouse gas emission reductions in accordance with the Kyoto protocol by facilitating the development of technology and supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, and $90 million allocated for the national strategy on species at risk to support habitat stewardship programs and other species protection activities.

This leads me to address three important initiatives regarding the promotion and protection of a healthy environment by way of conclusion. The first relates to the Kyoto protocol. As we can appreciate the world's climate is changing at an unprecedented rate. Without government action the long term consequence will be dramatic. In the north of Canada, as the Minister of the Environment has demonstrated, permafrost and sea ice are in retreat or melting. As a result Hudson Bay polar bears are at an increased risk of starvation because of a shorter seal hunting season.

The cost of moving supplies to communities on resource development projects is increasing because the ice road season is shorter and the traditional lifestyle of aboriginal peoples is threatened. We also feel its effects in the south with droughts affecting the agriculture and forestry sectors and the lower water levels of the Great Lakes disrupting our inland shipping routes.

In a word, both domestically and globally climate change is a major environmental problem that has an impact on the quality of life of all. Fortunately this past summer 178 countries finally reached agreement on the primary rules to implement the Kyoto protocol. In Marrakesh, Morocco in November we reached a final agreement on the crucial legal and technical details for the implementation of the protocol.

Canada played a key role in the four years it took to conclude the international rules to implement the Kyoto protocol. We now have a solid agreement that is good for Canada, that is good for the economy, that is good for the environment. We have a deal that will allow Canada and other developed countries to achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments they made in the Kyoto protocol in ways that are environmentally and economically sound in both the short and long term.

Admittedly there are challenges to overcome in reducing our emissions but there are also opportunities. Canadians have considerable expertise in clean energy and energy efficiency and there will be vast new markets for our know how.

Like the industrial revolution and the information technology revolution we are now in the cusp of the clean energy revolution. Clean sustainable energy can do much more than just reduce the risk of climate change and ensure cleaner air. It can also bring jobs, investment income and a competitive edge.

Similarly we recognize that the actions that need to be taken to achieve our climate change commitments will have costs, but there are also significant benefits such as lower health care costs resulting from cleaner air; job creation through, for example, cost effective building retrofit projects; lower costs for the forestry and agricultural sectors through the adoption of sustainable production methods; lower operating and production costs from energy efficiency; and revenue sources for municipalities from, for example, using landfill gases to generate electricity and the potential for exporting our technology and expertise.

When we hear the fears expressed with regard to the economic costs we should look at it in its total context, not only in terms of the economic costs but the economic benefits and the benefits to the environment, the benefits to health and the benefits to job creation and the like.

This brings me to my second major initiative: the species at risk bill. I support the amendments from the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development that were put forward in three respects. The first is strengthening habitat protection in areas of federal jurisdiction. This addresses the most contentious issue of witnesses with Bill C-5, that it does not make the protection of critical habitat mandatory even in areas of federal jurisdiction.

While the committee amended the bill to make habitat protection mandatory in areas of federal jurisdiction, protection is delayed for at least two years after listing until the action plan stage. This will allow ample time for input from provinces, territories, stakeholders and negotiating voluntary stewardship agreements with landowners or companies.

The second amendment I support is ensuring that the decision to list a species is science based and accountable. Bill C-5 allows cabinet complete discretion to decide which species to list at risk. There is no requirement to act based on science, no time limit and no obligation to provide reasons for not listing a species. It is important to note that a decision not to list a species can result in a species extinction.

The committee made three changes to the process for listing species. Cabinet will have six months to decide whether to accept a recommendation by the scientific committee. The recommendation then takes effect if it is not varied or rejected by cabinet and the minister must give reasons if the recommendations are not followed.

These changes were themselves a compromise.

The third recommendation that I would--

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001.

As the Bloc Quebecois critic on transportation, I will discuss the infamous tax on airline security. But I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to comment on the remarks made by the Liberal member who just spoke regarding the investments made by this good Liberal government, including in health research.

It was mentioned that the government doubled its investments in health research. This is fine, except that when it comes to finding new technologies to cure sick people and discovering new drugs for them, we must ensure that this is done through the universal medicare program that exists across Canada.

When the time comes to pay for the research conducted to help cure the sick—with the product of that research— it is the provinces that foot the bill. The federal government is only contributing 14% of health costs in the Canadian provinces. Such is the reality.

It is fine to double investments for research, but if the government wants to be logical in its approach, it should double its investments in health across Canada and Quebec. That would ensure fairness. Instead, the government is doubling investments for research in health. Again, that is fine, except that in a universal system, it is Quebec's social program that pays to treat the sick, to treat Quebecers who are in poor health, with the product of that research.

The federal government is not ensuring that investments keep pace. It has doubled investments in research, but it has not doubled their amount or their percentage in terms of health costs across Canada, particularly in Quebec. This is why all the Canadian provinces are once again unanimous in saying “the federal government only pays for 14% of health costs across the country”.

What the provinces are asking the federal government is very simple: to up its contribution to 18% in the coming years. But there is nothing in this budget in this regard. Do not try to find new money in all that is proposed in Bill C-49, the act to implement certain provisions of the budget. There is nothing in it for health related costs. Nothing has been increased. There is no indication that investments in health across Canada might be doubled.

I will continue more specifically with the measure that involves a tax, once again. In order to solve security problems—which is all very fine in itself—the government has decided to create a Canadian Air Transport Security Authority for the purpose. The decision was made to allocate to it a budget of $2.2 billion over five years in order to bolster security in airports across Canada. Obviously, despite a surplus estimated at over $9 billion—we shall see within a few weeks—the decision was made to create a $12 air travel tax for an outward bound trip, and $12 for the return half, for a total of $24, the famous 12-24 tax.

Taking this past weekend's newspapers—and I do not have any problem with doing so—more particularly a Canadian Press story of Saturday March 9, picked up in Le Droit , reference is made to the fact that “The air security tax will apparently bring in more revenue than is necessary”.

So, the decision has been made to create a tax that will bring in more revenue than is necessary. No studies have even been done. This has been proven in the House, because the Minister of Finance has been asked and has responded: “Given the urgency of the situation, we have not had the time to carry out an exhaustive study”.

Today, they are imposing a $24 tax that will bring in more revenue than necessary. What is more, an article in the Journal de Montréal on Sunday March 10 quotes the Minister of Transport as saying “The airlines should cut ticket prices”. The airlines had the responsibility for part of security—spending $120 million on it—but now it is the responsibility of the state. Quoting again from this article, “The Minister added, however, that any such decision should be left to the discretion of each carrier”. They will not, of course meddle directly in the administration of the airlines, but a tax will, nevertheless, be imposed, saying “It is up to the companies to lower the price of their tickets”.

This industry has undergone drastic drops in business because of the tragic events of September 11. Yet the federal government has never done anything to bail it out. Forget it, no help has ever been forthcoming.

Companies were compensated for the six days that airspace was closed, which is only right. Then they received a small amount of compensation for the increase in insurance premiums. As for anything else, that was it, nothing.

It was decided that free market forces would be allowed to operate. The result was the closing of Canada 3000 and cut-throat competition by Air Canada, which created subsidiaries, such as Tango, to try to shut down almost all other air carriers throughout Canada.

Free market forces were allowed to operate and Canada's sorely burdened airline industry was saddled with a tax which will not apply to all airports in Canada; we have drawn up a list. Twenty airports in Quebec will be affected, as opposed to 15 in Ontario.

I would like to read the list of airports in Quebec which will be affected: Alma, Bagotville, Baie-Comeau, Chibougamau/Chapais, Gaspé, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Kuujjuaq, Kuujjuarapik, La Grande Rivière, La Grande-3, La Grande-4, Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, Mont-Joli, Montréal (Dorval international airport), Montréal (Mirabel international airport), Québec (Jean-Lesage international airport), Roberval, Rouyn-Noranda, Sept-Îles, Val-d'Or.

All these cities in the regions will be stuck with a new tax. I can never say it often enough: when we want to discourage people from smoking, we increase tobacco taxes. The government has increased the tax on flying. It has created a new tax and it thinks that this will encourage people. It is even telling air carriers, “You should lower air fares. We did not help you when you needed help. We let free market forces operate, but now we are going to tell you what to do. We are going to tell you that you should lower the cost of a ticket by $24 so that passengers do not notice they are having to spend $24”.

I repeat, it is one surprise after another in the House. The Liberal government will never cease to surprise me. One day, Quebecers and Canadians will catch on.

One day, the government will have to account for its management. It is not true that companies can always be told what to do, how to operate, when the government is not investing a cent, in the airlines for instance. This is a real problem.

The federal government never once helped out this industry that experienced the heaviest losses in the history of Canada and Quebec in such a short time. It decided to charge users a tax to try to give a boost to business. Once again, it has the gumption to say in the House that it doubled health research, but at the same time, it did nothing to invest more in the health care system, in treatments needed by sick people. When we find a drug for a someone who is sick, we have to be able to buy the drug, to buy the technology and to train staff. This means nothing. The government decided to double its research budget, but is not investing any more in the health care system. That is left up to the provinces.

The same can be said of the airline industry. The government decided to create a new tax. Today, in order to help travellers swallow the bitter new tax pill a little easier, the Minister of Transport said, and I quote, “the airlines should lower their ticket prices”.

So, every time the government invents a new tax, it is up to the industry in question to find a way to absorb the costs for the Liberal government's good decisions.

I repeat, what has happened in the airline industry is serious, it is a situation without precedent in history. I think that some day, and I hope it will be as soon as possible, people will judge the government for its acts, for the fact that it has come out of this so brazenly, without investing, and letting companies such as Canada 3000 go bankrupt, leaving workers on the street.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-49, the budget implementation act. There are many areas we could talk about that would be affected. I will try to focus my remarks on a few.

The previous member referred to the fact that this government brought forward the largest tax cut in Canadian history. People are now filling out their income tax forms. I had constituents come to me on the break last week who said that that was ironic. They read that the current federal government provided the largest tax decrease in Canadian history. However they asked me why their take home pay was smaller. They said they never got more take home pay, that in fact it had gone down.

The government takes from one hand and then it gives a little back. The government takes a dime and gives two cents back and then wants Canadian people to thank it. We should get down on our knees and thank the government for getting two cents back.

There are a lot of tax increases but government members do not like to talk about that. They talk about the tax cuts but we do not see them. I tell people to look at their paycheque stub. That is the best test to see if they are getting another $100 more or $50 more a month. The answer is very clear that we do not. There is probably the odd case where a person actually has more take home pay for a number of reasons, but by and large almost 100% of people get less and less to take home. There is no question about it.

Our dollar, or as some refer to it the peso, this year hit an all-time low of 62¢. In November it hit five record lows. Canadians, with our 62¢ dollar, are still taxed at a 40% greater rate than that of our neighbours to the south. My wife's siblings were raised in Canada. They all have moved to the U.S., not because they wanted to but because of the job opportunities. People say I always talk about the U.S. and that I want to compare our dollar to the U.S. Let us look at the facts.

Since the government took power in 1993, our dollar has fallen 20% compared to the U.S. dollar. It has fallen 15% compared to the U.K. pound. It has fallen 9% compared to the Japanese yen. People ask why our dollar is performing so poorly. It comes back to the government. Our country has experienced poor GDP growth and poor productivity relative to the countries I have just mentioned.

It comes back to the economic policies of the government and its status quo style. The government does not want to engage or provide Canadian people, the entrepreneurs, the young people, the legislative framework or allow them to succeed. There is a mentality in the country that we should punish people who do well. If people are successful, they are taxed even more. This is not the right way to go. If there is a single thing we can do, we can allow people to be successful. We can encourage them.

Quite often we talk about brain drain in Canada. Some people will float out different numbers and say that we have a brain gain. They will do some math which will include the number of immigrants or whomever who come to the country. It is not the amount of people we are losing in this country; it is the quality. It is the entrepreneurs. It is the economic engine 15 years from now. It is the people who will create the wealth in this country and create long lasting sustainable, well paying jobs. These are the people leaving this country. Once they go, they will not come back.

If the country does not have a strong economy and if the economic engine is leaving us now, the people 15 years from now who will provide these jobs, we will not be able to afford the social safety nets. We will not be able to afford the public funded health care as we know it today. It is critical that the government act and act now, but we do not see that.

I will give hon. members an example. We have heard a lot about another new tax, which was just announced. Of course this is the airport security tax. The Liberal member stood up and said that it was a good thing, that the government had responded and increased airport security.

What the hon. member did not say was that the government was going to take $24 out of taxpayer pockets for every round trip ticket to provide that. In the U.S. it probably costs close to $5 to provide that airport security. Here was the telling part for me.

Members should talk to the airport security people at the airports. The Victoria airport is in my riding. I went through there yesterday. When I went to the screening booth, these people wanted to talk to me. They wanted to know what was going on. They had not heard anything. They did not know if there was a central agency. There was no training and no standards. This is the gospel truth. I was told that there was some new equipment coming in, but the security people were given only one copy of the manual at which they could look. This is airport security.

There is no question that the Canadian people want these security people to do a good job. The airport security tax for a round ticket will be $24. That will paralyze the new airlines coming on stream, such as WestJet which is providing incredibly good service and is making a profit. Imagine, a person can fly to Calgary from Victoria for $100. Canadians cannot do that on Air Canada. WestJet has targeted a different market, but it has a successful business plan and is making money. What is the government's objective?

If the government slaps on this new security tax maybe WestJet will move to the U.S. What is the government trying to do? Is it trying to drive another successful operation out? That is where the House needs to focus. How can we help Canadians to succeed? How can we help them keep more of their own wealth? That is what Canadians want.

Canadians do not mind paying taxes, but they want value for their taxes. Canadians want to see where their money is going. If hon. members talk to Canadians now they just about choke because they do not have a clue, They see the unaccountability, the spending and what is happening, and that is not right.

I could go on and on about this airport security tax. Then we have softwood lumber problem which is another whole issue. If I had to summarize the single biggest issue that I think the government should focus on, it is changing its philosophy and mentality of punishing people who are successful. We should be rewarding people who are successful because they will create more wealth, more jobs and encourage more people. Then our country will thrive.

We have the number one resource and that is our people. Our people want to be leaders. We must take the shackles off and reward them instead of punishing them for being successful in this country.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is number 83 in terms of closures and time allocations. It is a new record. It was the Liberal Party that complained about the Mulroney government when it invoked closure and time allocation more than any government had done in the past. The new record holders are here with us. The Liberals have been holding the record for some time.

Let us look at the way we operate in this place. The opposition usually has three or four times as many members present for debates as the government. We might as well shut the House down. No one seems interested in hearing the other side of the argument. That is too bad in a democracy. The government could have its representatives here to seriously debate the issues but that does not happen.

When the parliamentary secretary was answering questions earlier today a question was asked with regard to the committee coming up with a number of amendments that had been agreed to by members on both sides. Committee members had unanimously agreed, based on the testimony of witness after witness opposed to the tax grab, that the amendments were essential and necessary. However we might as well send a bag of hammers to the committees and spread them around the table because when they report back to the House nothing will have happened.

With the government and the way it rules it does not matter what committees recommend or what they hear from witnesses. The government will implement what it will implement whether we, the witnesses or Canadians like it or not. That is what we get because the PMO and all the front line guys that surround the Prime Minister have made up their minds. All the little puppets are prepared to jump up in their seats and support the government of the day even though committees, witnesses and Canadians do not. I say welcome to democracy, particularly in Canada.

I was relaxing on the plane to Ottawa. I was reading the newspaper as most of us do when we are on a plane. Lo and behold there was a nice little article in the newspaper. It said the solicitor general's department would spend $500 million to create cottage style facilities in our penitentiaries.

I found headlines regarding the air traveller fee. I brought some of them with me. One reads “One billion dollar Grit gouge takes off: Government underestimates passenger numbers in calculating flight surcharge, which will create a huge surplus”. Another says basically the same thing. It reads “Rage against the air tax from people who are affected most”. Another talks about “Sniffing out a pile of tax dollars”.

The government is good at doing that. For the nine years I have been here government members have sniffed around like a bunch of bloodhounds to find out where to get more tax dollars. Maybe that is why we are number one among the G-8 countries for paying taxes. It is because the government gets to do all these flowery, fuzzy little deals like building cottages in our penitentiaries for $500 million. Where will it get the money? It will sniff it out. Maybe it will get it from the flyers who go from point to point.

In my province of Alberta I have the pleasure of having a number of WestJet employees in my riding. They have visited me on a number of occasions asking me to fight hard against this kind of thing. We have a lot of flights going back and forth between Edmonton to Calgary. It is about a two and a half hour drive in good conditions, maybe three if one stays within the speed limit. Under Bill C-49 the flights would be $24 extra for those who go back and forth on them to do business. They would not do it any more. They could not. It would cost too much. They would drive.

Who would be affected? Maybe government members would be happy if WestJet joined Canada 3000 and the other five or six small airlines that went belly up. They would probably smile because they would have destroyed another one.

Thank goodness WestJet is bound and determined to stay strong and be competitive. The little competition it has exists in spite of and not because of the Liberal government. The government's proposed action would have a drastic effect on WestJet's situation and the Liberals know it. They ought to be ashamed for allowing it to go forward. However in their usual democratic process they will pop up in their seats like a bunch of sheep and puppets and do as they are told by the Prime Minister and his cronies. That is the way we operate in Canada. Lord help us.

In the meantime we have a serious situation across the country not just in the western prairie provinces but in Ontario, Quebec and many other areas. Once again in the budget there are zero dollars for agricultural assistance in spite of all the severe droughts we have had over the last three years. If we had another one this year it would be worse than we could imagine. What would it do to the number one industry in the country, the industry that provides more jobs and opportunities in small communities than any other? The government says it will provide zero dollars for extra assistance. What kind of outfit would think that way?

Yet the government can put $500 million into building cottages for bank robbers, thieves, sexual predators and murderers. That is the Liberal way of thinking. I do not know how much longer the taxpayers of Canada will put up with such nonsense. I do not know why they continually put people like that into positions of authority, people whose priorities are way out of touch with the normal people of our land who work daily to maintain our standing as the number one highest taxed country in the G-8. That is something to be truly proud of.

We have people who throw money this way and that way. Some $500,000 went to a company to provide a report. No one knows what the report is, where it is or what it is all about. The company that got the job to do the report had donated $70,000 to the Liberal Party. Is that not convenient?

We should not worry. It is only tax dollars. If we run a little short we will tax the airlines and put it under security measures. The U.S. can do it for $2.50 per head which is a whole lot less. We must do the same thing for $24 a head. However we must factor in that we have a government that does not care that the Canadian peso is hardly worth much any more.

What do Liberals care about? Is getting elected the most important thing? When will they start caring about victims of crime and doing things for them rather than building cottages for those who perpetrated the crimes against them? When will they do something about people working for minimum wage or maybe a little more who cannot afford to rent a good place? They are jamming together in warehousing situations and trying to exist under a high tax and high gouge government.

I have a hope before I die. Because I am getting pretty old that could happen any time. As long as we put up with people like this it might happen sooner than I want it to. I hope the day will come when Canadians wake up across the land and tell the Liberals enough is enough. I hope they tell them they are throwing money around like it does not mean anything for all these flowery, fuzzy, good Liberal things while they ignore farmers who are our number one industry, victims, homeless, and those living in poverty in the cities. It does not make sense to me. One day the Liberals will pay the price.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-49, the budget implementation bill.

We have discussed back and forth to some extent the concept of the airport security tax. In fact, the member who spoke previously discussed her dissertations in the transport committee of which I am also a member.

It is interesting to note that the agenda of that committee took us as far away as Washington to discuss with the American authorities the implementation of the U.S. airport security tax.

Much has been said in the House about the Canadian tax being $12 and the American tax being only $5. The theory is that somehow we are trying to gouge the travelling public in Canada.

We had the opportunity to talk to the director of aviation in the United States. It was clear in discussions with him that the Americans believe the $5 tax is inadequate to support the cost of the security implementation program and think the tax will have to be increased in the near future.

It is unfortunate that the opposition has focused on this discrepancy because in reality we are shooting at a moving target. We are a much more responsible government here in Canada because we realize the true costs and we are telling the general public what the costs will be. It may well be after the legislation is reviewed in due process that the tax can be reduced. It is better to have a reduction rather than an increase. We will see how it unfolds in the United States.

The previous speaker said that we were using this as an opportunity to increase taxes for the travelling public in Canada. I do not think anything could be more absurd. Today is the six month anniversary, if we can call it that, of the tragic events of September 11. That somebody would stand in the House and say that we are trying to take advantage of a situation as disastrous as that simply to increase taxes is absurd and I say that for what it is.

Debate in committee centred on the issue of who should pay and what and why they should pay. I talked to my constituents. Probably less than 20% of them are regular travellers on the airlines. They asked me why they should pay this tax because they are not users and do not consume the services, that it is the travelling public who do that. I have a lot of empathy for that. That is a fair and reasonable process.

Those people who use the airlines should pay. People who go to the theatre pay to go to the theatre. People who go to hockey games pay to go to those games. It is surprising to me that the Canadian Alliance, a party which believes in user fees, would actually have the whole Canadian population pay for the business people who travel on the airlines from Toronto to Montreal. Such is the strangeness that comes from that side of the House.

A number of members asked about the float planes and so forth. I notice that certified takeoff weight of not more than 2,700 kilometers is exempt from the charge. In other words, smaller aircraft are exempt from the charge. Similarly, the schedule of the legislation states that this charge would be imposed on about 90 airports. That means if it is not on the list, simply put, the fee will not be charged. There is a process to recognize smaller airports and smaller aircraft.

There has been ongoing debate within the country and within this place about whether short haul takeoff and so forth should pay the same fee as longer duration trips. It makes no difference if somebody has to go through a security system.

It does not matter if it is in Vancouver or Kelowna and it is somewhat irrelevant how many actual kilometres people are travelling, they still have to go through a security system. There is a cost to the government to administer that. Clearly, people have said if people are going to travel, then they are likely going to pay.

Some people in our northern communities and so forth are going to be upset with that. They are going to say that they have to travel. If they need medical help for example they are forced to travel. It is not always a luxury item. There may be other ways to deal with that than trying to use the airport security tax as a way of exempting some and dealing with others.

It is a problem not only in Canada. When we talked to the director of aviation in the United States he said exactly the same thing. There are many places in the United States where they cannot service the outlying areas with the current fee structure.

To use that terrible word subsidize, maybe we should subsidize certain types of travel in certain parts of the country to offset it. I think we are doing that in reality anyway.

It does not take a rocket scientist to know that it costs $700 return airfare from Toronto to Ottawa. A lot of us could not get halfway to Europe for the same kind of money.

There is a methodology of moving money around. I am sure many routes are not viable in Canada but we defend them because we believe that our country is bigger than simply small concentrated areas of high population.

The airport security tax is fair. Some people are concerned about the accounting methodology. The reality is that the Government of Canada had to pony up $90 million to start this. The airlines that were directly or indirectly responsible for airline security had not been keeping up.

The equipment that the airline securities corporation absorbed from the government in its setup to my understanding had never been updated. When it showed up on the screen that we needed more equipment and more modern equipment, the federal government had to fork out $90 million to make the system work. It is a reasonable proposition that the government is now trying to recover that. That is basically what the airline security tax is attempting to do.

People have made disparaging remarks about the accounting procedures and maybe we should amortize the cost of the equipment and so forth over a longer period of time. That is very well and good but the reality is the accounting for the federal government has always been based on fund accounting. That means that when it is off our books, it is off our books.

We are getting into a larger argument if people want to find ways to amortize the cost over longer periods of time. We are talking about changing the basic fundamentals of the accounting of the Government of Canada, but I do not think it is really part of the debate on the airline security tax.

In conclusion, I would like to say some positive things about the budget. I always put out a little circular for my constituents, which goes back to 1993 surprisingly enough. Our total expenditures as a percentage of our GDP have gone from 16% to only 12% but in fact the debt as a percentage of our GDP has gone from 70% all the way down to less than 50%. That is an excellent record for this government and one which I support. I am sure we are going to continue with that agenda.

[Gary Pillitteri, Liberal, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49, the budget implementation act.

Today is the six month anniversary of the September 11 tragic attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. The world is a very different place from what it was just six months ago. Those brutal attacks changed how we look at our security and our relationship with the rest of the civilized world.

After the horror and grief our thoughts turned to broader concerns. Canadians were understandably asking questions about our national security in the wake of those terrible events. Moreover they were worried about the possibility of repercussions on the Canadian economy. While we were not a target of the attack we saw how easily it could happen and how vulnerable we all were. The attacks could come from anywhere, be launched from anywhere, and take us by complete surprise.

It would have been easy to surrender to fear and shut our borders. Because of the terror experienced on September 11 we knew it was essential to restore a sense of personal security for Canadians. We knew something had to be done. It did not mean closing our borders. Our borders are the arteries that feed our economy and our prosperity.

I believe that the Liberal government acted quickly but not impulsively or irrationally.

The budget, dubbed a security budget, was not focused on raising bridges to the outside world or on isolating ourselves from the rest of the civilized world. The budget was aimed at making us better at determining where the threats would come from and to try to stop them before they could cause the sorrow and destruction experienced by our neighbours.

Beefing up security did not mean spending money to build walls but it meant investing wisely to determine who were our friends and who were our enemies. Budget 2001 earmarked $1.2 billion for border security. More than $600 million would buy new equipment to help customs officers detect explosives and other dangerous materials while still allowing people and goods to move smoothly.

The added funds would enhance our ability to respond to any unconventional attack, to improve our emergency preparedness and increase support for the military. Additional funds would go the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP for intelligence and policing. The screening of new arrivals would be enhanced. In addition, the funds allocated would buy new information-sharing technology that would help Canada and American border authorities screen travellers at airports and other border entry points that line our 4,000 mile frontier.

My riding of Niagara Falls is a border riding where enormous amounts of goods move between Canada and the Untied States each day. Great numbers of my constituents depend upon the safe, secure and fast movement of people and goods. Many of my constituents feed their families and build their homes and dreams from trade with our great ally, the United States.

In December 2001 I accompanied the Minister of National Revenue to Washington, D.C. There I met with the head of U.S. customs to ensure that the fear and anger that was generated by the kamikaze-like attacks of September 11 would not result in the closure of our borders. The results of a move like that would only make all of us poorer.

Canadians want smarter borders that would maintain our prosperity and build a sense of security in all of us, borders that would tell our greatest trading partner that we are its best defence. More secure borders mean better roads and bridges.

In this budget the government has created a $600 million program to improve the nation's infrastructure that supports major border crossings.

However the budget is not just about security. It is also about the well-being of Canadians. Lately there have been those who say the federal government is not doing enough to ensure health care for Canadians. Budget 2001 confirms that the publicly funded health care system reflects more than ever the fundamental values shared by all Canadians.

This budget confirms that the $23.4 billion in funding to support the health and early childhood development agreements reached by the first ministers in September 2000 would be fully protected notwithstanding the economic instability that we experienced at the time of the budget. Reinvesting in health care has been the number one priority of our government since balancing the budget. Provinces are receiving $2.8 billion more in social transfers. Next year the increase would rise to $3.6 billion and these amounts would keep growing.

I take this opportunity to remind those who insist that the Government of Canada is not doing its part when it comes to health care that by the year 2005-06 the Canada health and social cash transfer would increase by $5.5 billion. This is a 35% increase over the 2000-01 levels. By then the total cash transfer to the provinces would reach $40 billion. The federal involvement in health care includes not only health services but also health information and health related research and innovation.

This budget would strengthen the federal government's contribution to Canada's social health care system by providing $95 million to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Those who claim that the Government of Canada is not doing enough conveniently forget all about this. They forget that budget 2001 would provide a $75 million increase to the annual budget of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Budget 2001 would ensure that the environment remains a priority. Both the green municipal enabling funds and the green municipal investment fund would have their funding doubled in this budget by $25 million and $150 million respectively. Our commitment and resolve to balanced budgets did not change. Budget 2001 is a balanced budget and we foresee balancing the budget for the next two years as well.

This budget would protect the tax cuts as well as the health and early childhood development agreements with the provinces. The government's sound fiscal management would result in a falling debt to GDP ratio. Next year for the first time in 17 years it would fall below the 50% mark. This is an achievement.

At the same time the government would increase program spending for the year 2001-02. Seventy-five per cent of that program spending would be earmarked for health care, security, employment, insurance benefits and the elderly. Budget 2001 shows how our country is committed to the global campaign against terrorism. With the measures announced in this budget Canada has demonstrated its solidarity with the United States and has pledged its support. However, the government will continue to work hard to manage our economy, to ensure a safe society and to improve the quality of life for Canadians.

Canada has been transformed economically since the Liberal government took office in 1993. We are now facing unforeseen and enormous fiscal pressures. The good news is that, thanks to the efforts of Canadians, our country is well positioned to withstand these pressures and to enjoy renewed growth in the next year. We plan to do this by keeping Canada safe, terrorists out and our borders open.

[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.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the public has unanimously heard the loud cry for democracy from the opposition. What we and the public have heard is a violation not only of the rights of the members of the House but the rights of the public at large.

The public should be aware that the members in the House work hard to put forth fair and reasonable legislation. However, the process, which has been adhered to by the members of the House to put forth amendments to Bill C-49, has been violated and disabused by the minister and the Prime Minister's Office. There seems to be an unholy kobold going on between senior bureaucrats and the Prime Minister's Office and between unelected, invisible, unaccountable members on both sides to squeeze members of the government and force them to do things that they would not otherwise not do. This violates the basic rights of members of the House and, by doing so, violates the basic democratic rights of members of the public.

I will deal with three major parts of Bill C-49: first, accountability and parliamentary authority; second, the Canada fund for Africa; and third, the Canada fund for infrastructure.

On the issue of the motions presented today by my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, we have some serious problems with the domestic surcharge. It will gut and severely compromise the ability of people to fly and thereby the economies, not only of large and medium cities but also small towns. It will also compromise the ability of airline workers, who often do not live in the cities in which they work, to get from their home to their workplace. It will cost them $24 for each round trip they take.

It will cost flight attendants, people who do not make a lot of money, $25 every time they go to work. This is ridiculous. This will force many of these people to quit work. This is a hidden consequence that I am sure the minister has not taken into consideration but one of great concern to the people who work in the airline industry. If we were to add up this amount of money over the course of a year it could have a huge impact on these people who do not make a great deal of money?

The security fee would also be applied unevenly between cities and even between carriers. If one were to fly Air Canada from Victoria to Vancouver, a surcharge would have to be paid. If one were to fly Harbour Air there would be no extra charge. We are not suggesting for a moment that this fee be charged to Harbour Air. We are only demonstrating the unevenness and unfairness of the tax.

No one should pay taxes for services not received. Many people from small towns who will be paying this tax will not have the privilege of having access to the security arrangements the fee will be applied to.

I will speak now about parliamentary accountability and authority. Day after day we hear tales of woe about what is taking place in committees. Committees are supposed to be a place where the public can make intelligent interventions that will be listened to by the government. Committees have the ability to put forth good documents with good ideas and good solutions to address big problems that affect Canadians but the opposite is taking place.

What we have is a situation where the Prime Minister's Office, through the minister, is tightly controlling the committees' activities. Committee members do not have the flexibility nor the power to do their jobs. Therefore the efforts of all those well-meaning Canadians who come in front of committees to put forth meaningful interventions, I am sad to say, are wasted.

I cannot think of a democratic country in the world where committee structures are so hamstrung and so neutered that members simply cannot do their jobs.

It was not like that when many of us were elected in 1993. The government made good promises to reform the committee structure because it made sense. It made sense to liberate members of parliament from all sides so they could do their work, use their skills, put forth constructive solutions and have those solutions listened to. However that has not been taking place. We have an utter violation of the meaning and the spirit of the committees. We have seen egregious attempts at hijacking those committees, such as the one mentioned by my colleague from Elk Island, the finance committee which is one of the most important committees in the House of Commons.

I will now talk about the Canada fund for infrastructure, which is part six in Bill C-49. We know infrastructure can be a good thing. In fact my party supports infrastructure where it is used for the betterment of the people. However the current situation is anything but that. When the former auditor general audited infrastructure grants, he found that infrastructure did not do what it was supposed to do. I will give some facts.

The auditor general's 1999 report found that the treasury board claimed that in 98% of cases, short term job creation occurred. The actual number was 3%. The treasury board also claimed that 34% of the infrastructure programs funded would result in increased economic competitiveness. The auditor general found that the actual number was 5%. Treasury board claimed that economic stability would improve by 40% but the actual number turned out to be 12%.

Infrastructure programs have often been used to fund bowling alleys, hockey players and their rinks, and to upgrade bocce ball courts. Taxpayer money should not be used for those things. Taxpayer money should be used for infrastructure development that will improve competitiveness, create jobs and improve the economic situation within communities. It cannot be used as a political pork barrel.

The last thing I will talk about is the Canada fund for Africa, a half billion dollar fund proposed by the Prime Minister. We are all for funding programs that work but we want transparency and accountability in the program. We want full access to all aspects of the fund, including access to information and privacy.

If the government wants this fund, it should consider it in this fashion. A civilian in Africa should be at the centre of the program. Around the wheel there needs to be five components: the environment, good governance, primary health, primary education and a good economic environment that includes good monitoring of fiscal policy, the protection of foreign and domestic investors, and anti-corruption laws.

There also has to be a quid pro quo. The moneys that are spent have to be spent at the sharp edge of aid. They cannot be spent domestically. The public would be very interested to find that when we analyze where a lot of aid money goes, more than half of it is actually spent on health here in Canada. It does not go to the sharp edge where people are in need.

It is important that the government look at all five of those components. If any of those components are missing, the structure will actually fall apart. Primary health, primary education, good governance, anti-corruption laws, good monitoring of fiscal policy and a commitment by the receiving country that it will actually engage and be a full partner in this is essential. If we do not have the commitment of the receiving countries then this fund will go down as a waste of money. We will only be able to spend this money profitably in the long term if the moneys that are spent have long term effects, and we will only have that if the recipient country is prepared to have the measures I mentioned: good governance, good monitoring of fiscal policy, investment in primary health and education, and strong anti-corruption laws.

I would like the government and the public to listen very closely to what my colleagues and my party have said about the bill. The bill has been railroaded by the government. The government has violated the democratic rights of the members of the House and the public by actually throwing out our good ideas for its own political gain.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, during parental leave, employment insurance benefits cease immediately following the death of the baby. In Canada, one thousand mothers a year experience this tragedy, and on top of that, they lose their benefits as well. This is inhumane and unacceptable.

The report on Bill C-49 contains a proposed amendment to continue benefits for two additional weeks following the death of a child.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development show her human side and support this amendment?

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-49, with which the Minister of Finance, in his last budget, applies an additional tax.

When we want people to stop smoking, all we can do is impose a tax. The higher the tax, the more cigarettes will cost, and the more likely the consumer is to decide to stop smoking.

Someone who can afford to fly to Florida can probably afford the $24 air security tax, but where the problem lies is that the tax the Minister of Finance announced in his last budget, which will be applicable starting March 31, 2002, applies to domestic flights in the regions. Through the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance, the federal government has just hammered the last nail in the coffin of the regional airports.

This is nothing new. Since the Liberals came to office in 1994, they have busied themselves with collecting money and then no longer distributing it to the regions.

Yesterday the NDP moved a motion that listed 12 good reasons to stay in Canada and conduct reforms. This morning, if we were to draw up a list, those of us from Quebec could provide 100 good reasons to withdraw from Canada. One of these good reasons is that the federal government has withdrawn from regional development and its own infrastructure in the regions. This started right away in 1994.

Will closing control towers in airports and eliminating air traffic controllers reassure passengers? In an airport such as the one in Baie-Comeau, there are control towers, and there used to be air traffic controllers. They were not there for fun, they were there to ensure safety. There have been accidents; an Air Satellite plane had an accident. It was not the airport security service that found the plane that had crashed, nor was it the RCMP, it was the volunteer firefighters from the town of Baie-Comeau.

Fire prevention services have also been eliminated in regional airports. This is important in the unfortunate event of an accident at an airport. The federal government had decided, through equipment and personnel, to provide an adequate fire fighting service, if there was a plane crash at an airport. This was eliminated. It no longer exists at regional airports.

The federal government will assign a category to an airport, based on use. Airports will now be classified as either important, intermediate or, just because of a lack of use, as airports that the federal government no longer considers in its air transportation action plans because of a drop in activity. I will explain later why this leads to a drop in airport use.

In the last ten years, the federal government has not invested a cent in regional airports. These are white elephants with deteriorating equipment. Besides, the federal government has a policy of airport divestiture. Today, it plans to sell to local corporations those white elephants with obsolete equipment and infrastructure that is inadequate , and unsafe in some regards.

Following the extensive consultations on airports carried out by the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, together with the transport critic and member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, I have come to the conclusion that it would be preferable for the federal government to remain the owner of its airports and to let local authorities administer them. It would be better for the federal government to remain responsible for its infrastructure, in order to be able to set its own standards. If airports were transferred to local corporations, there is a risk that the federal government could change its legislation, regulations and standards, which would result in a reduction in the profitability of airports.

On the other hand, if airports end up closing, the federal government will wash its hands of it, saying “We are not to blame for the Baie-Comeau closing, as for the one of Saint-Irénée, in Charlevoix”.

I believe that the Competition Bureau has not done what it should have to increase the level of movement and improve customer service in the regions. The bureau, which is under federal jurisdiction, has not done its job. Let me explain.

In Baie-Comeau, Air Canada had a subsidiary company called Air Alliance or Air Nova, which competed fiercely to get to service the North Shore region. I have always seen Air Canada as a predator. Today, this company has a monopoly and no longer provides services to its customers. Now that it has forced InterCanadien into bankruptcy, it fixes schedules as it pleases. InterCanadien was a subsidiary of Canadian Airlines.

Profits were being made and there was a competitive environment. Two aircraft would arrive at 15 minute intervals. Air Canada's white and red aircraft would arrive at 7.30 a.m., while Canadian Airlines' white and blue aircraft would land 15 minutes later. Travellers had a choice of schedules and airfares. That allowed people from Charlevoix and north shore to come to major urban centres such as Quebec City and Montreal. All this has disappeared because of Air Canada's tactics.

Air Alma is no longer in the picture. In western Canada, I am convinced that Air Canada will succeed in eliminating WestJet. The situation there will be the same as in Baie-Comeau, with only Air Canada, mediocre services, airfares going up and inadequate schedules. Again, there will be fewer flights, with the result that one day airports will be closed.

Prices are on the rise and we know that the government just imposed a new tax that will come into effect on March 31. That tax is $12 for a one way trip and $24 for a return trip. A passenger who makes a return trip between Baie-Comeau and Quebec City already has to pay $460 for his airfare and will now have to shell out an additional $24, which means that his return trip, often completed on the same day, will cost close to $500.

One can fly from Montreal to Florida or Mexico for the same cost. In the regions, we have no choice but to fly, for reasons such as our schedules, availability, the weather and various other factors.

There is a lack of services in the regions. We only have one carrier. If it decides to stop flying between Baie-Comeau, Quebec City and Montreal, and instead flies only between Baie-Comeau and Montreal, what are we going to do if we have a meeting in Quebec City at 9 a.m.? We will have to leave the day before and fly from Baie-Comeau to Montreal, then from Montreal to Quebec City, and stay overnight in Quebec City to attend the 9 a.m. meeting the next morning. If that meeting ends at 5 p.m., we will have to fly back to Montreal, stay overnight and, the next morning, make the trip between Montreal and Baie-Comeau.

What will happen? Business people, who cannot afford to take three days just to attend a meeting in Quebec City, will decide to drive the 450 kilometres to get there and the 450 kilometres to get back. Again, the number of passengers will go down, which means that profits will also go down and that, some day, there will no longer be any airline serving the regions. They will say that it is no longer profitable, that it does not work, that there is no longer any business. And then the airport will close.

This is unacceptable, in a region such as the north shore—whether it is Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau or Saint-Irénée, in the riding of Charlevoix—for the federal government to levy a $12 tax on a one way ticket and $24 on a return ticket.

The Liberal government is really hindering regional development. We have to get professional services. We have to import professional services into the regions, and there are professionals in the regions who have to go to other institutions.

This is the case in health services. A person living in Baie-Comeau and having to consult a specialist in Quebec City or Montreal has to travel by plane. Unfortunately, flight schedules do not always allow this and the costs are very high.

For example, a student going to a university in Quebec City or Montreal cannot afford to travel by air. He or she must travel by bus. This too leads to a drop in the number of passengers.

In concluding, I must say that the Liberal government will once again wash its hands and say, “I am not the one who closed the airports; it is the local authorities who did”.

The federal Liberal government rakes in billions of dollars to the detriment of the regions. This is an excellent reason for demanding our sovereignty. I say to Quebecers, particularly those in the regions, let us wake up and, at the next referendum, let us vote yes for Quebec's sovereignty.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill which is particularly important for the airline industry. I know there has been some controversy and I want to speak to Motions Nos. 1 and 2 since debate has been permitted on Motion No. 1 moved by the member for Calgary West. First I would like to make some preliminary remarks.

This is a budgetary measure because of the charge that has been imposed to provide for the financing of all the various improvements under the air security authority. The Minister of Finance and his officials, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance have all had carriage of the bill in the House. I thank them for their hard work. In particular, the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions have come in for some rather unwarranted and unjust criticism in the House during question period in defending the charge.

Perhaps I can give a little of the background. The events of September 11 were such that we had to act quickly. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister agreed there should be a security based budget. As a result a lot of work was done under incredible time pressure.

Transport officials and I as minister talked to the Minister of Finance in November. Traffic flows were still uncertain. We had good reason to believe that Canadians would go back to travelling in large numbers and that is indeed happening. However at the time of the preparation of the budget we were not in possession of firm figures to denote that. As a result, the Minister of Finance had no other alternative but to be prudent and judicious with the taxpayers' money. We are talking about a $2.2 billion expenditure over five years. It was crucial that he have the revenue to cover the expenditures.

I believe the criticism he has come under is unwarranted and unjust. Perhaps there is some unevenness in the application as has been described by some of the aviation groups and the airlines, but the Minister of Finance has been categorical that he will review the charge in September.

He has also been categorical that this will not be a revenue grab by the government. These moneys will not be applied for other uses. This is not a revenue generating mechanism. That is why we are not calling it a tax, because it is not a tax. It is a user charge like other user charges, specifically to cover the expenditures related to the airlines.

I do hope members understand that whatever unevenness and few bumps we may have in the next six months, it is my hope that with traffic coming back, the Minister of Finance will be in a position in September after a review of the charge to make adjustments. He has given that undertaking. He is a man of his word and all hon. members should accept that.

With respect to two motions at hand, the hon. member for Calgary West put forward a motion, and I understand why, that clause 2 be amended by adding a couple of clauses but one in particular, that an annual report be tabled and that the annual report must include national, provincial and regional data on the effect of the air travellers security surcharge on passenger travel and economic development and a review of the impact of all other surcharges levied on air travel.

The Minister of Finance will be addressing those issues when he makes the determination as to whether or not the charge in its present form should continue. That will be in the month of September.

However, on the issue of the annual report, as a crown corporation the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority is subject to the Financial Administration Act and part I of schedule III of the FAA is amended accordingly by Bill C-49.

Section 150 of the FAA already provides that each crown corporation submits an annual report to the appropriate minister and the President of Treasury Board as soon as possible and in any case within three months after the termination of each financial year. The minister then tables the report before the House on any of the first 15 sitting days.

Section 150 of the FAA also species the information that must be included in the annual report: the financial statements; the auditor's annual report; a statement on the extent to which the corporation has met its objectives for the financial year; quantitative information respecting the performance of the corporation; and such other information as is required by the FAA or any other act of parliament, or by the appropriate minister, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance.

I would respectfully say to the hon. member for Calgary West that the FAA already has provisions which achieve the objectives of his motion which therefore make his motion redundant.

On Motion No. 2, which is to amend clause 2 of Bill C-49, we are providing for the appointment by the governor in council of the board of directors of the authority. The board is to be composed of 11 directors, including the chair.

The board's composition was amended by the Standing Committee on Finance to include two directors nominated by the bargaining agent that represents the greatest number of screening officers employed at aerodromes in Canada. At first glance this seems like a reasonable approach, but only if it fairly reflects the composition of the workforce. In fact, this is not the case for the air transport security industry.

There are 13 different companies providing passenger screening at airports. About half, approximately 2,500 screening officers, are represented by as many as six different unions. These include the United Steelworkers of America, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the Hotel, Restaurant and Bartenders' Union and the Labourers International Union of North America.

We debated this at length. We debated it at the department. We debated it at cabinet and in committee clause by clause. We understood that there would be pressure from labour for dedicated labour representatives among the representatives on the board.

However, there are other parties who are affected by the operations of the security authority and it is really not possible to put a seat on the board of directors to represent each stakeholder group. We think it is important to balance the benefits of representation on the board of directors with the need to establish a manageable sized board to facilitate effective decision making. Clause 10 as previously drafted at second reading does just that.

There is nothing in the legislation which would preclude the governor in council from appointing a labour representative or representative from any other stakeholder group to the board of directors, provided that those individuals met the requirements set out in the legislation. The board of directors would be composed of 11 directors of which only four seats would be designated for the two stakeholders most affected by operations, that is, the airlines and the aerodrome operators. This means there would remain seven seats on the board which would be available to represent an appropriate cross-section of the Canadian public.

If we were not to revert to the original wording in the bill, as proposed by the motion, in effect the largest union now offering the services, the United Steelworkers of America, would have permanent representation on the board and the union dynamic may change after the authority gets up and running. We cannot encumber an authority with the fact that it can only deal with security companies with one bargaining agent, i.e., the United Steelworkers of America.

I have met on two occasions with United Steelworkers of America officials. My officials have met with them a number of times. I have to say they have been extremely helpful in designing the bill. I think the rapport has been good. I do not blame them for having a last kick at the can in the House and in committee to try to get their point across. However, it has to be seen from their own particular interest as one union rather than from the perspective of labour as a whole.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-49, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 24 the following:

“15.1 No person who collects an amount as or on account of a charge within 90 days after the day on which this Part comes into force, shall be liable for any deficiency in the amount collected if the deficiency is the result of a reasonable error due to unfamiliarity with any aspect of the collection process.”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-49, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 22 on page 76 with the following:

“11. This Part comes into force on July 1, 2002.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-49, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 16 with the following:

“schedule and a prescribed airport except if it is

(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.”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-49, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 23 the following:

“(6) Despite any other provision of this Act, no charge shall be collected with respect to departure from a terminal at a listed airport unless screening was operational at that terminal as of September 10, 2001.”

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved:

Motion No. 2

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.”

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-49, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 5 the following:

“(6) 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.

(7) The report referred to in subsection (6) 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.”

[The Speaker]

There are 29 motions in amendment on the notice paper in connection with the report stage of Bill C-49.

Motions Nos. 1, 10, 17, 18 and 20 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been proposed in committee.

Motion No. 21 will not be selected by the Chair as it requires a royal recommendation.

Motions Nos. 3 to 9, 11 to 16, 19 and 23 to 28 will not be selected by the Chair as they are similar or identical to motions defeated in committee.

The remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1: Motion No. 2.

Group No. 2: Motion No. 22.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1 to the House.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will take up report stage of Bill C-49, the Budget Implementation Act, 2001. Next week is constituency week.

When we return on March 11 we will resume consideration of Bill C-49 dealing with budget implementation. I would note that in the week we return, Tuesday, March 12 and Thursday, March 14 shall be allotted days for the opposition.

With respect to the specific question raised by the House leader for the opposition party, I will of course consult with the solicitor general and provide what information I can.

Committees of the House

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to its order of reference of Monday, February 18, the committee has considered Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001 and reports the bill with amendment.

Species at Risk Act

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too have serious concerns about Bill C-5. Our critic, the hon. member for Red Deer, has been working diligently to point out to the government the shortcomings of the bill. Unfortunately there does not appear to be much attention on the government side to what is being said. I hope the government realizes it is not only the opposition that is saying these things. We are speaking on behalf of a large number of Canadians. Canadians in rural Canada would be the ones most affected by the bill. It would in many cases trample and trash their individual rights.

One of the rights it would trash is provincial rights. We have a constitution in Canada that says there are two sovereign parts. The federal government is sovereign in its areas of jurisdiction and provincial governments are sovereign in their areas of responsibility. It is clearly spelled out in the constitution. As far as I can tell, Bill C-5 is another attempt by the federal government to steamroll over areas of responsibility that belong to the provinces as their sovereign right under the constitution. The federal government is saying “Step aside, we are taking over”.

Species at risk do not always respect political boundaries. They may cross into Saskatchewan, Alberta or somewhere else and we may not even notice. Since they do not vote I do not think the Liberal government would notice either.

However that is not the point. The point is that we cannot ignore and trash provincial responsibilities and sovereignty. It is a thing we have debated for many years in Canada. We have gone through painful wranglings, first ministers meetings, constitutional rounds, referenda and so on about provincial sovereignty, rights and responsibilities. The government thinks separatism in the province of Quebec is waning and that it can go back to the old trick of saying “Who cares what they think, we will do what we want to do”. I hope the government realizes this is not the way of co-operative federalism. It should sit and negotiate these things with the provinces to get them onside.

The provinces have a heart as well as the federal government. I am not sure about a Liberal heart, but the federal government has a heart. It cares not just for the people but for species at risk. I think all Canadians care about species at risk. The question is, how will we do it? Will we trash people's rights to preserve the rights of species at risk? These are the things that should be debated.

I will go back to Bill C-49. It does not have much to do much with species at risk but I always like to quote a paragraph because it demonstrates the attitude of the government. I will show how the attitude pervades Bill C-5 as well. Subclause 36(3) of Bill C-49 deals with the federal government taking ownership of items currently owned by the private sector. It states:

The Governor in Council may require air carriers to transfer to the Authority, on such terms as the Governor in Council considers appropriate, their rights, titles, interests or obligations under any contract respecting screening specified by the Minister--

This is the important part:

--despite any contractual restriction on the transfer of those rights, titles, interests or obligations.

The whole body of jurisprudence and legislation we have built into contract law, civil law and everything else that guarantees a contract is a contract is refuted in one simple clause of Bill C-49. Not one of them is worth the paper they were written on because the governor in council says “On our terms you will transfer it to us”. What an attitude that is.

Let us look at what the government would do to Canadians under Bill C-5. On page 51, subclause 87(2) deals with seizing things. If the government could not figure out what it was seizing it would call it a thing. Whatever the government seized it would call a thing.

Under Bill C-5 the government could take people's property. If the owners could not prove within 30 days that it was their property the government could destroy it and that would be the end of it. Thirty days is all people would have. They may not even be in the country to know the government has taken something off their land. They would have 30 days to prove it was theirs. If they could not, that is too bad. It would be gone.

Bill C-5 is a fairly simple, draconian and arrogant piece of legislation that should not be tolerated by Canadians. Subclause 87(3) of the bill talks about perishable things seized by the government:

If the seized thing is perishable, the enforcement officer may dispose of it or destroy it, and any proceeds of its disposition must be paid to the lawful owner--

The government could seize goods that were perishable, notice they were starting to smell and decide to destroy them. How much would it pay the rightful owner? It would pay absolutely nothing because it destroyed the goods and did not sell them. It would have no responsibility to compensate the person who owned the stuff. That is a draconian, arrogant and wilful trashing of people's rights.

Clause 89 deals with investigation. In the world of criminal prosecution we have the police. It costs us millions of dollars a year to pay for the police. They go in, investigate crimes and lay charges. The cases end up in court, people may be found guilty, judges levy fines which are sometimes just a slap on the wrist, and that is the end of it.

For some reason or other under the species at risk act we would not only get fines of up to $1 million, which is more than a slap on the wrist. One would have to pay the costs of inspection, seizure, abandonment, forfeiture or disposition of the stuff seized. Not only would one get a fine. One would have to pay for the investigation.

Murderers, bank robbers and people who take property, trash it, destroy it, steal it and sell it do not have to pay a dime for the investigation. However there is something special about species at risk. As well as paying a fine people would have to pay for the investigation, seizure, abandonment, forfeiture and disposition. Perhaps hon. members would agree it is lopsided. These are the types of things that are in the bill.

Clause 90 deals with people walking all over private property. It says enforcement officers could go onto anyone's property when they liked, as they liked and so on with no right of objection whatsoever by the owner.

Let us say that is okay. Not only would property owners have to let enforcement officers on their property. They would have to give enforcement officers all reasonable assistance to enable them to carry out their duties. Bill C-5 would deputize property owners as law enforcement officers.

When someone is committing a bank robbery or whatever crime the police tell us to phone them and they will look after it. They say not to worry. If someone is running around with a gun they tell us not to get involved. They tell us to stay out of trouble and they will look after it. Under Bill C-5 if people were running around the countryside with guns shooting endangered species, whatever those may be, one would have a legal obligation to help enforcement officers even one did not have a gun. On and on it goes.

I have only spoken about two or three clauses of the bill. There are many more. I would like to go through the rest but surely I have given an idea of why we in my party object to the bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with report stage debate of Bill C-5 respecting species at risk.

Tomorrow we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-30, the courts administration legislation, and return to third reading of Bill C-27 respecting nuclear safety. Bill C-48, the copyright bill, will be our backup work for tomorrow afternoon if we have time.

Next week, we will return to Bill C-5. We are now in the third day of the report stage of that bill and I should think that the House would want to complete consideration of this bill without much further delay. As early as we can, depending on when Bill C-49, the Budget Implementation Act, 2001, is reported from committee, we will want to try to deal with it at the report and third reading stages.

Thursday of next week, February 28, will be an allotted day.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, February 7, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-49.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Species at Risk Act

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his comments because here we have a government member speaking out against the government's bill. It is heartwarming for the opposition, not in a partisan way but because the member has read the bill and has taken exception to some of the clauses and this whole notion of discretion. The government has become far, far too heavy handed.

I will read to the House one clause from Bill C-49, which is the budget implementation act. Members may ask what has this to do with the environmental bill, but this is an example of the government's heavy handedness. It refers to the creation of the Canadian air transport security authority.

How much authority will this authority get? Let me refer members to subclause 36(3) on page 11, and I will quote. This is the authority that the government will give itself if the bill passes, and the governor council is the cabinet:

The Governor in Council may require air carriers to transfer to the Authority, on such terms as the Governor in Council considers appropriate, their rights, titles, interests or obligations under any contract respecting screening specified by the Minister, despite any contractual restriction on the transfer of those rights, titles, interests or obligations.

What could be more heavy handed than that? Despite any contractual restriction on the transfer of rights, titles, interests or obligations, if the government says they will be transferred to the government they will be transferred.

Here we have on this environmental bill the government saying “On our discretion we may, if we feel it appropriate, pay compensation”. The government has an obligation to parliament to explain what it actually means. If it is going to write some regulations from here on in explaining what its discretion is, then I think it has an obligation to table these regulations right here in this place before we vote on the bill.

It seems only appropriate, but then of course this is not the first time the government has treated the House with contempt. The government will again treat the House with contempt on the bill, as it is treating with contempt not only the House but the private sector and anybody who has anything to do with air transport security. The government will say that despite whatever protection there is in law it is irrelevant and “you will do what we say” because the House will pass a law saying “we will give the government whatever it wants”.

Now, of course, there is this discretion. We heard the member for Red Deer talking earlier today about how the bill on the environment says a person is guilty until he can prove himself innocent. This trashing of the whole system of democracy that has been built up over a thousand years shows up time and time again and it has to come to a stop.

I live in the country. I am sure there are more members than I who live in the country and enjoy the country, but unless there is an environmental impact assessment certifying that there are no endangered species on the property, people cannot walk around on their own property with the freedom to enjoy it. They might step on something and kill it, and that is against the law.

I cannot overemphasize my disgust at the way the government brings in legislation through the House, expecting a rubber stamp after one day or two days of debate. If there are more than three days of debate it brings in closure and says “Enough of that, we have to get on with the work”.

It is not so. We read in the Hill Times today about a motion that is coming up for a vote, maybe next week. The former Clerk of the House of Commons is saying, and we have the title, “Parliament 'abandoned' constitutional responsibility”. This is in the Hill Times of February 18.

The government treats this place with disrespect. We are trying to stand up in an open forum and say on behalf of all Canadians that they need to know what the government is doing. If government is passing a piece of legislation it has to be exact and specific, but compensation at its discretion, if it is of the mind to do so, cannot be approved. I hope the House will reject the bill and reject these particular clauses. We must recognize that if we are to earn the respect of Canadians for being here, then we had better start exercising the authority they have given us. We had better start telling the government it cannot have this authority and amend this legislation before it gets approved.

Budget Implementation Act

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-49 which will implement some of the measures in the budget of December 2001. It is always a pleasure to speak in the House of Commons to such a large and attentive audience. I rarely have an audience like this so it is a real pleasure.

I was speaking to our House leader's assistant, David Prest, earlier today who really put the government's financial record into perspective for me. David and his wife, Carolyne Campbell, had a baby girl on Wednesday at the Queensway Carleton Hospital. They named her Amelia Carolyne Victoria. I asked David who she looked like and he said that he could not quite tell yet, but that the baby reminded him of the Liberal government. I asked him what he meant by that. He said that it was because she has a ferocious appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

The budget was a missed opportunity. It was an opportunity to address the security needs in our nation and to put us back on financial track but what does it actually do? If we look at what it does not do, we see that there were no new debt payments resulting from the budget. It is inexcusable, particularly to people in my generation but also the generations that follow, for the government not keep its fiscal house in order and pay down the debt so that we can have a future.

We see no new taxes in the budget. The government has been bragging a lot about the fact that it has held taxes to the same level since October 2000, just before the last election, and that it will not go back on its word, but that is inexcusable, especially considering that the finance committee's report recommended tax reductions, particularly on capital. Reducing the tax on capital would allow more investment in Canada and would help address the economic slowdown we currently are experiencing.

The fact is, the government actually raised taxes. As the previous speaker indicated, it has raised taxes in the bill for airport security: $24 for a return trip. It is inexcusable that the government is forcing passengers to pay such a high cost for airport security. We have to consider it in relation to all the other taxes that are charged currently.

The base cost of a return ticket between Edmonton and Calgary is currently $100. How much tax is added on to that $100 ticket? With this airport security charge, it will now be $86 in taxes on a $100 ticket. Then we wonder why people are flying less and less each year. It is not only because of the situation caused with the increased security and the concerns about what happened on September 11, it is because we are taxing airline travel too much and it is hurting our air industry. I believe seven or eight airlines have collapsed or merged since the Liberal government took over. That simply is unacceptable.

I had the opportunity of having lunch with someone from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association who said that payroll taxes were severely hurting his businesses. Payroll taxes, employment insurance and Canada pension plan, which have been increased, have severely hurt middle and low income earners to work their way up through society and pay for their families.

The EI surplus now is approximately $36 billion, which is unacceptable. As the auditor general has pointed out, a $15 billion surplus is more than enough to pay for any foreseeable economic downturn, including the one we are in, even if it worsens.

There is no reduction in program spending in any area. It was interesting to hear the finance minister earlier on in the year indicate that he favoured some reductions in program spending and that he would target and not move spending from lower priority areas to higher priority areas, especially given the events of September 11 and the need for increased spending for the RCMP, CSIS and defence.

However there was not one dollar in reductions in spending at all. There are many areas that have come to light, especially recently, such as Technology Partnerships Canada through Industry Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and a lot of the R and D investment. If times are good and we are sitting in a very high surplus position maybe we should consider investing in these areas.

However when times are tough, when the economy is in a downturn and spending is needed for other areas, surely that is the time when it is moved from these lower priority areas to higher priority areas.

If we look at other additional spending investments, at a time when our troops are overseas in Afghanistan we are spending more money on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian television fund. That simply does not recognize the priorities that Canadians want the government to have. They want more accountability and transparency in how their taxpayer dollars are used.

An older gentleman and a good friend of mine named Keith Cumming from my riding refers to this point all the time. He says we need to look at taxpayer funds as funds in trust.

Often when ministers rise to speak about spending they will often say their departments are spending the government's money on this or that. The fact is that it is not the government's money. The fact is that it is taxpayers money.

We do not own this money. Parliament is supposed to oversee this money and disburse it according to the priorities given to us by Canadians, but it is not our money. It should be considered taxpayer funds in trust.

This is an opportunity to address what are obviously the two most serious issues: the economic downturn and the need for increased security spending. The government failed in that aspect.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether or not the opposition supports our troops. Of course we unequivocally support our troops. The fact is it is our duty to stand in the House to ask on behalf of them and all Canadians that they be properly equipped.

When we send them into a situation where the rules of engagement are that they could very well face serious fire or serious resistance, we have to ensure that they are properly equipped. We have a situation where the equipment they are using will become obsolete over a number of years and where billions of dollars will be required in investment. Those billions of dollars are not being invested now. The fact is that the government will not be investing properly in equipping our troops. That is unacceptable.

The first priority of a nation and of a government has to be national security not only in the external arena but in the internal arena as well. Frankly those are areas where the government is simply not fulfilling its mission.

New defence spending of $1.2 billion is simply not enough. The Conference of Defence Associations, the Canadian Alliance and others have said that at least $1 billion to $2 billion each year is needed to address the shortfall in defence spending.

It was interesting in 1994 that defence was hit the hardest in the government's first budget. We are feeling the repercussions now. The decisions made then are unfortunately reaping the dividends of not preparing our troops and of not updating their equipment enough. The fact that the Sea King helicopters have not been replaced and will likely not be replaced until at least 2005 or even 2015 is simply unacceptable.

The budget was an opportunity to address economic fundamentals. One of the concerns Canadians in my riding raise with me is the Canadian dollar. They find it absolutely unacceptable that we allow a 62 cent or 63 cent dollar to exist over a long term.

If we look at what the dollar has done under the Liberals we see that it has been on a steady decline. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he complained about the Conservative government at that time having an 80 cent dollar. An 80 cent dollar is much better for us because the dollar is a symptom of the country's overall economic health.

The dollar signifies that our economic fundamentals are wrong, our productivity is too low, our debt levels are too high, our program spending is too high, our taxes are too high and thus investment is not coming in. It was released this year that Canadians are investing more outside Canada than inside Canada. It is unacceptable for a first class world nation to be in that economic situation.

We are the most blessed nation in terms of our natural resources. Yet we have a situation where the government is so mismanaging the financial aspects that we are becoming a second tier economic power. That is simply unacceptable and that is why I urge all members of the House to oppose the bill.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49. It is interesting that the bill is entitled an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10. I think it is important to mention that in view of September 11 and everything that has happened as a result of September 11, the government has spoken numerous times about making sure airports were secure in Canada. Shortly after we got back in September, the transport committee began holding meetings on airport security and a lot of things were brought forward.

In the government's news release on the budget implementation bill the number one item listed was to establish the Canadian air transport security authority which would deliver improved security at Canadian airports and on board flights. The second item was to implement the air traveller's security charge as of April 1, 2002, to fund the air security enhancements.

I suggest that when we look at the budget implementation bill, which contains about 110 pages, there are over 70 pages relating to the airport security agency and the collecting of the fee.

Nowhere in the bill does it say for sure that we will have improved training for airport security workers or that RCMP officers will be on flights when necessary. It also does not ensure that training will be improved. We see a lot of innuendo. The government has the audacity to say that it will deliver improved security at Canadians airports and then dedicates over 70 pages to the security agency, which, without a doubt, will be made up of Liberal appointees getting paid a darn fine salary for sitting on that agency with a couple of appointees by the airport authorities, the airport authorities that have been appointed by a Liberal government. Quite frankly that is no change to what we have. That is the status quo in my view as of September 11.

The airlines looked after airport security workers prior to September 11 and the security was contracted out to the lowest bidder. I do not blame airport security workers for September 11, not for a second. They were working under a set of rules that were in place and, for the most part, did their job as best they could.

Through the numerous witnesses we heard in the transport committee meetings, everyone maintained that there had to be improved working conditions, improved wages and improved training for airport security services. Everyone also maintained that there had to be a cohesive security package involved.

We should not have the RCMP doing one section, provincial police doing another section, security agents doing another section and possibly in another area some other security group.

The committee also felt that having airport authorities take over security was not the best route to go. Airport authorities also operate on a bottom line. Anybody who would suggest that one airport authority is not competing against another just has to look at Toronto and Hamilton where they are competing for the business. It is because those people who are on those authorities are being paid a darn fine salary. It is another level of management that has been put there to give jobs to a good many Liberals, although I am sure there is one token person who is not a Liberal, but, quite frankly, I find it appalling.

Something that is as important as the security of our nation and so important to improving the stability and confidence in the airline industry, and the government's approach is to let the airport authorities look after it again. The airport authorities can subcontract it out or the agency can subcontract to the airport authority which can subcontract it out to the lowest bidder. There is no guarantee.

Why on earth do we have security under the auspices of Transport Canada? What is wrong with this picture? We have a justice department and we have a solicitor general's department. Are they not the specialists in security and justice? The solicitor general's department should be the security specialist and should be in charge of security at our airports, our ports and at all federal installations.

How do hon. members feel about the Minister of Natural Resources being in charge of our health care or the minister of agriculture being in charge of communications? Something is wrong with this picture. Why on earth do we not have security under the solicitor general's department? Why are we adding another level of management that will be taking huge pay and not doing any better in providing security at our airports?

I am extremely disappointed that the government, as far as I am concerned, has exploited September 11. There is not a doubt in my mind. The finance minister and the cabinet saw another way of getting a little bit more money into general revenue coffers so they put in a $12 security tax. I need to clarify that. It is $11.22 security tax and on top of that will be the GST, which makes it $12.

Certainly, on something as important as airport security, Canadians should not be charged the GST. That rates up there with certain health care products and certain educational needs. It is just one more way of getting more money. The government has gone beyond being a government for the people, of providing services to Canadians, of providing good social policy and a good plan for this country. All it is out for now is to make a buck wherever it can get it out of the pockets of Canadians.

I am tired of hearing how much money we are saving on income tax. People may be saving $27 or $100 on their income tax each year but they are spending $200 to $300 in additional charges on things like NavCan fees, fees on some toll roads, increased health costs because so much has been cut, and increased education costs because there is no longer any fairness or equal distribution of dollars among the provinces. The government has less and less responsibility to put money back into the provinces for the needs of Canadians.

It is being set up as a place where the government can employ a few more people and give them a good wage to make it look good. The government wants the finance minister to make it look good because it has all this money sitting there. Of course it has the money. It is taking it out of the pockets of Canadians every day and not giving them back any services. Then they have to pay for those services again.

How could the Liberal government not have money? It has cut EI benefits. The benefits are so insufficient now that only one-third of unemployed people can collect EI. Workers in northern communities, where the cost of living is tremendously greater than other areas, have the same maximum earnings limit for collecting EI as everybody else.

We have a situation where a mine is closing in Leaf Rapids. A good number of workers have spent 20 some years in the north. Now they will try to collect EI. They will get their severance pay and will not be able to collect EI during the time they collect severance pay. They have to pay income tax on their severance pay. At a time when one is down an out, that is kind of annoying. If they have worked part of the year they have already reached that maximum allocation of money they earned and then they cannot collect EI. They go for months with no money or they have to go on welfare. They want to be an active part of society and work, but they have to go on welfare after working for years. Just because of cuts by the government, they have to go on welfare.

Obviously there is not near enough time to comment on everything that is or is not in the budget implementation bill screening but I do I want to mention one other aspect regarding the screening.

The equipment that the Government of Canada purchased for the screening of people going through airports will be turned over to the new agency which will then lease it out to the airport authorities, that will then increase the cost of airport fees to offset the costs of increased rents and fees for security equipment. It sounds like an awful lot of loan sharking on behalf of the Liberal government.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member who spoke before my colleague mentioned a couple of issues related to the budget. One was infrastructure and one was rural Canada becoming wired. I would like comment on a couple of those things.

The problem with the infrastructure programs that the Liberals have instituted in the past is that they have quite often ended up being boondoggles, handouts to friends and to special interest groups. They have not actually contributed to renewal of real infrastructure, like roads and bridges.

I do not disagree with the member that there is a need for some infrastructure investment, but not of the type that was done in the past in the $6 billion infrastructure programs that were introduced in 1994. Everyone knew that was a joke. They were handouts to all sorts of special interest groups. The degree to which I can support the member is; I would say yes, provided we really invest in real infrastructure.

As to rural Canada becoming wired, I think most people in the country would agree that that was a complete waste of money. The private sector was doing very well getting Canadians wired. Frankly, in areas where it was not economic to do so, people were coping by getting onto the Internet over the regular phone lines. This can be done on cell phones and satellite phones so I do not see any reason why taxpayers should have to pour huge amounts of money into that system. It is just ridiculous when the money could have been used in more worthwhile areas.

When I look at the budget as a whole, the finance minister has failed to put a stop to billions of dollars that flow out the door of the treasury every year by discretionary grants and contribution programs. Every year billions of dollars of taxpayer money is handed out by virtually every department of government in discretionary grants programs. It is fairly shocking when we look at where that money goes. I will give some examples of that in just a moment.

It is interesting to note that for three years now there have been generous federal surpluses, but instead of aggressively paying down our national debt, the Liberals use most of the surplus to significantly increase spending for their pet projects. As a result, it is still spending about 25% of the entire budget, $40 billion a year, on interest payments on the debt.

That is totally unacceptable because $40 billion a year could build 200 brand new Lion's Gate Bridges in Vancouver every year for what is being spent on interest payments on our debt. Instead of ramping up the spending to special interest groups, if the government had instead taken an aggressive approach to pay down of the debt, it would have freed up more money to spend on our important programs.

The problem is we have these terrible grants and contribution programs, and I want to give some examples.

The first example would be grants to political friends. The human resources development department has been atrociously handled over the past few years. We know that it wasted billions of dollars. It keeps sinking money into businesses that go bankrupt. The latest one is that more than $618,000 that was sunk into Celebrity Boats Corporation in the Prime Minister's riding before it went bankrupt.

Taxpayers have also backed loans to Air Wisconsin, Northwest Airlines, which is the fourth largest airline in the United States, to help them buy jets from Bombardier. Estimates of the cost of these loans to taxpayers exceed $1.6 billion. Frankly, the finance minister should be vetoing this corporate welfare and taking away the Prime Minister's credit card because it is just unacceptable to be blowing away this kind of money.

Then we have cultural nonsense. Quite apart from the almost $1 billion in subsidies to the CBC, there are numerous smaller amounts spent on questionable cultural grants that add up to hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, even though the previous foreign affairs minister skipped the world conference against racism in South Africa, his substitute, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism at the time, blew about $2 million on everything from child care expenses and bottled water to Starbucks coffee mugs, cookies and wall hangings.

Also, in this year's budget was around $25 million for provincial cultural events, 84% of which went to Quebec while the entire west, Atlantic Canada and Ontario received a paltry $3.8 million. The finance minister needs to put a stop to this sort of nonsensical and irrelevant spending.

The minister of heritage has a $2.2 billion Canadian heritage ministry. It has been identified by the auditor general as having no clear objectives, no criteria for measuring the success of its programs, yet the minister asked for a $26 million increase this year.

The example set by the minister herself leaves a lot to be desired. For the third year in a row, she topped the list for the most expensive travel budget in the Liberal cabinet. She racked up $159,000 in travel expenses last year, well above the travel budget for the previous minister of industry, Brian Tobin, who spent $105,438. Brian's bill though was for just six months of travel, so I would guess that if he was still here he would easily have toppled the heritage minister's record for the current year. It is time the finance minister called in their travel cards and cut them off as well.

What an example of misguided Liberal social engineering the gun registry has turned out to be. Just as predicted by Reform MPs back in 1994, the cost of the registry has spiraled completely out of control, yet the police commissioner to date has been completely unable to provide a single example of a crime either solved or prevented because of the registry.

We do know though of one murder which was apparently committed as a result of the so-called gun control legislation. A man in Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, who was prohibited from owning firearms incidentally, went to the RCMP and picked up a rifle that had been held in storage for him. He has now been charged with killing a 15 year old boy, but it has been reported that the aboriginal exemptions and adaptations of Bill C-68 forced the RCMP to give this man his rifle.

When the former minister of justice introduced the gun control bill in 1994, he promised us in the House that it would not cost more than $85 million over five years, yet the registry has already consumed more than half a billion dollars. By 2003 it is expected to reach a billion dollars.

Are Canadians really getting value from the $750 million already spent and several hundred civil servants employed by the registry? The minister should abandon this waste of money and transfer the funding to the RCMP, CSIS and immigration enforcement budgets where we could start to get on top of the criminal refugee problem that we have in the country. That is what we should be spending the half billion dollars on, getting rid of the thieves and cheats who come here because of our inability to control our borders.

The millennium bureau is another example of waste. It is unbelievable and amazing that the Liberals are still pouring money into the millennium bureau almost two years after the celebrations. This year they want another $9.7 million. Are they planning for the next millennium? I hate to think what the size of the budget will be 98 years from now. It is time for the finance minister to sell off its furniture and close the office down.

One of my favourites is the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. More than $100 million disappears into this unaccountable pit of government waste every single year. I have tried for years to get someone, anyone, to provide me with a logical reason why this sinkhole for taxpayer money should even exist, but the entire organization seems to be shielded from scrutiny. It is about time the minister pulled the plug on this one and made a payment on our debt with the saved money.

I have pages of examples here, but I know that my time is running short so I think what I will do is change the tone of the debate for a moment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor: “Bill C-49, an Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time, this day, six months hence”.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak, not as tribute to the Minister of Finance, but to criticize Bill C-49.

In reacting to a budget, it is normal for each member to take advantage of the opportunity to address the matters of most interest to him or her. The budget is, after all, the basis from which we can see where the government's policies are headed. The budget also offers us a way of seeing whether we will be pleased or disappointed by what the government is doing. It is also normal for the opposition to point out the weak points in the budget. I must say that, on this score, we have a pretty easy job of it, because there are many of those.

I have been following the debate on Bill C-49 since the start. I have heard the discussions on EI and on the situation in the regions. Yesterday, it was transportation. We heard how unhelpful the budget is in this respect, how in fact it is harmful to regional development. Communications and transportation are vital to regional development. This budget hits the regions where it hurts, by adding a tax on air travel.

I have heard one of the hon. members on the other side indicating that he was somewhat scandalized by our reaction. He asked, “Have you listened to Canadians?” and told us that they had toured Canada before bringing down the budget, had asked Canadians' advice, and people were, according to him, in agreement.

I do not think we have been listening to the same Canadians. We are not on the same wavelength. My concern about the guaranteed income supplement is well known. I have spoken with a good number of Quebecers on this. I have visited some fifteen different regions of Quebec and consulted with people. I have attended many well packed meetings in those regions.

Not a single Canadian or Quebecer asked me to tell the government to take over the employment insurance fund, that it can have the fund. Not a single worker asked me to do so. There is not a single worker who is not deeply shocked at the $42 billion in the employment insurance fund—$42,000 million—that belongs to workers. This is a fund to which the government did not contribute one red penny. This fund is sustained by only a part of society. Not a single Canadian or Quebecer told me, “It is a good thing that the government is taking over this fund and is paying the debt that is owed by everyone, is solving the problem of the deficit that is owed by everyone on the backs of the most needy, of workers who contribute to the employment insurance fund”. I never heard that. If someone on the other side heard that, I think he or she did not hear well.

In working on the issue of guaranteed income supplement, I did not meet either a single elderly person who told me, “The government is right to take our money”. It has taken $3.2 billion in the last eight years, $400 million each year, that belongs to the most needy in society, to elderly people who are the most vulnerable. No effort is being made to go get this money.

I can tell you that I did not have any congratulations to extend to the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance. This is a scandal that must be condemned.

It makes no sense that in this country, which has a Minister of Human Resources Development precisely to humanize the government's actions, we cannot do more to locate these people to whom we owe money. On this issue, there is not one senior citizen who has asked me to congratulate the government.

As for developing countries, we have heard all world leaders talk of sharing wealth more fairly since September 11. In terms of security, we are told that the best insurance policy against terrorism is to share the wealth. Let us stop allowing the same people to accumulate the riches, thereby increasing poverty around the world.

I recall a speech given by the Prime Minister here in the House, and another given by President Bush. However, there is one speech in particular that struck me, that of Tony Blair when he stated that once and for all, developed countries must decide to share wealth.

Lester B. Pearson, when he was the Prime Minister of Canada, was the first to propose to the United Nations that the rich developed countries reserve seven tenths of one percent of their budgets to help developing countries. It was Mr. Pearson, who won the Nobel Peace Prize incidentally, who sold the UN on this idea.

But in this budget, Canada's great generosity is taking the form of an amount of $500 million for developing countries, provided there are surpluses. I can tell hon. members that some 30 years later, after the wish expressed and the work done by Mr. Pearson at the United Nations, we are not at seven tenths of 1% of the budget: we are barely at one quarter of 1%, or 0.25% of 1% for developing countries.

This comes after the government congratulated itself for its work. Not too long ago, in the fall, I attended a committee meeting where they discussed hunger in the world, food and a better sharing of the wealth. I heard public officials from that department say that, at the rate things were going and given our generosity, by the year 2015 there will only be 400 million people in the world who will die of hunger. This is nothing to boast about. It does not make any sense to accept such a situation.

With $500 million in this budget, it is obvious that we will never fulfill the wish of a former Prime Minister of Canada, who wanted us to earmark at least seven tenths of 1% for developing countries.

Those who congratulate themselves for this budget did not look very far and they cut corners. When we have to make representations as we are doing now so that, for example, the elderly get their due, when the idea is obviously to keep a low profile to avoid having people claim their due, when the mandate is obviously to take the workers' fund to pay off a debt that was incurred by everyone, I do not think the government deserves to be congratulated.

Someone said “We did lower the contribution rate to employment insurance”. What did they lower? They do not contribute one penny. They are simply telling workers “We have good news for you. Next year, we will take a little less from you”.

When the contribution rate to employment insurance is lowered, it is the rate paid by workers and employers, not by the government. In fact, the government increases the possibilities of taking workers' money. This is a scandal that will not be forgotten. It is a scandal that is marked in time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-49.

I would like to deal with the parental leave under the employment insurance plan. I cannot deny I am happy with the impending chances, even if they are to be implemented over a two year period.

The government keeps repeating that the opposition is never able to give credit where credit is due. I am ready to do it today, even if I do not make a habit of it.

Fifteen weeks of sick leave, plus 15 weeks of maternity leave, and 35 weeks of parental leave add up to 65 weeks off. Last year, the maximum was just 50 weeks. The parental leave can be spread over two years.

I have a disagreement with the government however—after all, I cannot agree with everything all day—over the parental leave for adoptive parents.

The same conditions should apply to them. Under the bill, if a parent adopts a child, and the child is in hospital for three months, the parent will be entitled to EI benefits after these three months, and the benefits may be spread over a period of two years.

However, it seems unacceptable and discriminatory that during the three months the child will be in the hospital, the adoptive parents will not enjoy the same advantages the natural parents do. One can certainly imagine how adoptive parents who have often had to wait one or two years before adopting a child can feel when the child has to be admitted to the hospital.

The government can never do something completely right. It always seems to stop half way. It likes to compel us to challenge it. The government seems to like being spurred on by the opposition.

As the NDP whip, I will try to whip them into shape this morning. Once again, I think the government has gone against its obligation to eliminate this type of discrimination against people. We have fought long enough here in the House to say that there should be no discrimination against adoptive parents versus natural parents.

The government is introducing a new bill and this new bill too is discriminatory.

What will the adoptive mother or the adoptive father do while the child is in the hospital? What does the government have to say to the fact that the mother visiting her child in the hospital is receiving no money?

That was the whole idea behind the employment insurance system and Bill C-49, to allow parents to go the hospital, to take care of their child and extend the number of weeks.

Once again, this is why I say it is unfortunate the government missed the boat. It is unfortunate that the government does not take into account the global recommendations of the standing committee, which examined the issue of employment insurance. There is a $42 billion surplus, and all parties made unanimous recommendations to the government.

In the meantime, the government chose the bit by bit approach, and said, “We are nice. Every three or four months, we are nice”. They give a little bit here, a little bit there, a million here, a million there. They are like a bunch of people handing out peppermints every three months.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate today regarding Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled on December 10, 2001.

This wide ranging legislation includes measures to legislate in the following areas. It implements the Canadian air transport security authority which will deliver improved security at airports and on board flights. It implements the $24 round trip domestic air travellers security charge announced in the budget, which of course is discriminatory, toward short haul airlines and flyers two to three times higher than charged in the United States.

The act also amends the Employment Insurance Act and its regulations. These amendments provide increased flexibility to parents whose newborns are hospitalized for an extended period of time and clarify employment protection. There are no new benefits per se provided for in the bill. This issue addressed in these amendments affect approximately 7,000 women and 2,000 children, while the total cost of implementing these changes is estimated to be about $20 million to $25 million for next year.

The act also implements the income tax amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to push revenues into the following fiscal year when a budget deficit is more likely. The most visible amendment is the provision to defer certain income tax instalments for January, February and March for six months. This measure is accounting trickery and really has only marginal benefits for business, perhaps $50 million in total.

However that is not new.The government has been seriously criticized by the auditor general in the past for disregarding the generally accepted accounting principles to balance the books. It has front loaded and back loaded the expenses and revenues respectively to make it convenient for the government to balance the budget. For instance, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation was not even in existence but the funds for operations were included in the budget.

The act also provides for the new $500 million Africa fund to reduce poverty, provide primary education and set Africa on a sustainable path for a brighter future. This fund is without clear direction or a mandate nor does it have a control mechanism in place. Rather than logically putting it with CIDA, a government official was quoted as saying that the Prime Minister will make that decision.

Moreover, the act was also supposed to implement the $2 million strategic infrastructure fund which was intended to provide assistance to large infrastructure projects in co-operation with municipal and provincial governments, as well as the private sector. The government has flip-flopped on this particular issue. This fund will be under the control of politicians rather than under an arm's length board of directors. There is no policy statement or basis for approval of these funds. Thus it is the de facto Liberal leadership strategic slush fund. It will be distributed on a project by project basis.

The government's vision or, for that matter lack of vision, is supposed to be reflected through the Speech from the Throne. Any budgets, in turn, are supposed to fulfill the vision laid out in the government's throne speech. As is evident, the budget completely fails to do this. This is probably because the government has no clear vision to begin with.

The throne speech is supposed to be a statement of how the government plans to act and where it plans to commit taxpayer resources. Under this government the throne speech has become nothing more than an empty public relations exercise devoid of any true meaning.

I would like to look at some of the important differences between what the government said it would do in the throne speech versus what it actually did in the budget.

In the throne speech the government said it would focus on: creating opportunity by fostering an innovative economy; taking steps to make Canada one of the most innovative countries in the world; enhancing the skills and learning of our country, in part, by recognizing foreign credentials; strengthening our country's information infrastructure by expanding broadband access to remote areas; and fostering trade and investment by investing in areas such as skills, learning, connectivity and lower corporate tax levels.

Members will note that the throne speech ensured Canadians that every effort would be made to work co-operatively with the U.S. to ensure fair and open market access. Nothing has happened with the softwood lumber dispute. My province of British Columbia is suffering because of that.

The throne speech said the government would: help families by creating jobs and a stronger economy, especially for our native population; ensure health and quality of care for all Canadians by upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act; and work toward environmental preservation, including clean air, water and conservation of our national spaces. It stated that it would “safeguard Canadians from toxic substances and environmental contaminants”. I wish to mention that 8,600 tonnes of toxic waste will be coming to Richmond, British Columbia from the United States of America. I do not see how the government is creating a safe environment.

The throne speech also said that the government would: co-ordinate government programs and policies to support Canadian communities; ensure a vibrant Canadian culture and celebrate Canadian citizenship; and protect Canadians by fostering a more peaceful international climate.

From what I have seen in the budget and Bill C-49 the government has fallen short in every one of these areas. This means that it has failed Canadians by not implementing the priorities it outlined in its own throne speech.

Some people say the Liberals campaign from the left and govern from the right. However, I think they would say anything during the campaign to get votes and once in power would do only those things which fulfill their own agenda. We know about its promise to remove, eliminate, scrap and abolish the GST, but the GST is still here.

The Liberals said they would create opportunities for Canadians. Instead, we are falling behind in many areas such as: job creation, lowering taxes, paying the national debt, improving health care, improving the economy, and improving transportation and infrastructure. As far as job creation is concerned, although the figures indicate that the job creation figures for January are a little better, the situation in my own province of British Columbia it is still very bad.

Our standard of living and productivity continue to fall relative to that of the United States. This is made worse by the government's low dollar policy. The Liberals failed to significantly improve our economic competitiveness.

The Speech from the Throne and, consequently, the budget speech, fail to set the priorities right. It is the culture of the weak and arrogant Liberal government that needs to be changed. Wastage, mismanagement, patronage, corruption, cover-up, secrecy and favouritism are the benchmarks of the Liberal government. It plays politics with the important priorities of Canadians including the national sex offender registry, child pornography and victims' rights.

Over the last 10 years, the official opposition has come up with grassroots policies by listening to Canadians. These grassroots policies would set the right priorities for the federal government. The government criticizes us for our policies and tries to shut us up. In the end, it steals our policies.

There cannot be a band-aid solution to the national problems of governance, mismanagement, corruption and prioritizing the issues of national importance.

The official opposition has played a significant role in changing or improving the national agenda for the country. We have been carrying the flashlight and showing the dark side of the Liberals. We have been exposing their weaknesses and blind spots which they have left unattended. They have seen some light and stolen some of our policies. I wish they had stolen more policies. By stealing our policies they have managed to form three consecutive majority governments. Still they could not set the priorities right and improve the culture of the government to manage the issues that I have just listed.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, you are pronouncing the name of my riding well. I think you are beginning to get used to it and I am pleased about it. I do like to hear you say it.

Bill C-49 before us is entitled Budget Implementation Act, 2001. I do not know if taxpayers and listeners remember the date the budget was tabled. That was on December 10.

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

Mr. Speaker, after the September 11 attacks in Washington, D.C., New York, and over the fields of Pennsylvania the transport committee wrote a report called “Building a Transportation Security Culture: Aviation as the Starting Point”. To date there is no indication whatsoever that the report has been read by even one cabinet minister. Frankly, if it had I would not be here opposing Bill C-49 on the basis of its transportation components.

Bill C-49 fundamentally violates the standing committee's recommendations. There are two parts of the bill I find particularly troubling. The first would establish a corporate body called the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority which the government would put in charge of air security in Canada while giving it the mandate to delegate its powers to airport authorities.

At first this seems reasonable. It would appear to let large airport authorities manage all security activities on their premises while offering a helping hand to smaller airports. However when one examines the bill more closely and compares it to both the standing committee's recommendations and the U.S. aviation security bill its failings become obvious.

The U.S. introduced Bill S. 1447 10 days after September 11. It was a study in clarity. It specified what should be done, by whom and when. Under the bill the secretary of transportation and the administrator of the FAA are both charged with specific responsibilities and required to report to congress.

The standing committee was inspired by the bill's clarity. It recommended that a transportation security authority be created and that its mandate, methods of operation and accountability be prescribed by law. The committee further recommended the regime be subject to a statutory review one year after the legislation came into force. The authority was to be headed by a secretary of state for transportation security who, as a member of the House, would be fully accountable to Canadians through the House.

The government instead created yet another stand-alone agency whose board members would be named by the Minister of Transport. Subclause 34( b ) would allow cabinet to compel the security authority to provide such information as the minister may require. However there is no real accountability mechanism. Subclause 32(1) would allow the minister to refuse to table any information if he felt its publication might be detrimental to airport security, air security or public security in general.

The Air Line Pilots Association issued a press release two days ago saying the government was “creating yet another bureaucratic layer, in which the airlines and the airports would each have two of the eleven patronage seats on the board of directors”.

Had clause 6 of Bill C-49, which spells out the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority's responsibilities, specified that the authority's mandate be handed over to Transport Canada in a regulatory capacity we might have seen some accountability. However accountability is not one of the hallmarks of Bill C-49.

It is not surprising the government would like to isolate the Minister of Transport, on whose watch seven Canadian air carriers have gone bankrupt, from further responsibility and spotlight. Only the lion in the Wizard of Oz would consider it brave to hide behind a stand-alone agency and pretend it was accountable.

The first part of Bill C-49 bears the fingerprints of a government that is afraid to take responsibility, look after things and be accountable for its actions. It leaves one thirsting for leadership and a little more aware of the arrogance of a government which feels it does not have to answer to Canadians on this important issue.

My second area of concern with the bill is even more troubling. It makes one feel as though one has been robbed. Once one reads it carefully one comes away with the knowledge that the government has used the tragic events of September 11 to reach deep into the pockets of Canadians and take a bit more of their hard earned cash.

The bill would enact a $24 round trip air traveller security charge. For most Canadians this may not seem like a lot of money. For most Canadians it is about the same amount it costs to get to and from an airport in a cab. The government is hoping we will not notice it is yet another tax grab. It is hoping we will believe its spin that members of the travelling public would pay the fee because they would be the true beneficiaries of the service.

As a general rule there is a big difference between a fee and a tax. A fee is associated with a tangible benefit. University students pay fees. Universities deliver classes in return. One pays a fee, one gets a service. Generally there is a relationship between what one pays and what one gets.

A tax, on the other hand, is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as:

A pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government, and is a payment exacted by legislative authority.

There is no connection to a specific benefit. The money extracted goes into a black hole and, depending on the integrity of the government, may be spent on things citizens want such as health care and roads.

After much careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the $24 round trip air security fee is much more like a tax than a charge. There are four reasons to believe the charge would be a money maker for the government. First, in the first year of the new tax, 2002-03, clause 7 of Bill C-49 forecasts $340 million in expenses yet table 5.1 of the budget forecasts $430 million in revenues. That is a $90 million surplus in year one. In year five the budget forecasts a $139 million surplus.

Second, the fee is set at a level which exceeds the amount required to pay for the service. In Canada the charge would be $24 per round trip. That is two to three times the level of similar fees introduced in the United States post-September 11. The U.S. fee is $2.50 per flight to a maximum of $5.00 per round trip. That is respectively $4 and $8 Canadian. In the U.S. if one flies from Dallas to Houston round trip on the same day one pays $8 Canadian. If one flew from Edmonton to Calgary round trip on the same day one would pay $24 Canadian. That is three times as much.

Let us think about that. The U.S. was the country attacked by terrorists on September 11, yet our security fees would be triple those of the U.S.

Third, there is no relation between the cost of the service and the charge being collected. If one flew one way from Montreal to Vancouver one would pay a $12 air travel security fee. If one flew one way from Montreal to Mexico City one would pay a $24 air travel security fee. In both cases one would walk through the same security checkpoint and board the same airbus A-320 for a five and a half hour flight to a destination 2,300 miles away. However in one case the fee would be $12 and in the other it would be $24. It would be the same service for double the price. That is a tax grab.

David Eckmire, chair of the Saskatoon Air Services Group, says the security fee collected at Saskatoon airport would be $5 million annually. That would equal the entire operating budget of the airport in the fiscal year.

Fourth, the fee would target people who would not benefit from any of the services it proposes to offer. If one flew from Vancouver's south terminal to Victoria, Campbell River or Comox one would pay the $24 round trip air travel security charge even though one probably would not go through airport security anywhere during the trip.

The real reason to fight the charge is not that it is another tax grab by the Liberal government. It is that it serves as a strong disincentive against people flying again. We all remember the efforts President Bush made to convince Americans to fly again. In Canada our government is taking a contrary position.

In the House last week I raised the issue of taxation on air travel security. It should be of interest that in Ontario as of February, 1998, the last year for which I could get reliable statistics, 56.69% of the price of a carton of cigarettes consisted of taxes in one form or another. That is high but deliberately so. It is government policy. It is done out of principle to discourage people from smoking.

If the air travel security charge were applicable today the $119 Toronto-Detroit web saver fare Air Canada advertised yesterday would be $285.12 after Canadian and U.S. fees and taxes had been added in. Taxes and fees would comprise $166.12 of the total fare or 58.26% of the price. In other words, Canadian legislators believe a cigarette tax of 56.7% will stop people from smoking but an air ticket tax of 58.26% will not stop people from flying. Clearly that is ridiculous but it is Liberal logic in action.

In the same spirit that allowed seven air carriers to go bankrupt on his watch, the Minister of Transport quietly predicted airline passengers would not be deterred by the latest tax grab. He pointed out that the cigarette tax level is only reached when taxes and fees are taken as a percentage of transborder flights. However that is not true. The truth is even darker.

If we look at Air Canada's web saver fares for the coming weekend we find a $99 fare between Calgary and Kelowna, an $89 fare between Victoria and Vancouver and a $79 between Toronto and Sarnia. All three fares are highly competitive. Air Canada is making an effort to get more people flying.

Then the government gets involved. If we added the $24 round trip air traveller security fee to the other taxes and charges the Toronto-Sarnia $79 fare would become $163.10. We would pay twice the advertised price after all the taxes and fees were taken into account. Let us not forget that the government says a 57% tax on cigarettes is designed to discourage people from smoking.

With legislation like Bill C-49, fewer people will be flying and prices will go up. As always, quality will go down because there are fewer people holding air carriers to account for their products. Yet for some bizarre reason, the government is still surprised that seven carriers are dead on its watch. It should be ashamed.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party to Bill C-49, an act to implement the budget that was presented to parliament on December 10, 2001.

In speaking to the bill, I want to respond to what was said by my colleague on the government side. He said that the budget and the bill were as a result of the government listening to Canadians. I think that has to be rephrased slightly. The government listened to some Canadians. It listened to its friends.

When people in my riding of Vancouver East, working people, low income Canadians, look at the provisions in the budget, they see nothing that will help them in terms of improving the quality of their lives.

One of the main features of the budget is to establish the Canadian air transport security authority, CATSA. As my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois said, this is nothing more than a tax grab. Why on earth would Canadians want to write a blank cheque for $2.2 billion to the federal government without knowing where that money was going?

We need to point out to Canadians that the establishment of this new air transport security authority is nothing more than a new agency of Liberal appointees and that it will have very little to do with providing security at airports. In reality, of the $24 that will be charged to people for a round trip, only about $2 per flight will actually go to fund the new agency and for security measures. When one looks at the bill there is something like 56 pages devoted to the administration of the new tax and not a word about how security will actually be improved.

It is an incredible situation that under the guise and illusion of providing security, something for which people are legitimately concerned when they are travelling, that a $2.2 billion cheque will be handed over to a new agency with no credibility or legitimacy, and without the assurance that security will actually be improved. We in the New Democratic Party have serious problems with that proposition and we will fight it tooth and nail all the way.

Another provision in the bill has to with the $2 billion infrastructure fund. Originally this was set up as a separate foundation. I think many of us had serious concerns about how a Liberal appointed foundation would operate and what accountability there would be. Now we have a situation where the Deputy Prime Minister will be in charge of the $2 billion fund.

I do want to say that setting up an infrastructure fund is something that is critically important. I come from a municipal background. Today members of the NDP caucus met with the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Mr. Jack Layton, who laid out for us the serious situation facing municipalities where they are grappling with huge infrastructure costs around public transportation, bridges, roads, water plants, treatment plants and so on. The issue is very important because many of our municipalities, particularly in the larger urban centres, are at a critical point where they do not have the financial resources to meet the growing infrastructure demands.

Mr. Layton pointed out that the cost for municipal government was actually increasing through the property tax revenue. If we look at the European and American experiences, we see it is a much more direct relationship between the federal government and the municipalities in terms of a financial arrangement that provides direct infrastructure support to municipalities.

While $2 billion sounds like a lot of money, when it is put in the context of what is actually required by municipalities, it is actually a very minor amount in terms of what they actually need. While the NDP supports the idea of creating an infrastructure fund, we feel that the establishment of a $2 billion fund without a clear sense of how municipalities will be involved in a direct way, is of very serious concern to us.

I also want to comment on what the act fails to do. Yesterday, students in dozens of communities across the country took to the streets in the tens of thousands because they were fed up with higher and higher costs for education. Their student loans and debtloads were getting worse and worse, and they were basically graduating into poverty.

In my home province of British Columbia, where tuition fees have been frozen for four years and were actually rolled back by 5%, we are now facing the prospect of a massive tuition fee increase. Thousands of students demonstrated at Queen's Park, in Halifax, in Vancouver, in Victoria and even Carleton University students here in Ottawa protesting the fact that education was becoming less and less accessible.

Studies show that the chance of a young person from a low income family actually getting a post-secondary education is less than half of what it is for someone who comes from an affluent family. I point this out because I heard the hon. member say that the Liberal government was doing a wonderful job when it came to post-secondary education and that it had 2,000 research chairs. Although that may be well and good, when it comes to direct support to students who are struggling with high tuition, we have seen absolutely zip from the government.

What we need to see is a national grants program, not the millennium fund which my colleague mentions. The millennium fund helps less than 12% of students. In some provinces it is a slight decrease in the amount of assistance that they actually get. The millennium fund is not a grants program. The millennium fund does not improve or increase accessibility for students who want to go to post-secondary education.

I think the assessment of any student in this country or an organization like the Canadian Federation of Students, would be that this budget has failed on that score.

I also want to touch briefly on the question of housing. A couple of days ago the National Council of Welfare, which is a federally appointed advisory body, produced a very excellent report called “The Cost of Poverty”. It received some attention but very little attention for the very significant and dramatic information contained in it.

The report showed us that neglecting our social policy, our social fabric and our social safety network has produced a growing inequality in incomes. The cost to our health care and judicial systems, and to our young kids who need to get a good start in life, to have equal opportunity and to have a future, has taken a terrible human toll as well as an economic and a social toll on society.

The budget and the act before us today is about a big tax grab. It is not about helping Canadians improve their quality of life. It is not about helping unemployed Canadians. It is also not about changing inequalities that exist in Canada.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001.

Basically, it implements the measures announced in the budget; it is a stand alone bill. To explain to Quebecers and Canadians who are listening, it is stand alone legislation implementing the budget provisions.

I will use an example to explain to our listeners what the Liberal government is doing in the budget it brought down, in particular to air transportation.

This is an area of our economy that has been seriously affected by various factors, including the events of September 11. No other area has been so catastrophically hit in a single day in the whole history of Canada.

I will try to explain what the Liberal government has been doing to revive the airline industry, which definitely collapsed. This is the only way to describe what has been happening to this industry since September 11.

This industry has collapsed. Thousands of jobs have been lost across the board, not only in the airline industry, but also in the aircraft industry and in the parts industry. Workers in the airline and aircraft industries have been hard hit by the events of September 11.

What has the Liberal government done? Of course, it was quick to announce measures to compensate the industry for the losses incurred as a result of September 11, meaning losses suffered over the eight days the airspace was closed to air traffic. Every airline was compensated for its losses. It made sense. The federal government decided to do so.

Later, it put in place a system to compensate the industry for the increase in insurance premiums. Of course, an event such as September 11 results in very high costs for the insurance industry. The federal government paid for the increase in premiums.

Then, nothing, except for an aid package. The 105 major airlines needed help. Those who have followed the whole saga of the airline industry after September 11 will recall that a $160 million aid package in loan guarantees was offered to 50 major airlines.

Canada 3000, for which a $75 million loan guarantee had been announced, was to be the first one to get some help. It did not even have time to receive that help, because it had already closed down. As a result of that bankruptcy, thousands of jobs were lost in the airline industry.

That is what happened. For all those who were expecting some help for the airline industry in the budget, here is what we find today, and I quote:

1. (1) Every person who acquires from a designated air carrier all or part of an air transportation service that includes a chargeable emplanement shall pay to Her Majesty a charge as determined under this Act in respect of the service.

So, in order to help the airline industry, to make up for additional investments in security costs, the government has decided to make all the users pay a charge, that will be paid, and I quote:

—to Her Majesty—

Therefore, a $12 charge will have to be paid for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, to a maximum of $24. That is $12 for the outward journey and $12 for the return journey, to a maximum of $24, that will be paid by the users as compensation.

So much for help. All the workers in the land transportation sector who spoke to my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, as well as all the workers in the shipping industry who spoke to my colleagues in the Bloc,also suffered losses in the wake of the tragic events of September 11. The whole transportation sector felt the repercussions, except rail transportation, which benefited from the loss in the airline industry. The train had a new appeal.

For the rest, however, for freight, the economy collapsed. Thousands of jobs were lost in transportation, but all the Liberal government could come up with to help the airline industry was to provide for a new tax, to a maximum of $24, that is $12 for the outward journey and $12 for the return journey, payable to Her Majesty.

When the government wants to deter smokers from smoking, it increases taxes on tobacco. This is what will happen. The government wants to deter people from flying; therefore, it will impose a tax on air transportation.

That tax will not apply everywhere. The bill refers to chargeable emplanement. This is where the charge will be collected. What is a chargeable emplanement? I am quoting the bill:

“chargeable emplanement” means an embarkation by an individual at a listed airport on an aircraft—

This individual will have to pay that charge.

Which are the listed airports? I will read the list of designated airports for the Province of Quebec and not burden the House with the others. The designated airports are the following: Alma, Bagotville, Baie-Comeau, Chibougamau/Chapais, Gaspé, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Kuujjuaq, Kuujjuarapik, La Grande Rivière, La Grande-3, La Grande-4, Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, Mont-Joli, Montreal International (Dorval), Montreal International (Mirabel), Qubec City (Jean Lesage International), Roberval, Rouyn-Noranda, Sept-Îles and Val-d'Or. There are three international airports; the others are regional airports.

What the federal government is proposing will kill air transportation in the regions. I cannot overemphasize this: if we want to deter people from smoking, we increase taxes on tobacco. And if we want to deter people from flying, we do what the Government of Canada is doing: we create a tax on emplanement in regional airports. This is the harsh reality that will result from the measure proposed by the Liberal government.

In the history of Canada, this industry was the one that was hit hardest in a single day. All the other industries and the workers in all the other industries are asking my Bloc Quebecois colleagues to help them. Every week, workers are losing their job in the forestry industry, in the transportation industry and in every other industry. These people are asking us to help them. Considering what the Liberal government is doing to the women and men who work in the airline industry and who have worked all their lives for it, people in other Canadian industries can forget about getting help. This is what we have to explain to Quebecers.

In this budget, there is good news in the fact that apprentice vehicle mechanics will now be allowed to deduct the cost of their tools on their tax returns. This is not an issue that was put forward by the Liberals. It has been advocated by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, particularly the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. They are the ones who defended this issue in the House, and this is why the government thought of doing something about it. We will have to continue our work on this issue.

All workers who have to use tools and equipment in their jobs should have the right to deduct the cost of these tools and this equipment on their tax return. Members of the Bloc Quebecois will be leading this fight in the months and years to come.

In closing, I will say that I am sad for workers in the airline industry. I am sad for towns in the regions, the small towns that are listed in this bill. These towns have built Canada with their natural resources and will continue to support Canada. I find it very sad that the government has decided to abandon them again.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-49. I would like to welcome the three Liberal members of this huge majority government to the sitting today. It is too bad we do not have more.

I promise those members who showed up that I will not try and bore them by talking about the budget with which they are very familiar. I will talk a little more about what is not in the budget, what is missing, what is wrong, and how it could be improved.

I know that the government goes through the motions. The government likes to take tours throughout the country and do a lot of consulting and visit with Canadians, so that Canadians can have input as to what should occur in this land.

Canadians are often asked what their priorities are. We all do that in our ridings. There is not a great deal of difference between Canadians from province to province and riding to riding. We are all on the same government structure. We pay the same taxes. Many Canadians pack their lunch, go to work, head down, elbows out, tail up and try to make a living and have a good standard of living to bring their families up and enjoy themselves. The priorities of Canadians are very similar in respect to what they would like to see.

The finance minister puts on a phenomenal speech every time he presents a budget. He is overwhelming in attracting the attention of the public with the way he puts it forward. Members would think that this status quo budget was the greatest and newest idea to have hit Canada in years, yet it has absolutely changed nothing.

Let us take a look at the list of priorities. They are not in any particular order, but they are the priorities I heard. The three members of the Liberal government majority here today would hear the same things in their ridings. They would hear that health care is important. Let us take a look at health care. When we were first elected in 1993 there was a deficit thanks to the Conservative government prior to the Liberals. The Conservatives kept the deficit going instead of reducing it as they said they would.

There was a commitment to reduce the deficit. How do we do that? Do we take care of wasteful spending, money that should not be spent in areas that might be considered nice to do, but certainly not spending money on areas that are totally unnecessary.

No, we did not do that. We kept the spending going. This particular budget has even got more money for what I call the flowery spending, the unnecessary stuff. There is a little here and there for some of the things that are necessary, but nothing for health. There is absolutely zero for health.

The government began reducing transfer payments to the provinces in 1993 and after a few years it finally got the House to balance the budget. There was no deficit for a year. It was done on the backs of transfer payments to provinces as well as increasing taxes at every opportunity.

We have had some good years now and a real economic boost. The government is showing huge surpluses and is bragging about that. It can brag but it must not forget that because of what it did to the provinces earlier on put a huge strain on them to be able to deliver health care. The provinces were unable to do it in the same manner that they could because of the severe cutbacks. We begin to ask that some of the surpluses be put back into health care to bring the levels back to the 1994 levels.

It is now 2002 and we still have not come anywhere close to the 1994 levels. By this time of course it is all the fault of the provinces. We have to blame the Ralph Kleins and the Mike Harrises and the likes throughout the provinces who have done their best to try and change the system so they can deliver and bring better service to Canadians. These cutbacks have produced huge lineups, days of waiting for operations, hip replacements, et cetera.

The government now has an opportunity to move once again. It did not bother presenting a budget last year, which is very unusual. I believe it is the first time in history.

We have had some good years. We have some surpluses. Let us put some money back into the transfer payments so the provinces can indeed do something more than they are able to do now.

When the health care system came into being, it was supposed to be 50:50 proposition; 50% funding by the feds, 50% funding by the provinces. Thanks to the government, we are now at 88% province and 12% federal, with no notion that the spread will narrow in any way. Certainly not in this budget. There is a zero increase for the spending in health care. I apologize. There were a few additional dollars for research. I agree with the necessity of good research.

In the meantime, we have huge lineups all across Canada. Every member in the House knows they have these problems in their ridings and in their provinces, yet nothing is done.

The next priority is education. We do not deliver a lot for education, but we do assist in every way that we can with post-secondary work. The revenue department has a lot of people working overtime as it passes over the student loan indebtedness that it created by giving out big loans to various students. It is now trying to collect them all back and is having a tough time doing that. It will have to get more help with that.

There is nothing of any significance in the budget to enhance post-secondary education programs, while at the same time, the cost of tuition for attending university and getting trained goes up and families struggle more and more to try to cope with the situation. There is nothing in the budget to address another priority of Canadians: good education.

Let us talk about taxes. We are the highest taxed nation among developed countries. If we are not the highest we are right on the doorstep of being the highest.

Canadians are looking for tax relief. They agreed to higher taxes in the beginning to reduce debt and control deficits. The deficit is taken care of. We have a balanced budget. Where is the tax relief? The finance minister announced huge tax relief. However, it is a strange thing. A phenomenon is going on.

I challenge everyone in this House and every Canadian across the land to take a close look at their pay stubs and compare them to a year ago. Everyone will find that there is a lot less money coming home than there was a year ago. This is all across the country. Some have done better thanks to different promotions or whatever. However in the majority they are getting less. Our standard of living is going down.

What is the answer? We have a great solution from the department of revenue. One of my favourite departments and everyone's favourite department.

We cannot hire more police for better security, we cannot hire more guards on the borders for better security, and we are running short of personnel in so many vital areas that they keep crying for more help. Yet the department of revenue has hired 9,600 new employees specifically to collect outstanding taxes and do further audits. Is that not wonderful?

There are young families across the country whose kids suddenly have a $3,000 dental bill that there is nothing they can do about. In order to pay the dental bill they become delinquent in their taxes. Yet the compassionate and caring Liberal government has hired more tax collectors and auditors. They will go after those delinquent taxes and make these families pay up. These are the families that visit our offices and come April 30 there will be a whole lot more visiting our offices. They will want to know what they can do because they cannot pay their taxes and they are being harassed daily.

Well, there is good news. Our compassionate and caring government has hired 9,600 high paid employees to collect this money. Those people who have a few dollars in their bank accounts should not be too sure that it will be there tomorrow because the revenue department can go in and take it whether people know about it or not. This is great, wonderful and free Canada. It is the land of pride and freedom. Yet people can lose their bank accounts just like that if the revenue department decides that is what should happen.

However, it goes beyond that. Members will recall the teddy bears that were taken out of a family's home. This young family could not pay its back taxes and was suffering. The government went in and took their furniture, their vehicles and even the kids' toys. It was talked about in the House for quite some time. That was a shame and a disgrace. Yet the caring and compassionate government allows these things to go on. In fact it encourages it by hiring another 9,600 employees.

I wonder how much longer Canadians will put up with the kind of attitude that comes from the other side of the House. I wish I could convince people not to put their x next to a Liberal name because it means disaster. It has been that way for years and it is getting worse.

It is tough for older couples who have been living in the same home for most of their lives to live on a fixed income and collect an old age pension. A fellow may want to do some work on a golf course by cutting the grass to make some extra money so he and his wife can enjoy retirement a bit more.

Lo and behold, the compassionate and caring government has news about a little extra income coming into fixed income families. The government has to make sure it gets its share. These people end up toddling into my office asking for help. They say they do not know how they can meet these commitments. They do not know what to do. I know what they can do. They can go on time payments. The government will set them up and they can pay it every month.

Then along comes the young family asking what they can do, saying they have three kids who all need serious dental work and they do not have a dental plan. The income tax people are down their necks day in and day out, constantly phoning.

When is this going to end? When will we get some tax relief? Why is it continually going up?

Members opposite say we have a tax break and ask whether we did not hear it in the speech. Look at the pay stubs, folks. It is not there. Why? Because for every dollar that was taken off income tax another $1.50 was added on the payroll taxes. CPP is going up. All of a sudden there is a big wake up call.

There is a $36 billion surplus in unemployment insurance or EI I guess we call it now. That is good news. Does that $36 billion not belong to the employees and the employers of the country? No, it does not, it belongs in the government's coffers. The person who truly deserves some employment insurance is having a terrible time getting help, while the government flounders away and wastes more money doing its little pet projects which support friends in the Liberal Party.

People are crying for better law and order and better services. Put the victims first and not the criminals. Stop protecting criminals so much. Porno movies and pizza are provided to penitentiaries in order to stop the inmates from rioting. That is what has to be done in Canada to keep control in a prison, bring in porno movies and pizza, have a new year's eve party so there will not be a riot.

A sex offender registry was a good idea a year ago but just the other night the government said it was not necessary. The wonderful, compassionate government killed that idea but it wants to keep the gun registry going. And it is so effective the criminals must be lined up by the hundreds waiting to register their guns. The government spent $700 million on registering guns. Is that not amazing.

We talk about security. We are worried that there are not enough guards at the border, not enough police. The G-8 summit is coming up. There are all these things to care about so $200 million extra was put in the budget to take care of the military, to take care of CSIS, to take care of the RCMP and to fight terrorists. But $700 million was spent to register duck hunters, farmers and trap shooters. There is $700 million to go after duck hunters and farmers and $200 million to go after terrorists. I do not think Canadians like that priority one bit.

It continues with the wonderful, caring, compassionate Liberal government which has about as much compassion as a coral snake. It should just pay attention to what is going on. People across the country are suffering. How many times have I brought to the attention of the House and how many times has the United Nations brought to the attention of the House, that there are third world conditions on the native reserves?

We have been fighting for years to get an ombudsman, someone to help the grassroots people on the reserves. They are truly suffering because of the corruption and mismanagement. If they have received any training from the government, then they have had real good training in mismanagement and corruption.

One of the Liberals recently said that if the member for Wild Rose had his way he would form a posse, jump on a horse and go after all these guys. I might do that, but the first thing the posse and I would go after would be the corruption right there on that front bench.

Maybe we need a posse to go after Mr. Gagliano. Maybe we should bring him back and make him accountable, but no, the government will not do that. When someone does something bad, it is time to move on. He was made the ambassador to Denmark. If something is done that is not quite so bad, the person can get a nice cozy seat in the bedroom down the hall called the Senate. The government will find some caring, compassionate, patriotic position.

When are Canadians going to stop allowing these things to go on? I have seven grandchildren. They are not very big yet but I hope before I go to my grave that Canadians will wake up and realize what kind of government has been ruling this land. I say ruling because the Liberals are rulers, not servants. The Liberals had better start learning whom they are working for. They are not working for themselves. They are not working for the bureaucrats. They are working for Canadians and they had better start reflecting that in what they accomplish.

Someone said that the budget was written by the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Finance. What difference does it make whether it was Tweedledum or Tweedledee? The whole notion of what is going on and how money is spent was pointed out quite clearly by the auditor general. She said that the government is wasteful and to stop it, that it is absolutely the worst managing government she has seen in a long time and to stop it, but no, it keeps on going.

I have had just about enough of it. I sure hope that 30 million Canadians are with me on that one.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the latter part of the hon. gentleman's remarks tend to go a bit beyond the normal Thursday question. Far be it from me to try to fathom the conservative mind. I would have to leave that to those opposite at either end of the House.

We will continue this afternoon and again tomorrow with consideration of Bill C-49, the budget implementation bill. As noted in the House earlier today there is agreement among all parties that the debate on second reading stage of Bill C-49 will be concluded before the end of the day tomorrow. If time permits tomorrow, we will then turn to Bill C-50, the WTO legislation pertaining to China.

Our intention when we return on February 18 is to commence report stage of Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation. Tuesday, February 19, shall be an allotted day.

Airline Industry

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 ensures it gives the Minister of Finance more tax dollars for his general revenue fund but does nothing to ensure security at airports.

The new airport security agency can contract security to airport authorities who can subcontract to the lowest bidder, the same system that was in place September 11. Dollars from the $12 GST, the greedy security tax, are going into the hands of Liberal appointed airport authorities, the same authorities that made donations to the Liberal Party in the last election.

My question is for the minister responsible. Will the government change the Elections Act to ban political donations by airport authorities or will it continue to accept money from them so that a portion of that $12--

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo--Cowichan.

I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-49, another piece of legislation by the government that seems a little disastrous and roughly drafted. I was going through the bill a minute ago. The first thing I draw to the House's attention is on page 3 of the bill. Clause 5, Establishment and Mandate of the Authority, says:

(2) The Authority is for all purposes an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

It says for all purposes.

Clause 28 on page 9 says:

(1) The Authority may enter into contracts, agreements or other arrangements with Her Majesty as if it were not an agent of Her Majesty.

We can have it one way or the other way but we cannot have it both ways. This is the attitude of the government. It wants everything its way. Will the agency be an agent for the Queen in all ways as subclause 5(2) says?

The hon. member for Nanaimo--Cowichan has reminded me he would like to say a few words. They will be important words because he will bash the government as much as I am doing.

The point is it will either be an agent of the Queen at all times or it will not. Let us be specific and get these things clarified. This type of drafting of legislation should never get this far.

In a typical Canadian way we have had the private sector running airport security. There has been a big debate in the United States about whether it should be private or public. The United States decided it would be public. In a true Canadian way we said we would create an agency that was neither private nor public but somewhere in between. It is rather strange. The government still does not know whether it will tax the Canadian travelling public or charge it a fee.

We had a briefing yesterday at the finance department. The department told us it will charge $12 per ticket. Of that, 78 cents will be GST and $11.22 will be a fee. The money will be taken from people with no debate and no chance to object. It will be spent not only on the travelling public but on the entire airline industry.

It is a tax. The government did not get rid of the GST. It now wants to charge GST on a tax it will impose. Not only that, it will not put it into the consolidated revenue fund. It will give it all to the new agency.

The government does not know what it is talking about. I wish it did because the Canadian travelling public's safety is at stake. The bill seems like something thrown together by the government on a whim at the last minute when it realized it had no real objectives.

My colleague pressured the minister into getting air marshals on planes. After months of stalling and saying there was no way we would have air marshals in Canada the minister said yes, we would have them. This happened courtesy of our member. It is more of the same.

I am concerned less about the bill's security provisions than about its secrecy. I know the auditor general would be the auditor because the bill tells us that in clause 31. However Clause 32 says no information could be made public without the authorization of the minister. On the next page it goes even further. Subclause 32(2) says:

The Authority, authorized aerodrome operators and screening contractors must keep confidential any information the publication of which, in the opinion of the Minister, would be detrimental to air transport security or public security, including financial and other data that might reveal such information.

Not only is the government saying it would not tell us what it was doing. It would muzzle private industry subcontractors who work in the airline security. We would not know what was going on. If I read the act properly I am not sure the auditor general would be able to make public her analysis and audit of the institution.

We need to seriously examine this piece of legislation. I hope to have much more to say when we resume after question period.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that I will never join the Bloc Quebecois. I understand that even though we may be friends outside the House of Commons, we are adversaries here.

I will mention what is important in this bill. There are some good things. I mentioned to members one aspect of the bill that is penalizing people. I believe the government can make changes. We have a good finance minister. If he understands what is happening, he can move some amendments.

It is important to find solutions. As the Liberal member for Stoney Creek was saying earlier, there could be changes over the next year. However, I would like these changes to be made immediately and to see airport taxes abolished. We will keep on fighting.

But that does not mean that I am ready to vote against my government. I will not vote against my government because we are working very hard. However, I am certainly allowed to speak to Bill C-49 and to state my opinion publicly with regard to this bill. That is what is important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik on his eloquent speech. He has criticized the new tax which the finance minister has just slapped on the airline industry and which will directly hurt regional air carriers.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, regions are already penalized by distance and by the fact that private carriers are dropping routes that are essential for regional development.

Recently, we learned that Air Alma will no longer provide service to the Magdalen Islands. It is a tragedy.

I had the opportunity to visit my colleague's region. Many economic stakeholders say that, because of the low frequency and low quality of air transportation, we can have all the fine tourism development policies we want, but we will not be able to draw tourists to regions like his to bring greater prosperity.

I congratulate the hon. member but, at the same time, I would like him to put his words into action. If he is so deeply convinced that the government is making a mistake on something as fundamental as the finance minister's tax policy, and that the government is further strangling the regions in Quebec, including his, let him vote against Bill C-49, hand in his resignation and sit as a Bloc Quebecois member, because we are the only real advocates for Quebec and its regions.

That was my question. Let him draw the logical conclusion of his argument.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your intervention, but I knew that the members opposite were agreeing with me because this is an important issue. It is important from a family point of view.

Let us talk about airlines which have been hurt by Bill C-49, such as First Air or Air Inuit, which create many jobs in Montreal and elsewhere, such as Val-d'Or. Transportation of perishable food to the north under Northern Airstage Services to Northern Communities is funded in part by the sale of postage stamps, the Department of Indian Affairs and Canada Post, but mostly by the government and taxpayers.

When I spoke to these people, they said “For remote regions, it is important that this tax be abolished”. There can be an emphasis on security in Montreal, because the transportation volume is high there, but when one looks at the small cities in the north, whether in James Bay in Nunavik, or in medium size cities like Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or, it is not the same thing. The inhabitants of the Magdalen Islands will have to pay $24.

It is inconceivable that these people should be required to pay charges. Let us not forget what Transport Canada and the Government of Canada are now imposing on airlines such as First Air and Air Inuit. An individual leaving from Ivujivik does not pay the $12. Once they get to Kuujjuaq, they wait inside the airplane, like one does when one lands in Boston en route to Miami. One is not permitted to leave the airplane.

With the new tax, this person will have to get out of the airplane in Kuujuaq, go and wait in the terminal and, upon reboarding, will be required to pay $12. They will have to pay $24 for a return trip. This means that, by imposing these charges, Transport Canada is forcing someone sitting in an airplane, or worse, someone who is seven and a half months pregnant, to get out of the airplane, walk over to the terminal in temperatures approaching minus 40 and pay $12 before being allowed to reboard.

On behalf of the women of Nunavik, we need to find a solution. We cannot choose people, and tell them “You will save $12”. It is everyone, white people as much as our Inuit friends, who is affected. There must not be a $24 fee. If someone travels once a month, at the end of the year, it will add up to nearly $300 return to get medical care in the south because there are no specialists in the north.

It is important to make changes and correct this for people who live in remote regions. This Liberal government bill is quite voluminous, some 110 pages long. The government is requiring that we vote on the bill as a whole. However, I would like to state publicly that changes are in order.

I would like to come back to another aspect of this bill: strategic infrastructure. With respect to strategic infrastructure, it is clear that in remote regions, which some people refer to as the far reaches of Quebec—that is what some people in Quebec City have said, but we prefer the expression remote regions—the issue of this $2 billion is an important one. This $2 billion for all of Canada is destined for large-scale strategic projects, according to the bill. The bill mentions “highway or rail infrastructure”.

The railway system does not reach Kuujjuaq, Radisson or any of the 14 Inuit villages and nine Cree communities of James Bay. This means that we are penalized at the outset and we will not receive any money for this. When it comes to local transportation infrastructure, that is a different story.

In this bill, the government will have to make a breakdown by percentage for the resource regions of Quebec and of Canada. Out of the $2 billion, the major urban centres could receive $1 billion or $1.5 billion, and the other $1 billion could be for the regions. If there are $2 billion for all of Canada, let it be split 50-50; I will explain why.

In the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region, whether Val-d'Or or Rouyn-Noranda, our raw materials go to Montreal. For example, in the forestry sector, 68% of the raw materials end up in Montreal for secondary, tertiary or quaternary processing. The resource regions create employment in Montreal. The same goes for the mining sector. We create close to 75% of the jobs in the processing and shipping sector in Quebec City and Montreal. The resource regions are being penalized because there are no set percentages for the $2 billion in strategic infrastructure funding.

There should be a breakdown, as there is in the November 2000 Canada-Quebec agreement. The two governments consulted each other and set out the division for the infrastructure projects in Quebec. In the Canada-Quebec agreement, Quebec is the overseer. When a project is carried out, the city or municipality invoices Quebec, which then sends the bill to the federal government for its share. That is the way it works, as many people are aware.

A percentage of strategic infrastructure funds must be spent based on regions, not only based on population.

When public officials figure a percentage for resource regions, they need to take into consideration the geography. My riding is over 802,000 square kilometers and the whole province of Quebec is 1.4 million square kilometers. In my riding, there are 65 mayors for approximately 100,000 people; there are four provincial MNAs to do the work that I do alone at the federal level; there are four salaries, four expense accounts, four travel accounts.

Remote regions may well be neglected, but I am asking the government to find a solution to eliminate this air transport tax.

Have you ever heard of a summit held up north? There have been summits held in Quebec City and in other big cities. Right now, the best place to organize a summit would be in Kuujjuaq in the winter. There would not be any protesters because there are no roads. It is the best place in terms of security, and we would save millions of dollars if we held a summit in Kuujjuaq.

Especially since a conference centre is being built in Kuujjuaq, with money from the governments of Quebec and Canada, under the Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement. A summit in Kuujjuaq would save millions of dollars, but this money would have to be transferred to resource regions. If there was $300 million saved, then it would have to be divided up.

To come back to serious business, I want to say that we are being penalized. We have no roads, we are far away. If the government starts taxing people who go south with skidoos or snowshoes, I will have a field day. A solution should be found for people who travel with Air Inuit, First Air and the other airline companies—

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001.

I could mention all of the ridings one by one to show that my own riding covers an area of 802,000 square kilometres, compared to some other ridings with an area of only 10 to 14 square kilometres. Coming back to the bill, I intend to criticize it. And if I intend to mention all of the ridings one by one, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will stop me once I get to the opposition ridings.

I will be speaking on behalf of taxpayers of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik and certain regions of Quebec. Even though I represent a very remote area of Quebec, if members take a close look at the bill, in particular from page 70 on, they will see that we are being penalized in terms of air security fees charged in airports. There is no problem in major centres, but if members look at the list of airports on page 70, they will see that some are located in remote areas.

On January 30, the Liberal member for Nunavut asked a question to the Minister of Finance, and I quote:

How will the Minister of Finance protect northerners from these added costs? Is he prepared to reconsider the charges in the North?

The Minister gave an excellent answer. In the second paragraph of his answer, he stated, and I quote:

In that context, I am very pleased to confirm that the charge will not be applied to direct flights to or from the smaller and remote airports that make up the vast majority of the airports in the North.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have an hour but I am splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon--Humboldt, so I will have to keep my comments fairly brief.

Bill C-49 is a response to implement the budget tabled on December 10, 2001. Although there are six major parts to the bill, I would like to concentrate on three of them: part 1, the air transport security authority act; part 2, the air travellers security charge act; and part 6, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund act.

I will begin my comments by following up on what my colleagues have said on the government's decision on the Canada strategic infrastructure fund act. When the government announced this in the budget, the money was to be administered by a foundation with a board of directors. The foundation was to be responsible for assessing the potential of these projects and making the decisions on key public infrastructure projects based on their merits.

Somewhere between December 10 and February 5, the government changed its mind. We have heard all kinds of explanations as to why it changed its mind, but there seems to be only one simple reason, that is, government members of parliament do not want an arm's length foundation and do not want to have to go to it to lobby for money for projects in their ridings.

There is widespread support throughout our country for this type of infrastructure program. We have seen, at least in my part of Canada, some really good projects like the Annacis Island sewage treatment plant for the greater Vancouver area. However we have seen an awful lot of wasteful projects as well, like the fountains in the Prime Minister's riding, projects that occur when funds are distributed for political reasons.

It is amazing that it took the Liberals almost two years to come up with a budget but less than two months to change the delivery of that budget.

The Canadian air transport security authority is also covered in this act. It creates this arm's length authority to oversee activity in Canada's airline industry. What is really significant about this in Bill C-49 is that it totally ignores a report from the committee on transport. The transport committee studied aviation security from October to December. We heard from dozens of individuals and organizations in our hearings on aviation security. We received testimony from individuals and groups on every aspect of the aviation industry in the country. Not only that, we travelled to Washington, D.C. and heard from senior members of the federal aviation administration and other authorities in the United States regarding civil aviation. The committee took in all this information. Those of us on the committee worked in a non-partisan manner and I mean that honestly. We produced an excellent report on aviation security.

One of the major recommendations in the report was the creation of a new secretary of state for transportation security. The reason is that we realized the importance of having an elected official who would be responsible for aviation security as well as the other modes of transportation and who would report back to parliament and be held accountable. However the government decided to ignore the report and instead created an authority to oversee aviation security. This authority will consist of a board of 11 directors, including a chairman.

What type of airport or aviation security will we have? We do not know, because of course the bill does not go into details as to what the security will be and it passes on this decision making authority to this board of directors. Whether we have government employees or contractors providing this aviation security, it will depend on a decision by this arm's length authority. Given the tax the finance minister is imposing on air travellers, this authority will have a budget of $2.2 billion over the next five years.

In comparison let us look at the two ways of dealing with things, the infrastructure and the airline security.

The government rejects the use of an arm's length foundation to be responsible for the $2 billion strategic infrastructure fund, with the Prime Minister claiming that these decisions should be made by a minister of the crown who is accountable to the House of Commons. Then in the very same bill, it rejected the Commons committee report that asked for the creation of a new minister of the crown who would be accountable to the House of Commons and instead put it into an arm's length authority for a budget of $2.2 billion.

Why the discrepancy? Why on one hand the argument to have an arm's length organization to oversee the $2.2 billion and on the other hand the need to have a minister overseeing $2 billion? It just does not make sense. Could it be that the Liberals have not yet figured out how to use the aviation security budget to line the pockets of their friends for patronage purposes?

When we look at the $2.2 billion budget and the air traveller security charge that is included in the act, we have to look at what it is about. This is a $12 one way ticket charge for all air travellers in Canada and a $24 return charge on international flights. Look at an airline that is trying to reduce the cost of air travel to get passengers off the roads and into planes. The fare for a trip between Calgary and Edmonton or Vancouver and Kelowna is under $100. This tax that will be imposed on the traveller will increase their airfares by over 20%. This increase will take hundreds if not thousands of people off planes and put them on our already crowded road infrastructure.

We can understand why there were over 15,000 passengers with WestJet who signed a petition asking the government to reconsider.

Compare that to how the United States handles this. The United States has implemented a similar fee, but it is only $2.50 U.S. one way with a maximum of $5. Why are the Americans, with their overwhelming airline security, two or three layers of screening, bomb sniffing dogs and the use of the national guard only charging $2.50 while the Canadian government is charging $12 a flight? There are two possible explanations.

The first explanation could be that this is the way the government is handling the value of the Canadian dollar, that it believes that the $2.50 U.S. will be worth $12 Canadian at some point this year. The other explanation is that the $12 fee is needed to provide patronage positions to Liberal hacks.

The response of the government to this outrageous tax is ludicrous. The government and the Minister of Transportation have said that the high security tax would actually increase airline traffic by reassuring the travelling public that they would be safe. These comments demonstrate how disconnected the minister and the government are from reality. If they really believe this why is the tax not $100?

It is ironic that the day Air Canada announced that it lost $1.25 billion last year, the government did everything possible to prevent more Canadians from flying.

Then we have the finance minister saying that this is just a user fee and that airline passengers are the only ones who benefit from the airline security. Did the finance minister not watch what happened on September 11? More people died in offices and going to work than people who were in the airplanes. Those people who died were policemen, firefighters and people sitting in their offices. Aviation security is everyone's concern and that cost should be shared by all. That was a recommendation from the transport committee and was ignored by the minister.

In conclusion, there should be one individual responsible and that person should be sitting in the House of Commons reporting to parliament. The security tax is out of proportion and will probably become the next Liberal billion dollar boondoggle.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Here is one example that might interest the hon. member. In 1996 to 2002, Bombardier received $87 million of these particular loans and its donation to the Liberal Party in the same period of time was $411,713. Even more startling is that out of all the loans only 2% of that money has been paid back. Out of $1.7 billion in loans, less than $20 million has been paid back. These are not loans, they are gifts. There is no yardstick to measure progress by. There is no obligation for companies to create a certain number of jobs. There is no obligation for companies to expand and grow their companies. It is simply that they are given the money and then at election time they are asked for their cheques.

Pratt & Whitney Canada is not a small company. I do not really know why it needed $301 million worth of technology partnership loans. It would have done this research anyway because it is a healthy, vibrant company that wants to grow and succeed. During the same period of time it sent $131,373 to the Liberal Party. That is a big chunk of change. That is more than the Royal Bank gave. This is a whopping contribution.

SNC-Lavalin, one of the largest and best engineering firms in the world and one we are proud to have in the country, received a technology partnership loan. I do not understand why a company like that would get a loan since it is not a high tech company. However after receiving an $8.7 million loan it kicked back $129,656. That is the highest ratio so far that we have come across. This is staggering .

Everyone can understand why we are apprehensive when we see another $2 billion strategic infrastructure fund being set up under the control and direction of the Deputy Prime Minister, not some arm's length, impartial and objective board that would review these grants and send the money around the country. It will be on the basis of a phone call to the Deputy Prime Minister. No one can tell me that those choices do not get political. It is only natural. We are very critical of this program.

The real contrast that brought this to my attention yesterday was a bunch of students demonstrating on Parliament Hill about high tuition fees. In fact demonstrations were being held in every major city right across the country. The students were arguing that they were being crippled by the high cost of education and that they wanted something to be done about tuition fees. What struck me as I was doing this research was that the payback of student loans by university students was about 94%. The other 6% get hounded mercilessly by the federal government. They are pursued and dogged right around the country. Their wages are garnished. They are harassed and harangued for relatively small amounts of money. Here we have a much larger distribution of money, so-called loans, with a payback rate of 2%.

Those companies are the corporate welfare bums of this decade. We need to start using that language again because it is absolutely scandalous. I would rather advocate on behalf of those students who are doing their best to pay back their loans and put an end to this.

If there is anything about the current budget that we are critical of it is that it has failed to do anything about the growing gap between the rich and the poor. Whenever we raise this, and the NDP is always harping on it, people want to know where the money will come from. They do not want their taxes raised so that more money can be spent. The government does not need to raise taxes. It needs to stop throwing our money away. If it would stop giving our money to the corporate welfare bums we would have a little bit of money for some social spending. We would be able to invest in people for a change. What irritates the NDP is the blatant evidence of waste and mismanagement of that type.

I come from the riding of Winnipeg Centre and, as I have told the House before, it is a very low income, inner city riding. I would like to point out some new statistics that illustrate some of the shortcomings of the budget: 49% of all families in my riding and 52% of all the children in my riding live below the poverty line. Could the government tell me what there is in the budget that I can tell the people of Winnipeg Centre will improve their day to day lives in any way, shape or form? I cannot find anything. For some reason there has been a conscious choice not to bother with this pressing issue. The bottom 20% of the electorate is ignored.

Either the government has given up trying and do something about this alarming incidence of poverty because the job is too tough or, in a very cynical way, it has disregarded this part of the electorate because they do not vote.

Everybody knows that low income people at the bottom 20% of the socio-economic ladder do not come out and vote. Therefore I suppose they do not deserve the attention of a government that is more preoccupied with power than meeting the basic needs of a great number of Canadians.

When I look at the budget and the implementation bill, Bill C-49, I do not see anything in it that I can bring back to my riding and tell people that things will be a little bit better next year. I guess the $500 million for Africa is kind of nice, but that will not elevate the standard of living conditions for the people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre.

We thought we were going to make some breakthroughs. The aboriginal people in my community listened to the Speech from the Throne and to all the flowery language. This was to be the decade when we would finally address some of the historic grievances the aboriginal people have had about their treatment in our society. There is nothing about that in the budget either. All those things went down to the bottom of the list of priorities. We can find very little solace or comfort in the budget or in Bill C-49.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-49 on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Winnipeg Centre. I would like to add some remarks about the bill respecting an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10, 2001.

This omnibus bill deals with a number of issues that have been touched on by other speakers. I would like to go over them briefly and then deal with some of the shortcomings and serious omissions that we wish would have been dealt with in the budget.

The first point of great interest to Canadians that we note in Bill C-49 is that it will establish the Canadian air transport security authority, CATSA, to deliver improved security at Canadian airports and on board flights.

The new authority is to have the full power of a crown corporation. I note with interest that it will be run by 11 government appointees, a rather odd arbitrary number, one would think at first glance. It is probably how many old Liberal hacks needed patronage jobs on any given day so they conveniently rounded it out to the odd number of 11.

Our point of view is that the authority would abide by business standards rather than safety standards. CATSA may well turn around and hand off the duty or the responsibility for delivering the security to the airport authorities.

We really do not know. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke when we hand over the authority to this newly established organization. We really do not have any firm understanding or any real picture of how it will ultimately wind up.

Who will be delivering the service? Will they be public servants? Will they be private sector employees? Will they be better trained? Is there any real obligation? Will any rules be put in place under this new authority to assure Canadians of an improved airport security system?

That is an unknown commodity and we are very critical of that. The government has been unable to paint a picture of what we will be buying, and we are buying.

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast very capably pointed out that we would be paying $24 per round trip on every flight, whether it is from Winnipeg to Toronto, Vancouver Island to Vancouver or any little hop, skip and a jump. That $24 could in fact represent 30%, 40% or 50% of the airfare.

The Minister of Finance is like Rumpelstiltskin in this regard. He is turning straw into gold. He took a negative situation, the need for improved security, and turned it into a revenue generator. By its own admission the government will only spend $2 of that $12 per leg fee on the actual implementation of improved airport security. The other $10 is another cash cow.

The government seems to find very clever ways to generate revenue that no one ever would have dreamed of. We have to give it full points for that. It turned the EI system into a cash cow. It turned the public service pension plan into a cash cow. Now, of all things, it has turned airport security into a revenue generator. We are very critical of this issue.

We are not really sure what will be the status of the working people who currently do the checks at airports. We do not know if they will be federal employees. Currently most of them are represented by the United Steelworkers of America.

It becomes a jurisdictional issue too. If they are to become public federal employees, will they then be represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada or will they maintain their relationship with their former union? What about the terms and conditions of their workplace? Will the collective agreements be modified or interfered with in any way?

These are unknown commodities on which we have not had much direction from the government or any indication of how these issues will be resolved.

The NDP caucus has serious reservations and concerns about this new CATSA. We do not feel that the Canadian public feels any safer as a result of the implementation of this aspect of the budget.

We note with interest that in the U.S. the extra service fee or charge is $2.50 per flight compared to $12 per leg here or $24 for a round trip. How does the government justify that? Where will it spend this extra $2.2 billion?

We have written a blank cheque. It is estimated that throughout the year the fee would generate $2.2 billion. We have no idea how that money will be spent or any guarantee at all that the money will be spent to try to improve the safety issues at airports. We do not know what the federal government has in mind for it. It will just go into general revenue.

The federal government was also very shrewd in making a further revenue grab now because it caught Canadians at a very sensitive and vulnerable time. Immediately after this terrible tragedy is when it polled Canadians. At that time about 80% of them supported the idea.

When asked if they would be willing to pay a bit more on every plane ticket to ensure they were safe or safer, about 80% of Canadians gave approval, I suppose, to implement some sort of a surcharge. However I criticize the government for taking advantage of people's vulnerability after such a terrible tragedy.

If we asked the same question today I think we would get dramatically different results now that Canadians have had time to deal and cope with the tragedy of September 11. Those are our observations on this aspect of the implementation bill.

I would like to touch now on another thing Bill C-49 intends to do. It intends to implement the amendments to the EI act relating to maternity and parental benefits in certain situations.

The NDP aggressively argued for that part of the EI program to be amended. The federal government did listen but it missed the opportunity to implement a comprehensive review of EI to make the program work again. It is again tinkering and fiddling with the edges of EI, throwing a little bone to those who are advocating on behalf of working people. However the great EI robbery continues in that every month that goes by there is a surplus of $700 million in the EI program. Working people and their employers are paying in $700 million a month more than is being paid out. That is absolutely unacceptable. We have raised it time and time again. The government again has chosen to bypass the issue in this particular budget.

We argue and have maintained all along that the EI system has ceased to be an unemployment insurance system because hardly any unemployed people actually qualify for any benefits. If less than 40% of unemployed people are eligible for any benefits, how is it a universal unemployment insurance program?

We have also made the point that a program is mandatory if one has to pay into it even though one has a less than 40% chance of collecting. In our mind and point of view, to deduct something from a person's paycheque for a specific reason and then to use that money for something completely different is an absolute breach of trust.

When money is deducted from the employees' paycheques for the purpose of receiving benefits and some income maintenance in case they become unemployed, they have the reasonable expectation that the money will be there if they need it. They do not want to find out after they become unemployed that they are not eligible for benefits. For the life of me I cannot understand how the government has gotten away with this year after year.

The EI fund has become the government's number one revenue generator. If we look at the $100 billion surplus over five years that the Minister of Finance points to and often brags about, $8 billion per year is coming from the EI fund, for a cumulative total so far of $40 billion in surplus contributions in the EI program. That money was supposed to go for income maintenance for unemployed workers.

The impact in my riding of Winnipeg Centre alone is $20.8 million per year. Just the changes made to EI in 1996 caused a loss of income maintenance and benefits in my riding alone of $20.8 million. Imagine trying to attract a new business to a community that had a payroll of $20.8 million per year and what a difference that would make to an inner city riding like mine. The inverse is also true. When $20.8 million is sucked out of the local economy in my riding the impact absolutely is devastating.

While we support the implementation of the amendments to the EI Act regarding maternity leave and parental benefits, in all good conscience we have to point out that the EI system is still an absolutely dysfunctional, broken instrument and should be dealt with promptly so that it provides the benefits people actually need.

Regarding the income tax amendments announced in the 2001 budget, we support the small business taxation deferral. We think it is a sensible thing.

The second item we cannot understand is allowing apprentice vehicle mechanics to deduct a portion of their cost of new tools. Why were only vehicle mechanics mentioned? I am a journeyman carpenter by trade. An apprentice tries to buy one new tool with each paycheque because one has to slowly acquire a garage full of tools to be able to practise the craft. Why did the government not involve all skilled tradespeople? It is an insult to those of us who have gone through the trades and are not offered this special benefit.

There have been private members' bills in the House--I think it has been raised 10 times over the last decade--calling for a tax deduction for all tradespeople. Why the government stopped short and only gave it to auto mechanics is an absolute mystery to me. While we wish the vehicle mechanics well, and I am sure they will enjoy this small benefit, we really regret that it did not include other working people.

The last thing I would mention regarding Bill C-49, the budget implementation act, 2001, is the $2 billion strategic infrastructure fund. I know all members will want a chance to have a go at this. People have already nicknamed it the strategic Liberal fund because no one is convinced there will be any more fairness in the distribution of these moneys than there has been in any evidence of other corporate welfare that we have seen handed out to Liberal ridings around the country. We are as critical of this as we are critical of, for instance, the technology partnership loans from Industry Canada.

I would like to give an example of why we disapprove of the structure of the infrastructure fund. I think anybody who reads the documents I have here will agree that the other structures were no good either. What I am reading from is a list of the cumulative technology partnership loans from 1996 to 2002 . The other column is donations to the Liberal Party from 1996 to 2002.

The first thing I want to point out is that every one of the following companies are stable, healthy companies that do not really need any kind of loan to keep operating. We are giving corporate welfare to companies like IBM, Bombardier, Spar Aerospace, Pratt & Whitney and Raytheon Canada. These are the companies that are lining up at the trough and getting these handouts.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before being so rudely interrupted, Bill C-49 seeks to give statutory effect to provisions included in the ways and means motion and announced in the budget of last December.

As my colleagues before me have said, we in the official opposition oppose the bill just as we opposed the budget and the ways and means motion. Through the bill the government fails to reflect the priorities of Canadians at a time of serious economic decline. It fails to grasp the opportunity to increase Canada's productivity, competitiveness and standard of living at a moment when we see our dollar at all time lows which reflect a decline in our standard of living.

The bill would fail to provide any stimulation for the economy at at time of job loss, increasing unemployment, and economic decline in the midst of recession. It would fail to offer any reduction in the national debt at a time when Canada continues to have the third largest debt to GDP ratio in the OECD among the major developed countries. It would fail to reallocate resources from low and falling priority areas such as corporate welfare, subsidies to bloated crown corporations like the CBC and grants and handouts to interest groups into high priority areas such as national defence and security.

The budget, its ways and means motion and Bill C-49 all represent an enormous missed opportunity for which ordinary Canadians will pay in terms of seeing our standing of living and economic prosperity continue to diminish.

Bill C-49 seeks to do specific things. First, it would create the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. We in my party support the creation of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, in particular the provisions of the bill which allow for the employment of air marshals.

We in the official opposition take considerable pride in the fact that while we have no real political power in this place we have the power of ideas. Following the great tragedy of September 11 we introduced an entire suite of security related proposals which we had long advocated but which gained new relevance in the post 9/11 world.

One of the proposals was to create a corps of armed air marshals to serve as law enforcement officers on civilian aircraft. My colleague from Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam, the opposition transport critic, did a superb job of making the argument for letting Canadians know they would have secure enforcement of the law when they boarded an aircraft, the absence of which was a contributing factor to the tragedy of September 11 where the four hijacked aircraft were without air marshals.

There has never been a hijacking of a commercial civilian flight where an air marshal has been aboard. Terrorists throughout the world now know countries like Canada which take the matter seriously will be much less hospitable targets for hijackers and terrorists aboard aircraft given this provision of the bill.

Again, while we do not have formal political power in this place we have the power of ideas. In the debate that occurred last fall we saw Canadians respond positively to the idea of air marshals even though initially the hon. Minister of Transport dismissed the proposal as somehow “un-Canadian” or “not in the Canadian way”. I think those were his words. However at the time he suggested through the minister of defence that it would be appropriate for CF-18 fighter aircraft to patrol the skies over our major metropolitan areas ready and willing to shoot hijacked aircraft out of the sky.

It struck Canadians as being absurd and ridiculous that we were unwilling to place a trained, armed, discreet air marshal aboard a flight, yet we were willing to watch for hijacked planes with fighter aircraft. Fortunately greater common sense prevailed around the cabinet table. I commend the Minister of Transport for accepting a sound idea from the opposition which is partly implemented in the bill.

While we support the principle of a transport security authority, we do not support the means by which it will be funded in the bill. The bill provides for the notorious $24 round trip flat charge for all domestic flights, even those where there may not necessarily be an air travel security arrangement. There are many short-haul flights off the west coast, off the east coast and in the north where scheduled aircraft take a small number of travellers who do not have to go through airport screening. Yet these people in many instances will have to bear the burden of the $24 flat fee. We anticipate it will raise at least $430 million this year.

We in the opposition have asked the government to give us clear assurances that the new air security charge will not end up being used in a fashion similar to that of employment insurance premiums, namely as a slush fund for general government revenues. We are very concerned that it could run a considerable surplus above and beyond the actual costs associated with the new security measures in the air transportation authority and that the surplus could be siphoned off for general purposes in the general revenue fund, thus undermining the ostensible purpose of the charge.

The government has not provided the House with adequate assurances that this will not occur. Frankly, given the experience we have had with other taxes and charges, we are going to oppose the bill in part because we believe there is a very great likelihood the air security charge will end up providing for much more than just air security in terms of a government tax grab.

On that point, the transport minister has on occasion suggested that the $24 round trip charge on domestic flights was somehow the adoption of a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as my colleague from Port Moody has so frequently pointed out, the transport committee recommended a shared cost structure for new air security measures, a cost that should be borne more or less equally by the traveller, by the government, by the airlines as well as by the airport authorities themselves.

One might say that ultimately there is only one customer and the costs would filter down to the customer. Perhaps, but it would be far more rational to see the kind of blended funding of new security measures recommended by the transport committee. In fact, that is what happens in most other jurisdictions. In the United States the security charges are a fraction of what are being proposed here, which are two or three times higher than what is charged in the United States on similar flights.

This is really a very blunt instrument the government has created in terms of a $24 flat fee. One could fly from Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland in business class at a fare of about $4,500 and pay the $24 charge. Yet one could fly from Vancouver south harbour terminal to Salt Spring Island at a $60 fare and be paying the $24 fee. This would represent a price increase of nearly 50%.

This could put many short-haul domestic air carriers out of business. WestJet, the most vibrant, competitive and successful airline in Canada, has complained bitterly about the impact the fee will have on companies such as itself which are very sensitive to price. They work very hard to produce a good product at a very low price. When a flat fee of $24 is imposed on every single ticket they sell, including $70, $80, $90 tickets between western cities for instance, this will have a very detrimental impact on their bottom line just at a time when we need to do more to create increased passenger traffic on our domestic airlines.

My colleague from Port Moody--Coquitlam will be addressing these issues in greater detail later in the debate. Let me just say that this is a very wrong-headed approach the government is taking with respect to the new transportation security costs. It will end up costing Canadians jobs.

The bill also seeks to make some changes with respect to the Employment Insurance Act. In particular it extends benefits for parents of newborns who need to have extended stays in hospital. This is obviously something anyone would want to support. All parties would say the government ought to do whatever it can to assist parents who find themselves with medical difficulties with newborns. However, let me raise the question as to whether or not the employment insurance system is the right place in which to provide such assistance.

The employment insurance program, particularly after the retrograde changes made in this parliament last year, has grown far beyond its original conception as a program to provide limited insurance to people who lose employment for a short period of time while they seek new employment. That kind of program run on an actuarially sound insurance basis is sensible.

Governments for the past 25 years, and especially since the so-called reforms to employment insurance in 1972, have continued to layer upon the EI system new mandates and new programs which are not immediately related to the question of employment insurance per se. This has created an enormous program which has required enormously high premiums to finance it. In so doing consecutive governments have seen the unintended consequence of an employment insurance program which in many respects is a disincentive to employment.

The premiums themselves a payroll tax are a tax on job creation, particularly insofar as they are disproportionately borne by employers. We know there is an enormous notional surplus in the EI fund of upward of $40 billion and an annual surplus of at least $6 billion. The government is skimming several billion dollars a year in premiums above and beyond benefits paid out through the program. We are killing jobs through extraordinarily high premium levels. They are unnecessarily high. Also we create incentives for people not to work through the design of the program, particularly through some of the regional special elements of the program, through the lack of experience rating in the system.

If we as a country want to become more competitive and more productive, if we want more and better paying jobs, if we want a 90 cent dollar as opposed to a 60 cent dollar, if we want a standard of living that equals or exceeds that of our friends in the United States, one of the things we must do is to liberalize our labour markets.

One thing we at the federal level can do is reform the employment insurance system along the lines of an actuarially sound, experience rated insurance program. For people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, it would provide a good benefit on a short to medium term while they seek gainful employment. It would not treat people in different regions differently.

Other supplementary programs, including the maternity benefits in the bill, and important social policy objectives would be provided through other programs. They would not be loaded wrong-headedly into an employment insurance program.

Yesterday I met with members of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. It represents an industry that employs over one million Canadians, particularly younger Canadians who are at the entry level in the labour market. They are getting their foot up on the first rung of the labour market ladder. They are people who make the minimum wage or slightly above it. That industry is very, very sensitive to payroll taxes. They told us as parliamentarians that if there were to be a significant reduction in EI premiums, this would likely result in tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of new jobs, particularly for people at the entry level of the labour market.

It seems to me we should listen to sensible proposals from organizations such as CRFA. They have proposed, and the finance committee echoed their call in its prebudget report, a yearly basic exemption of I think it was $2,300 in EI premiums. An employer could hire a young person, or a new employee of any age of course, and would be exempt for the first $2,300 in EI costs. Perhaps we could come up with a lower exemption if there is not the fiscal capacity for a YPE of that size in the employment insurance system right now.

The principle they are driving at is to create incentives for entrepreneurs in industries like theirs, in service industries, to hire more people and to create more wealth and more employment in our economy. I wish the government would listen to recommendations such as theirs.

The bill also seeks to make changes to the Income Tax Act further to the October 2000 budget. This allows me to say that in this budget there actually is no net tax relief.

The government claims it is in the process of its so-called $100 billion tax cut. That is a very bogus figure. Anybody on the other side of the House who is serious about this will acknowledge that number was arrived at for strictly political purposes and has very little basis in fact.

In reality, any objective economist who can read an account or any sensible person with a pencil and a calculator who looks at the Liberal budget will realize that the tax cuts scheduled in the October 2000 budget amount to less than $50 billion. In fact, we calculate that they amount to about $43.7 billion.

A huge chunk of the so-called tax cut is taken up by a $23 billion increase in Canada pension plan premiums over the course of that budget's five year cycle. The government is also counting increases in the child tax benefit, which is a social transfer program, an entitlement program, as a tax cut, which is disingenuous. It is counting the value of reindexation of the tax code as a tax cut. In a sense the government has said that it will no longer force people into higher tax brackets as they get cost of living adjustments. In other words it will stop raising taxes, but it will count that as a tax cut, which is pretty specious.

In this particular budget the government will not be initiating a single personal income tax cut in the bill before us. There is a small two point rate cut in the corporate income tax. There is a measly five cent reduction in employment insurance premiums. However, that is quickly gobbled up by $2.08 billion in Canadian pension plan premium increases, the $430 billion air security tax to which I have referred, and by the nearly $500 billion in additional tobacco taxes.

To be on the record in this regard, we are not necessarily against raising tobacco tax prices to reduce demand among youth, but we think that it should not be a back door tax grab. Any increased revenues in that area ought to be offset by tax reductions elsewhere. This all adds up to a net tax increase this fiscal year of $1.258 billion. That is madness in the current economic context of a recession.

We had negative growth in the third quarter of 2001. We had negative growth in the fourth quarter of 2001. Those two consecutive quarters with negative growth constitute a technical recession. We are almost certainly in either negative growth or a stagnant economy right now.

Let me close by saying that we will oppose the bill on the grounds that it provides for no reallocation of resources to the critically important areas of defence and security. It does nothing for the economy. We will oppose the bill as vigorously as we did the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader. He was a very good boss in the past. The opposition won the voice vote. We are happy to see the official opposition was opposed to Bill C-49.

The bill would give enactment to several provisions of the budget speech of last December. Last week we concluded debate on the budget and voted on the ways and means motion. Bill C-49 is further to the ways and means motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There are two issues. First, the vote that was supposed to be taken will be deferred until Monday in two weeks when we return.

Second, is there unanimous consent to revert to Bill C-49 and resume debate under the conditions that have been described?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the unusual circumstances in the House, there have been some discussions during the period the bells were ringing and I believe we have an understanding that we will not have a vote at this time with respect to the budget bill but will return to debate at second reading of the bill.

There is an understanding among the parties that we would debate Bill C-49 for the balance of the time available today and tomorrow and that we would conclude debate at the end of the day tomorrow with any votes required at that time deferred until after the week parliament is adjourned.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to Bill C-49?

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the House leaders that we go back to Bill C-49. There are a number of questions we would like to raise and speakers we would like to add to the list. If you would seek unanimous consent to get us back to Bill C-49, we would deem it not put and continue debate at second reading on the bill.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001.

I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his speech yesterday after this bill was introduced. My colleague dubbed the Minister of Finance Mr. Flip-flop. I looked that term up in the dictionary and I find it applies to someone who says one thing one day and the opposite the next.

I am disappointed because last December 10, in bringing down his budget, the Minister of Finance committed to putting all of the foreseeable surplus into the foundations that were going to be set up to get the economy back on its feet. As my colleague said, we are obliged to conclude that the minister has changed his mind; he no longer has any idea how much of a surplus there will be in the budget. He is changing the rules.

As hon. members are aware, I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development and infrastructures. My speech will address three elements of this bill: the one setting a security tax for air passengers, the one relating to employment insurance, and the one relating to the $2 billion Canadian strategic infrastructure fund.

I come from what is considered an remote area. As my Canadian Alliance colleague has said, it makes no sense. People living in the regions are finding it harder and harder to travel by air. I think that air service is essential to such communities. It enables people to get from point to point quickly. WIth the imposition of this air security tax, airline ticket prices will make another jump. They have gone up 9.3% since 1993.

At the present time, it costs me about $900 for a round trip between Bagotville and Ottawa. I am now going to have to pay more. Do hon. members think that ordinary people with ordinary incomes will be able to afford it? This tax is anti-region.

What is this government up to? It tells us there will no longer be any competition. We used to have a regional carrier, Air Alma. This small company connected Alma to several other regions of Quebec. It kept going for 23 years but had to shut down before the holidays. It could no longer compete with Air Canada. In my region we are served by Air Nova, a subsidiary of Air Canada.

This measure will kill competition in the Canadian skies, particularly in Quebec. As for small carriers, which could, directly or indirectly, take pride in having a head office in the regions, which were the pride and joy of our regions—like Air Alma back home—we will lose them because of this government, which did not come to their help and will now impose this tax.

In Quebec, 20 airports will be affected by that measure, compared to only 16 in Ontario. Moreover, these are all regional airports. I say that this is an anti-region tax. It is about time the government realized that the regions are fed up.

The government will have to respect our rights. We pay taxes and we also pay to ensure our security and mobility. That mobility must exist in both directions, that is for people coming to the regions and for people travelling from the regions to major centres. It has to exist both ways.

The government will have to be more open-minded. I think that the Minister of Transport did not do his job. He will have to review his position and, finally, allow our regions to develop through this means. This is just a beginning.

I also want to talk about employment insurance. The measure proposed in Bill C-49 to help parents whose children are temporarily hospitalized is wonderful. We have been asking for such a measure for a number of years.

The Minister of Finance should have endorsed the 17 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which said that a reform of the employment insurance program is really in order. As the Canadian Alliance member said, the employment insurance fund does not belong to the government.

Today, the newspapers reported that the surplus was an astonishing $43 billion. You and I do not pay EI premiums, Mr. Speaker. Most contributors to the fund do not earn more than $39,000—they are average wage earners. They represent companies, SMBs, small SMBs. That is who we are talking about in my riding. These are the people contributing to the fund.

We know that, right now, despite what the Minister of Finance is saying, although he is beginning to get it, we are experiencing an economic downturn in response to the events of September 11 in the United States. Measures are going to have to be taken if we are to get the economy back on its feet.

There was a way this could have been done. It would have been good if the surplus had been used to help our workers. I suggest that, with the huge surplus, they be given a premium holiday. This would not be permanent. It would be temporary and would help get the economy going again. This could have been done. What did the minister do?

That is what is serious. Before the holidays, the government party admitted that the fund was a virtual one. Again, I consulted Le Petit Robert . Something which is virtual is something that does not exist. It is in the imagination. Does this mean that the money in this fund was taken and put somewhere else?

What sort of trickery is this? What would you do tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker, if you had a large amount of money set aside for active measures to get the economy back on its feet and were told that actually there was no money, that it was only virtual? You would define criteria to deal with this virtuality.

Today,as the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has pointed out, it is one flip-flop after another when it comes to the forecasts and vision of the Minister of Finance and of this government.

Employment insurance is there for a reason. It belongs to workers and employers. It must be used for them, for their needs and for what they want to do to advance society.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is calling for the creation of a separate fund, so that workers and employers will be the ones in charge of it. It belongs to them. I think that this is necessary and we are not going to back down on this issue.

Let us talk about infrastructures and the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund. This is a great victory for the Bloc Quebecois. When the Minister of Finance brought down his budget last December 10, the comments about creating a foundation were that this was a serious matter. Even the auditor general said it made no sense. This was money belonging to everyone, and it was going to be handed over to a corporation made up of friends of the government who would do as they pleased.

I think that they have listened to reason. We said no, parliamentarians need to be answerable for investments made with the taxpayers' money.

We have won a great victory; the government met our expectations. Now the Minister of Finance is saying “There is $2 billion in this fund and it available immediately”. I would be very pleased if this were the case.

I believe I must live in the finest and most beautiful region of Quebec and of Canada, because of all the visits it gets from Liberal ministers. It is incredible, they must really love my region because they come to it so often. We must be such friendly folk, so likeable, that they cannot help but keep thinking about us.

We had a number of visits during the last election campaign. I hardly dared count them because the total was so embarrassing. I said “My goodness, this makes no sense”.

My region was visited by the following ministers among others: Public Works and Government Services, Justice, Finance, Immigration and Industry, and by the President of Treasury Board.

In my region, we have a major project, highway 175. I do not know if hon. members are familiar with it. It is called the Parc des Laurentides highway. At home we have a wildlife preserve. People coming from Quebec City must travel through an extraordinary wildlife preserve before arriving in the Saguenay region, at Laterrière. We have a highway that goes through the Laurentides wildlife preserve and we have a project that was defined by the region.

A number of people say it is after meetings where they were asked what kind of development people wanted so as to be prepared for the third millennium that it was decided they absolutely needed a four lane divided highway in the Parc des Laurentides. The region unanimously supports this project.

Liberal ministers paid quick visits and left. But they did come and say “We will definitely give you the money for your highway, but there is one condition: the Quebec government must make it one of its priorities”. This is what everyone said.

So, we turned to the Quebec government and met Guy Chevrette, whom I want to salute and thank for everything that he has done for Quebec, because he is a friend. This is a man who did a lot for the cause that we are defending, the sovereignty of Quebec, and I salute him.

We went to see the Quebec government and said “This must be included in a memorandum of understanding to show the Government of Canada that we want to go ahead with this project”. So, we went to see Guy Chevrette and also Mme Marois.

This had already begun with Lucien Bouchard, when he was Premier of Quebec and MNA for Jonquière, the riding that I represent at the federal level. At that point, the Quebec government decided to put $260 million on the table. I remind the House that this is a project worth almost $600 million.

They told us “We are contributing $262 million”. Mme Marois approved it immediately, to show that we wanted to move on this. Furthermore, a memorandum of understanding was drafted and sent to the federal government stating “All you have to do is sign; we are ready to move on this”.

This was before Christmas, in September, October and November. The ministers said “We do not have any money” but that they were committed nonetheless. They said “When we do have money, we will do it, because we think it is an important project for your region”. They also said “There will be criteria; it will fall within the criteria of what you have contributed”.

There is at present a program called the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund, and this falls within its scope perfectly. Yesterday, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister “Who is responsible for infrastructure projects? When will this person sign the agreement on highway 175 in my region?”

There is highway 185 in the Lower St. Lawrence. I remind the House that during the Christmas holidays, there were six deaths on this highway. This is the highway that goes from the Lower St. Lawrence toward Edmundston. There were six deaths. It is an extremely dangerous highway. It is an extension of the Trans-Canada. There is also highway 30.

There are three memoranda of understanding on the table. Why is it that the government cannot start right away? This is the dance of promises, the dance of hesitation and the dance of the unspoken starting all over again. I find it deplorable.

The money is there; the Minister of Finance told us so. But the Deputy Prime Minister said “Wait. I have to establish criteria. I have to draft a bill. I have to say how the program will work and propose this to the Treasury Board”. Enough already. This government needs to stop making promises to people left, right and centre, starting up with its dance of promises over and over and undermining the confidence of those who believe in their projects.

The people in my riding believe in their projects. At the end of February, the mayor of our new large city—we had a municipal amalgamation of six municipalities, creating the large city of Saguenay—will meet with the Prime Minister . He is going to ask him “When are you going to put in some money? Quebec put in money, when are you going to do so?” It is what the folks back home want. I hope that the Prime Minister will meet with him and say “We will put the money in before March 31”.

When Mr. Chevrette asked Quebec's finance minister for more money, he met with all the stakeholders. I know because I was there. The Government of Quebec's ministers invite us to be there when they meet with someone. When the federal Liberal ministers visit our regions, they do not even show any respect for the elected representatives. They do not invite the elected officials of the riding they are visiting. They imply that they have been elected by proxy in regions where they did not win a majority of the votes. Mr. Chevrette invited me and made promises to people.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you are familiar with the winter works program; I heard about it from my father. This was one of the things my father told us about that used to go on in his day. Winter works were a way of giving the economy a boost when times were tough; it got people working. Road construction is one area in which direct jobs can be created the most rapidly.

Investing $1 billion in roads creates 12,500 direct jobs and an equal number of indirect ones. Imagine what this would mean for my region. We have the highest unemployment rate in Canada, which is not something I am not proud of but there is no denying it. Imagine what this would mean for us; it would practically be the Klondike. It would be a way of countering the exodus of young people, because the equivalent of one busload of them is leaving my region for the major centres. I would like to see the opposite happen. I would like to load up two busloads full of young people from the major centres and bring them to my region.

This is part of what we want to do in our regions. This government comes to our ridings and boasts that it is looking after our resources. In my view, it is taking them away from us. It is using them for its own ends and not making sure that there is some benefit for us.

I call on the Deputy Prime Minister to tell us “Yes, it is true. We are serious. We have the money and we are going to move quickly. We are going to take what is on the table and get the economy going again”. That is what everyone is waiting for in Quebec and in the other provinces of Canada.

I am referring to Quebec but I hear from colleagues in other provinces, and find they have the same problems. Let us not forget that the Minister of Transport for Canada met two years ago with all provincial and territorial ministers of transport. These ministers said “Mr. Minister, our highways are so out of date that we will need a hand from the federal government to get our economy back on its feet and get our highway system back on track”. The Canadian Minister of Transport was presented with an investment plan for $16 billion over the next five years. The Minister of Transport did not have the clout to sell the Minister of Finance on this plan, but now I believe the money is there and I would call upon them to act.

Although people find this comical, if it happens I am going to buy a great big red carpet. I will set it up at the entrance to the Parc des Laurentides, which is in my riding, for the Prime MInister to walk on and I will say “Hooray, this is what we wanted”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to represent the people of Elk Island and, I suppose, the majority of Canadians when I stand in the House to discuss budget issues and demand from the government a proper and transparent accounting of the way the government spends taxpayers' money.

We all know that the government has a number of important functions. Undoubtedly one of the most important is to provide for the personal security of its citizens. That would extend into areas like health care. We need to have a fiscal regime in which business thrives, because that is the true development of our standard of living in this country. We also need to have a fiscal regime that will protect the value of Canadians' savings, of retirees and others. In the last eight years the Liberal government has done a dismally poor job of this. I do not want to be involved in too much hyperbole here, but I honestly do not think the government could have done worse if it had planned to do a bad job.

I base that on some very important principles. First and most important, to me at least, is the fact that there is no better time to pay down the principal value of a debt than when we have good times, especially nowadays when interest rates are very low. In the last three or four years the government has missed a tremendously wide open, golden opportunity to reduce our debt and thereby substantially reduce our interest payments. We know that the government has done some work in this area, but it could have done so much more.

We are talking about some of the measures taking place, here a billion, there a billion, with a little bit for the military, a little bit for homeland security. We are talking about $1 billion, $2 billion or $3 billion in different categories. For example, we want to give more money to our armed forces. That pales in comparison to the $40 billion a year spent on interest. I cannot emphasize strongly enough or often enough the missed opportunity. The Liberals had the opportunity, but it has now slipped away from us. In our present circumstances we are forced to pay attention to the security needs of the country. Our surpluses will be gone next year. The capacity to reduce the debt has evaporated. The opportunity was there and it was missed.

This reminds me of a story I heard many years ago about a guy who was mountain climbing. He was on a shelf in the mountains and unfortunately his rope slipped out of his hand. He knew that he had only one opportunity to grab the rope and that was the next time it swung back toward him. With nothing beneath him, he leaped for the rope, caught it, swung himself out and back and got back on the ledge with the rope in his hand. Had he missed that opportunity, he would have been stuck on that ledge with the rope hanging out there beyond his reach and that is where he would have stayed until being rescued who knows how many days or weeks later. That is like the government. It has missed an opportunity to substantially reduce the debt.

I want to address some of the issues in the bill before us today, Bill C-49. Interestingly, the bill was introduced in the House on Tuesday. The first debate on it was held yesterday. Here we are, two days after it was introduced. The bill is only 50 or 60 pages long, but I am quite certain that there are some negative things in the bill which I have not identified simply because of the lack of time. Other duties of course keep us busy as well.

One of the first things in the bill is the issue of air transport security. I fly frequently as do most members of parliament. I have really wondered about enhanced security at the airport. Sure, now we have to turn our computers on. Every day when I walk into the airport through security I am asked to show that my solar powered calculator works. That is supposed to somehow enhance security.

My little one inch blade that I had on my nail clipper was taken away. I was told that was very dangerous for a law abiding Canadian citizen to have. Frankly, when that happened, my mouth said to the security personnel that they could have it. I appreciated what they were trying to do, but in my head I was wondering how was this flight safer?

Now if we have hijackers on board we will just have to tackle them with our bare hands. Of course we have other devices which we will not tell them about.

The culture on airplanes has changed. We have had a number of instances of passengers becoming unruly and in some instances seeking to do harm to the plane and all its passengers. Passengers are now taking action. No longer are passengers docile, sitting there and obeying, and hoping the plane may be allowed to land safely. We know that is no longer a certain possibility so passengers are thinking quite differently.

One of the things that we promoted was the bringing on board of armed air marshals. We said that very soon in the aftermath of September 11. Eventually the government caught up with it and this is now being done.

We are talking about Bill C-49, the budget implementation bill, and this really disturbs me. The federal government wants to put greater security enhancements for air travel but it is proposing to ding the passengers for that cost.

There would be a new $12 or $24 tax depending on the destination and other different factors that are built into the bill. As an aside, let us proudly announce to Canadians that it includes the GST. The actual bill reads that the amount of the tax would be $11.22 but when the GST is added to this security tax, it would come to $12. The announced $12 or $24 would actually include the GST. Let us congratulate the government for doing that at least. It is about the most I can say.

However, it is a wrong decision for aircraft security to tax only people who are flying. By far the most people who were killed on September 11 were not in airplanes. There were a number of them in the airplanes themselves that went down on that fateful day but most of the people who died in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not in airplanes. It is in the public interest to have air security.

It is a wrongheaded idea for the government to target a tax with a fixed rate to provide for this air security. First, it does not distribute the price to those who are actually benefiting from it, and second, it is a tremendous disincentive to fly. This tax would have a great impact on our aircraft companies which are already suffering in these tough economic times and added security risks.

I will use the example of travelling between Edmonton and Calgary. If one drives within the speed limit, and of course I always do, this is about a three hour trip. From the time I leave my house, go to the airport and take the one hour or one hour and a half that I need to go through the security lineups and the check-in lineups because everything is so very slow these days, I could be over halfway to Calgary if I stay in my car and drive.

Now, taxes have been added. The cost has become prohibitive, not because of the cost of providing the service, but rather because of the cost of the taxes that are involved.

It is justifiable, to a degree, to charge air travellers for the cost of running airports and we do not worry about that too much. In the example I gave I picked a typical airfare ticket of approximately $119. In the particular airport I chose, a $100 ticket has now attached to it $150.12 worth of taxes and fees. In other words, the taxes are in excess of the ticket itself. We then add a security fee of $24 and believe it or not, a ticket where the value of the travel was $119, has attached to it $174 of taxes, fees and the security fee. That is a total of 146% of the value of the ticket before taxes. That is atrocious.

Every small community that enjoys travel, and I am thinking of places in Alberta between Grand Prairie and Edmonton, will be included in the fee because these are listed airports. It will add tremendously to the cost to the point where these businesses will not make any money because they will be unable to attract the clientele to use their business.

WestJest put out a press release yesterday. This is a very innovative young airline in our country. I should not do any free advertising for it, but I was on the Internet last night trying to get some stuff out of our national airline, Air Canada. Its website frustrated me to no end. It insisted that before it answered any question, I had to enter an e-mail. When I tried to enter my e-mail, after five or six characters it stopped accepting them. I tried to enter without my e-mail and it said “Sorry, your e-mail is invalid. You have to enter an e-mail”. I said forget it.

In contrast, WestJet has a website which is easy to use. It is the most user friendly site I have ever used. I have used it quite a bit because it is so easy to book a ticket. It has electronic tickets; it is great.

The press release put out by WestJet's CEO, Mr. Beddoe, stated that this boost in the price of airline tickets by $12 for a one way trip and $24 for a two way trip was enough to convince many people that it was better to drive 300 to 400 kilometres than to fly. He said it would be inevitable that many of the small cities that were served by WestJet would probably lose the only air service they had. That is shameful, just because of a tax.

The government, in previous times, used taxes in trying to prevent people from smoking. I talked about this before. The $12.75 cost of cigarettes has $16.69 worth of taxes. That is a tax of 130.9% on the price of the product. The government claims that is sufficient to cause people to stop smoking in some numbers. If a 130.9% tax for cigarettes would cause people to stop smoking, what would a 146% tax on flying do? It would probably stop people from flying and as a result we would end up with less service.

It does not have to be this way. Different airlines have asked that instead of making this a flat fee to simply make it a percentage of the ticket. That would be fair. It would be in proportion to the cost of the product.

The Liberals keep saying that they are in favour of a progressive tax, not the regressive one that taxes the little guy or the poor people inordinately in disproportion. They are doing just that in this particular case.

I would like to mention a few other things. One of the other items that the bill would do is make some income tax amendments. There is one shortcoming that I wish would have been here. During our finance committee hearings we had a number of people make presentations who asked to have the capital tax removed. It is a huge business disincentive. It prevents corporations from settling down in Canada to make this their business home because of this excessive tax. The costing of this would have been manageable within the budget parameters.

Our finance committee recommended it to the finance minister and it was one of the things he chose not to do. The capital tax remains and the disincentive to businesses operating in the country remains. It is a shortcoming of the budget and one I regret. The government should have done a lot better than that.

The bill talks about the ability of apprentice students to deduct from taxable income some amount of the cost of purchasing their tools. This part of the bill is so restrictive that all it does is give the Liberals something to crow about.

I have been a member of parliament for over eight years. There has been a member every session for as long as I can remember who has had a private member's bill to make a mechanic's tools tax deductible. It is a huge expense to mechanics. It is required for them to earn their income, and they are discriminated against because they cannot deduct that expense from their income.

I remember the member for Lakeland having a private member's bill as well as one of the Bloc members. Finally, a Liberal member came up with a bill after some prorogations later. It passed in the House that a mechanic's tools should be tax deductible.

What does the government do? It puts it in the budget but with restrictions. It applies only to apprentice students. Mechanics who are operating from day to day who have finished their apprenticeship training are not eligible. It has a $1,000 deductible. In other words, the first $1,000 is not deductible. It is only the amount of those expenses that exceed $1,000. An apprentice student in training needs to have that deduction on the first $1,000 not just on the amount by which it exceeds $1,000. It is also limited to 5% of income. As soon as apprentices make more than $20,000 a year, which means they are still on the poverty line, then that limit goes up. If, for example, they make $30,000 a year, then they would only be able to claim that amount over $1,500.

In summary, I would like to say that changes that the bill would bring in our income tax and fiscal considerations are woefully inadequate.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-49 regarding the budget, which was a great disappointment to many Canadians. On the day after he introduced the budget the finance minister stated during question period in the House:

--what is important in a budget is the way...it is received by the public.

We should all be disappointed by a finance minister who believes that public opinion and focus group economics is the way to govern a country when sometimes the most important and best decisions for the long term good of a country are not always the most popular decisions. I am speaking of decisions like free trade, the deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy, all of which were controversial and many of which were not popular. Even the replacement of the manufacturers sales tax, which was the euphemistic way of introducing the unpopular GST, was not popular but has proven to be the right policy down the road.

Canadians have paid a significant price for this type of government that focuses on polls and focus groups and does not have a vision or the wisdom and foresight to make the types of decisions which will improve the lives of Canadians well into this century.

Let us look at the budget from the perspective of the finance minister's statement, “what is important in a budget is the way it is received by the public”. The public includes Canadian farmers who have spoken out loud and clear on the budget. They were as disappointed as all Canadians and as they have been with every budget the finance minister has introduced by the fact that the minister and the government have failed to deal adequately with the crisis facing farmers across Canada.

There is a view in the federal department of agriculture that if something is not raised or grown in the west it is not agriculture. As the member of parliament for the riding of Kings--Hants where 50% of all the agricultural products of Nova Scotia are produced, with a larger output of agricultural product than the entire province of Prince Edward Island, I urge the department and the government to take seriously issues of agriculture which have not been dealt with properly by the government. It has failed to recognize the important contribution made by Canadian farmers to the lives of all Canadians.

The budget failed to deal with the crisis the Canadian military is facing. Even in a pre-September 11 context our Canadian military had been starved of resources. In the budget the government did not deal with the crisis that existed in military funding pre-September 11. If we add to this difficulty and the stretching of scarce resources the September 11 imperatives, the new security imperatives, and the increased levels of duty and tasks added to our Canadian armed forces, clearly the budget does not come close to addressing these needs. It was supposed to be a security budget and it did not even address those issues.

Numerous presentations were made to the House of Commons finance committee by the non-profit sector urging a permanent elimination of the capital gains tax on gifts of publicly listed securities. In the budget the government made permanent a reduction to the capital gains tax on publicly listed securities, but that was a baby step in the right direction. The Canadian philanthropic sector, Canadian charities whether a university foundation, the United Way or a hospital foundation, is at a competitive disadvantage when competing with funds currently being drawn to places in the U.S. and the U.K.

The government has not worked with the non-profit sector to make it easier for Canadian institutions, the non-profit sector, universities, hospitals, foundations and charities to raise money that is necessary, particularly during a period of decreased federal and provincial funding.

Even with the minister's view that we should judge budgets based on public opinion the budget was a gross failure. Probably the most damning gauge by which to evaluate the budget is what the international markets have said about it and about the performance of the government.

Under the government the Canadian dollar has lost 20% of its value against the U.S. dollar. The Prime Minister's response is typically that this is not really a problem and a low dollar is good for exports. If we think about the logical corollary of the Prime Minister's arguments and follow his flawed logic, by reducing the Canadian dollar to zero Canada could be the greatest export nation in the world.

Another argument that the Prime Minister makes about the Canadian dollar is that although we are doing badly against the U.S. dollar we are doing well against other currencies. He is right. Our dollar is doing better than the ruble at this time. All we have to do is wait, because we have lost 15% against the British pound and we have lost significantly against the Mexican peso.

A 20% drop in the value of the Canadian dollar represents a pay cut to every Canadian, a drop in our standard of living and a reflection of the fact that Canadians are getting poorer as Americans are getting richer under the watch of the government.

Last week the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance went to New York for a couple of days. During the period of time they were out of the country the dollar improved marginally. Since they have returned, however, the dollar has dropped again.

I would suggest that the government seriously consider sending the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance out of the country for about 30 days. Based on that performance, if they stayed out of the country for 30 days the Canadian dollar might ascend to the level at which it rested prior to the government taking power in 1993. Maybe the answer is to get the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister out of the country.

If they are not here they certainly will not be able to direct funding to departments and misguided spending programs where it ought not to be going. They will not be able to spend money in one of the sixteen departments the auditor general described as having out of control spending.

When the finance minister was given an opportunity to reduce spending in some key areas he did not take that opportunity at all. He did not cut one area in a $130 billion budget. No one is saying that the finance minister should be cutting in health care, the military or agriculture, the prime areas he ought to be investing more in.

However there are areas of government waste. There is no member on either side of the House who does not realize in his or her heart there are areas of government spending which do not reflect the priorities, the needs, the values and the long term interests of Canadians.

This is not an esoteric debate we are making as people with so much money that we do not have to worry about how we balance the budget. Based on U.K., U.S. and German accounting standards the fact is that Canada is in a deficit right now.

Based on our own accounting standards Canada is sliding toward a deficit position next year. This year the government provided not a tax break but a deferred corporate tax benefit to next year. Why did it do that? Did it do that to be nice to people? Did the government do it to try to help corporate Canada? If it were interested in doing that it probably would have applied it in some way that would have benefited mom and pop operations and would have been more broadly based.

The government did it for one reason and that was to avoid the stark reality of being in a deficit next year. The only thing that is keeping Canada out of a deficit position right now is Liberal leadership politics. A stark fear exists on government benches that because of its lax spending and the fact that it has not monitored spending it will slide back into a deficit. It wants to avoid that reality.

In terms of health care there is a health care crisis in every province in Canada. We cannot blame provincial governments for the health care crisis in Canada.

The blame belongs squarely on the desk of the Prime Minister and on the desk of the Minister of Finance who have cut transfers to the provinces. In an unprecedented cruel way they have put provinces in a position where they have not had the resources to meet their basic needs. The provinces are now paying 85% to 88% of health care costs. When medicare was first introduced the federal government was actually paying 50%. Now it is down to 10%, 12% or 15% depending on the province, to a point where a province like Nova Scotia is now facing a health care crisis, a province that does not have the tax base of Alberta or Ontario. A province like Nova Scotia is hit disproportionately hard by these types of cutbacks.

That is why provincial governments are in such a difficult position trying to keep clinics and hospitals open. The waiting lists for surgery and treatment have grown well beyond what anyone considers acceptable. The blame belongs squarely on the government which has not only failed to respond in every budget prior to this one but has disappointed all Canadians concerned about health care in the latest budget.

If the government were serious about addressing some of the real challenges facing Canada in this century, a century during which Canadians will face an even greater rate of change and challenge than they have faced in the last century, I would posit that the government would have used the budget to strengthen our health care system, to strengthen our commitment to agriculture, to rationalize spending in other departments, to find areas of government waste where it could have reduced some of that spending and to address the fundamental issue plaguing Canadians, the Canadian dollar.

The Canadian dollar should be a source of pride for Canadians, not a source of embarrassment. The Canadian dollar should not be a joke. It is really terrible when our friends and family in the U.S. talk to us about how they are being paid in American dollars and laugh at us. The Canadian dollar is more than just a bread and butter or nuts and bolts issue. It is a symbol of Canada.

Earlier today we were speaking in the House in honour of Queen Elizabeth whose face graces our Canadian dollar. What an embarrassment that we honour Queen Elizabeth in the House yet we embarrass her by failing to introduce the types of economic policies that would strengthen the dollar bill upon which her face is placed.

If we are serious about honouring Queen Elizabeth and the Canadian dollar, we ought to introduce a productivity agenda. That means tax reform focused on productivity. That means regulatory reform focused on productivity. That means the rationalization of spending focused on the types of initiatives that would lead to the long term success and prosperity of Canadians.

I recognize education for very important reasons is under provincial jurisdiction in Canada, but by restoring transfers to the provinces to the levels at which they ought to be the federal government could help significantly in terms of ensuring that all Canadians have the opportunity to obtain an adequate education. Not only has health care been devastated by the cuts of the federal government but our education system has as well.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 implements many details of the December budget. It was a budget of missed opportunities and failed to address many important problems facing Canadians.

The implementation bill contains five or six key aspects of the budget. A major change has been made in the last eight weeks in the way part of the budget is organized, namely the infrastructure program and the Africa fund.

Last week the budget went through the House and there was no whimper, no scuttlebutt, no talk whatsoever about making a major change in the administration of a major part of the budget. I speak about the infrastructure fund that was supposed to be administered at arm's length from the cabinet, from the federal government, from the politicians. It was to be run like an arm's length foundation.

I also have some concerns about the terms of accountability to parliament. The attitude of the government has changed 180 degrees. It has decided that the infrastructure fund will be under the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister.

There is a danger of it becoming a politically targeted infrastructure fund for the Liberal Party of Canada if it comes under political direction. The temptation is there, some $2 billion. There would be a real temptation to put some of that money into more politically sensitive projects than if the fund were administered totally at arm's length from the Government of Canada.

The other big change was the $500 million Africa fund. Again, the fund was to be administered at arm's length from the federal government but there was a change and it too is under the political responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.

I wonder whether or not the finance minister has lost a little tug of war within the cabinet. The Prime Minister seems to be favouring the Deputy Prime Minister as his successor as leader of the Liberal Party. He tried with Mr. Brian Tobin who was the Minister of Industry but that did not work out. That fizzled and failed. He has made the former foreign affairs minister the Deputy Prime Minister. He has given him a lot more responsibility and a lot of political clout in terms of doing favours for all kinds of government members. That is a real concern to me and many other members of the House of Commons.

The implementation bill, in addition to what I have already mentioned, brings in a number of other aspects of the budget. It establishes the new Canadian air transport security authority, because of what happened on September 11. The new authority will be responsible for security at the airports. It will have the full power of a crown corporation and will be run by 11 government appointees. I would bet dollars to donuts that most of those 11 government appointees will be people who are very active in the Liberal Party of Canada. Another 11 people will be put in patronage positions.

From the way the legislation is written and from the briefings we received, I do not think regular travellers will see much of a change at the airports as they go through security screening. I think the same or similar private sector contractors will be running airport security.

It is interesting to note that a public opinion poll was taken and 70% of Canadians wanted the security services at the airports to be under the authority of federal officials. Only 20% wanted to have private contractors responsible for screening at Canada's airports. I predict that the screening will continue to be provided by private contractors and I do not think that is the way the general public wants to go.

I am also concerned about the rights of workers who are already there. Many of them are members of the United Steelworkers of America union, which represents many of the people who work in airport security. I am concerned about what kinds of rights they will have as we go through this changeover and phasing out of the present system into the new.

The other thing we should be noting is that last year the Toronto airport authority gave the federal Liberal Party a contribution of $7,500, and I think that when we have this new crown agency its 11 government appointees will be looking at political considerations, not necessarily solely the safety considerations for the people of our country.

Second, I would like to mention something new in the bill, the implementation of the air traveller security charge as of April 1, 2002, to fund the air security enhancements at airports in the country. This will be a charge of $12 a flight, $24 per round trip, plus the GST. It does not matter in most cases how long the trip will be. Whether it is a long haul flight from Vancouver to Halifax or a short haul flight from Ottawa to Toronto or Regina to Winnipeg, there will be a charge of $24 plus GST. Meanwhile in the United States the equivalent fee that the Americans will be charging is $2.50 U.S. a flight. Let us say that is $4 Canadian a flight. Our government is charging $24 Canadian a flight, fully $20 Canadian more for a flight in this country than is being charged in the United States. According to some of the research that has been done, only about $2 of that new fee will go to fund the new agency, the Canadian air transport security agency, and $10 from that flight will go into general government revenues or coffers. In other words it is just a new tax grab. It is a fee. We get tax reductions on one side and fee increases on the other side and the ordinary person will pay through the nose once again.

We are concerned about this. It is something we will fight against in the committee. I am sure the Canadian people will be on our side in terms of mobilizing against this new airport tax, most of which will not be for airport security but will go into government revenues for other purposes.

There is one more point I would like to mention and it is one thing that I certainly agree with in the budget implementation bill, because we should not forget that a bill like this is an omnibus bill. It has the good, the bad and the ugly. The ugly is the airport tax. There are a lot of bad things in the bill but there are some good things as well.

One of the good things is the deferral of taxes for six months for the small business people of the country. The federal government will be deferring tax instalments for January, February and March of 2002 for up to six months to assist small businesses in their cashflow. This is $2 billion. It is not a tax writeoff. It is a tax deferral. Because of the slowdown in the economy, the recession or near recession in the economy, and because of what happened on September 11, there is a deferral of taxes for up to six months for small businesses that want to exercise that deferral right. We support that, because small businesses in the country employ about half the Canadian population and now create about 80% of the new jobs in Canada.

When I talk about small businesses, I mean really small business. In fact, 80% of small businesses in the country have sales of less than $1 million a year. Eighty per cent of the new jobs are in small business. Sales for 80% of those small businesses are less than $1 million a year. They employ from one to twenty people, maybe up to thirty or so. Many of these small businesses are single person operations. Many people operate these companies out of their own homes or have a small retail operation such as a hair salon. These businesses create about 80% of the new jobs in the country.

This is a sector we should be looking at in terms of creating jobs, creating wealth, helping Canadian people and putting Canadian people to work. This deferral is one small way of helping people who are employed by small business or who indeed are owners of small businesses. I remind the House that the majority of small business owners and those who work in small businesses in the country now are women, not men. This is an area that needs a lot more assistance in the future.

Another positive thing in the bill is a new provision to allow an apprentice vehicle mechanic to deduct a portion of the cost of new tools acquired after 2001. Mechanics, men and women, who bought tools for their businesses could not deduct them as an expense. They buy these tools to work. People in a business operation who have a legitimate business expense can deduct it on their taxes, people such as doctors, dentists and many other professionals, including consultants. Consultants who have home businesses can deduct a portion of home expenses on their taxes. They can claim 20% of their home expenses or whatever amount it is and telephone costs and a certain amount for utilities. They are deducted as legitimate expenses. Yet we had mechanics, young people in the country starting out, who were spending thousands of dollars on tools but could not deduct them as a legitimate expense.

In 1999, I introduced a private member's bill in the House, Bill C-338, calling for the deduction of costs of mechanics' tools from income tax. I did that after circulating a petition throughout my riding and parts of Saskatchewan, getting signatures from hundreds of mechanics who were saying they wanted fair treatment, justice and equality in the tax laws. I have raised this issue time and time again at the finance committee. The government has not gone as far in the budget as mechanics want it to go, but at least this is a start. It is going in the right direction and it will allow the deduction of some of the cost of purchasing tools. I will keep pushing to make sure that we get the full deduction of the cost of tools for mechanics in the years that lie ahead.

Another part of the budget in terms of the implementation is the change for companies that want to donate securities to public charities. In our country when people have capital gains they are taxed on 50% of the capital gains. The 1997 change to the law for companies making donations to charities was that instead of having 50% of that income taxable, the government put it down to 37.5%. This budget brings it down to only 25%.

In the United States and the United Kingdom there is no tax whatsoever when securities are contributed to charitable organizations. What we have done in this country is strike a note halfway between what happens in the U.K. and the United States and what we used to have here. I certainly support that provision as well. I support making it easier for companies to donate to charities. There has been a lot of lobbying on that in the finance committee over the last while. Indeed, many members of the finance committee would like to see the capital gains tax eliminated altogether for securities donated to charities by companies in our country. I have not gone that far and the Minister of Finance has not gone that far, but at least there is some progress in that direction.

There is another thing I wanted to mention again. I started to say at the outset of my remarks that a big thing that is happening is the $2 billion Canada infrastructure fund, which will provide assistance for infrastructure in the country. We need a massive infrastructure program in Canada. This is one of the ways to create jobs. It is one of the ways to build the country, to build the economy. We need a vision of building our country and our economy, a vision of building the roads, highways and water systems and cleaning up the environment. What we get in the budget is a $2 billion fund over six years.

In the United States over the equivalent period of time, the Americans have committed $217 billion in transportation infrastructure alone. In our country we have some $2 billion to cover all infrastructure over a period of six years. If we were to have an equivalent measure of investment into infrastructure, comparing our population to that of the United States, we would need at least $18 billion more than we are seeing in this budget implementation bill.

These are some parts of the bill that will be debated in committee. Some of them are negative, some of them are positive and some of them are really bad, like the airport tax that everybody will have to pay.

Another part of the bill is the African development fund to reduce poverty, provide education and set the African people on the path to a more sustainable development of their societies and their lives. This is a promise that was made by the Prime Minister to Nelson Mandela many years ago. It is $500 million over six years.

Despite this, we are now spending only .25% of our GDP on foreign aid. The goal for many years has been .7% of our GDP. We are spending just a bit over a third of what we should be spending to help countries in the third world. It is a sad commentary on our country. In Canada we should be strong advocates of a world economic development agency that has a vision of a new development plan, a modern day Marshall Plan that would develop places like Africa, Afghanistan and many other parts of the world. That should be one of the things that we advocate as a Canadian parliament and as a Canadian government.

We need to solve some of the problems of world poverty, world despair and world hunger. People are dying of starvation as we speak in the House of Commons today. Hundreds of people in the world are literally dying from a lack of food, yet we have the means in this country and in this world to produce a great deal of food. We have the means for international development in the world. If we do not solve some of these problems we will have more tragedies like those of September 11 and more calamities that will haunt us in the years that lie ahead. We have the means.

About three years ago, parliament passed a private member's motion I introduced, stating that we endorsed in principle the idea of the Tobin tax, a tax on the speculation in currency around the world. This is a tax that was suggested by an American professor named James Tobin whereby we would put a very small tax of about .1% or .2% on speculation in currency. In the world today over $1 trillion is traded in currency every single day, mostly by big banks. With this small tax we could raise hundreds of billions of dollars for international development and environmental cleanup. Much of it could be spent in countries around the world to develop social programs, to help eliminate poverty and to help reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. We have the means in the world to have these kinds of funds developed to help all Canadians and help all peoples of the world, whether is it a Tobin tax or some other means of funding some of these initiatives.

I conclude by saying that the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance was a budget of missed opportunities. It was a budget that did not tackle some of the real problems that we have today. It was a budget that failed to address the real issues of the economy and unemployment. Back in December the unemployment rate rose to 7.5%.

Today, the national unemployment rate if 8%. This is the highest rate in years. In the forecasts the finance minister issued two months ago, there was nothing regarding job creation for Canadians.

We have to create jobs and we do that by investing in infrastructure, by putting money into affordable housing, into cleaning up the environment and into water treatment facilities across the country.

We also do it by making sure that we have a fair deal for the farmers of Canada. The farmers of Canada are in a real crisis, largely because of massive government subsidies for farmers in the United States and Europe. There is now a bill before the American congress, supported already by the house of representatives, I think, and going to the senate. It was agreed to by the president of the United States. It will inject into the American economy over $170 billion American in additional money in terms of farm subsidies to support the farmers of the United States of America. We should think about the impact that will have on Canadian farmers. Yet the government brought down a budget with absolutely nothing in it for the farmers of our country. Canadian farmers need a fair shake and a fair deal. The foundation of the country is agriculture and when the farmers are better off we are all better off. There would be job creation in the towns and cities from coast to coast to coast. We need more assistance for our farmers. We have missed the opportunity. The Minister of Finance should be changing some of those things instead of the changes he made in terms of infrastructure and the African fund.

Since the government took power, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened. We have a part time, high unemployment, low wage society and that is what must be changed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was explaining to my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois critic for international affairs, how this budget had totally changed if one is to belive the statements made yesterday by the finance minister.

This is the first time I see a finance minister, eight weeks after tabling the budget, completely change his mind on some basic aspects of the government fiscal policy that was read here in the House, described in the budget documents and announced during several scrums after the budget speech. This gives us a peculiar image of this government, especially the finance minister, who does not seem to know where he is going. This does not make sense and I will give two rather obvious examples of what happened yesterday.

Eight weeks ago, we were told that during the current fiscal year, 2001-2002, the finance minister would not spend one dime on paying down the debt because of the downturn we are now experiencing and other priorities the government had, including investing in infrastructure to encourage economic growth and setting up a fund to help Africa, which is welcome news under the circumstances.

Yesterday, and I will borrow the phrase used by the Prime Minister during oral question period, the finance minister flip-flopped magically. He has now decided to apply any surplus accumulated at the end of fiscal 2001-2002, the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, to the debt.

As for the foundation, it remains to be seen, we do not know yet. The infrastructure foundation has become the Strategic Infrastructure Foundation and we do not know the rules yet. We do not know how it will work. It would have been too simple to simply renew existing agreements, especially with the Quebec government, regarding the infrastructure program and allocate new money.

It is difficult to understand where the finance minister is going. Not only did he say yesterday that he would apply any surplus, which might be bigger than planned, to the debt, but today during oral question period he is saying surpluses are dwindling and might be insignificant.

How can we understand what the government is up to, in terms of management, when in just eight weeks, the finance minister changed his policy on the use of surpluses, in a few hours, modified his vision concerning the scope of these surpluses, and in a few minutes, went from the infrastructure fund to the infrastructure foundation, after we were told yesterday that the foundation no longer existed? The unbelievable confusion around this minister's management makes us think that he doesn't know where he is going.

How can we have confidence in the initiatives he has announced and which were in the budget tabled eight weeks ago? Since yesterday, he has put himself in a shameful contradiction in terms of the debt and the infrastructure fund.

Before getting into the bill and its various proposals for review and comment, I would like to recall certain elements of the financial framework designed to help assess these measures.

First, it is wrong to say—as the Minister of Finance did today while he said the opposite yesterday—that surpluses are not important.

We will end the current fiscal year with substantial surpluses, probably double what the Minister of Finance initially announced. Even taking into consideration the new initiatives totalling about $4 billion that were handed out eight weeks ago in the budget, the net surpluses after subtracting the cost of all these initiatives will probably exceed $6 billion.

Before the initiatives announced eight weeks ago, we had anticipated that surpluses between $10 and $12 billion. Even after factoring in the initiatives announced in the budget eight weeks ago, there will still be a 6 or $7 billion surplus. People must know that it is still possible to do things.

Second, this is rather astonishing, yet the Minister wonders why he is not being taken seriously and why he is regarded more like a stand-up comic than a real manager of public funds. Yesterday, I read the budget over, because I was not sure I had clearly understood the Minister of Finance and his statements regarding the debt and the foundation compared to the infrastructure fund.

In reviewing his estimates, I noticed that he overestimated his expenditures. There is a $11 billion year over year increase in expenditures, which is not supported by the facts.

Third, he underestimated his revenues. For example, if one looks at the employment insurance fund, one sees that, a few weeks after the actuary for the fund indicated that the surplus could exceed $7 billion, the Minister of Finance wrote in his budget that the surplus in the EI fund would be about $3.5 billion. That is half of the amount estimated by the chief actuary.

The government must quit taking people for fools. It must quit doing these kinds of flip flops on such important issues. What do people on the outside think of the Minister of Finance and this government when they see such flip flops eight weeks after the tabling of a budget? They do not take them seriously.

When I went to New York City last weekend, I met business people. I also met forecasters, serious people. And I can tell you that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are not taken seriously when they show up in New York City saying that everything is fine, that our fiscal house is in order, particularly since we have just learned, eight weeks after the tabling of a budget, that there has been a change in policy and that there will not be a debate on the issue of monetary instability and monetary integration for the Americas.

People must not be taken for fools. Those who take an interest in the evolution of the Canadian economy, in public finances, in the budgets and in the great debates on currency know full well that when the government steers the House away from this kind of debate, it is because it does not want to talk about these issues. And if it does not want to talk about them, it is because there is a problem.

And the Minister of Finance tells them “Perhaps we could advertise in the New York Times and in the Washington Post , to sell the Canadian dollar”. It is not smart at all to say such things. It creates doubt in the financial sector.

We say “If there is no problem, why advertise in the New York Times and in the Washington Post to promote the value of the Canadian dollar and say that it is not appreciated at its fair value?” By doing so, we are drawing attention to the problem.

The government may spend billions of dollars in advertising, but this will not enhance the competitiveness of Canadian businesses versus American ones, and that is the main reason why the value of the Canadian dollar has been decreasing over the past 30 years.

Moreover, this will not convince international speculators, who make billions of dollars on infinitesimal variations of secondary currencies such as the Canadian dollar, to stop making billions by speculating. This is totally ridiculous.

Fortunately, ridicule does not kill, otherwise a number of government members would no longer be around. It does not make sense to manage public funds the way the Minister of Finance has been doing, especially in the past 24 hours. That is unbelievable.

There are also dubious and questionable decisions in this budget—I am going back to the specific bill, Bill C-49—particularly the imposition of a tax on domestic air transportation.

Some sad events occurred on September 11 in the United States. If there is one sector that was directly hit, and in a catastrophic way, it was the air transportation industry. And, in his great wisdom and with surpluses that far exceed what he claims to have available for the current fiscal year, the Minister of Finance has decided to impose a new tax on air transportation.

What a nice way to help the airline industry. What a nice way to get the economy back on track, as we have been asking him to do since September, because we were already experiencing a slowdown, and September 11 just hastened things. What a nice way to help the airline industry, and regional development too.

It is ill-advised—and I am being polite when I say that—to impose a tax on air transportation services provided by small carriers, particularly those serving remote regions. They have enough problems as it is, but the government imposes a new tax on them. What a bright idea.

Moreover, some regional carriers are pulling out of some areas, because the routes are no longer financially viable. Because of this tax that is coming up, it will be even less worthwhile. Air travel will no longer be competitive. The people in the regions will be considered second class citizens. We have just learned that Air Alma has dropped its Alma-Montreal service, and recently Alma-Magdalen Islands as well. What sort of country will we end up with? Only someone who was not in his right mind would impose such measures. There are plenty of questions to be answered about this.

In the budget implementation bill, the airports where security is improved with the funds from this tax have been classified. It will be collected at 20 Quebec airports, for example, and the charge will range from $12 to $24 per ticket, as if the price of tickets were not already high enough. I will remind hon. members that the price of air travel has risen 9.2% since 1983 in Canada, overall, while there has been a drop of 43% in the United States over the same period. This is a fine way to improve our competitive edge.

Instead of making ridiculous statements, like saying they will bail out the Canadian dollar by putting ads in the New York Times or the Washington Post , they should show more intelligence, and take some measures that are not counterproductive, unlike the ones in the airline sector. The situation is totally ridiculous.

One might well wonder, in connection with the airports affected by these improvements to security, why there were 20 in Quebec out of the 90—all over the regions, as will be seen when I list them later, which is rather peculiar—whereas there are only 15 in Ontario. Why is a greater need being felt to improve security in airports in Quebec than in those in Ontario?

This means that there are more airports in Quebec where this tax will have to be paid, more airports in Quebec that will be affected, as will the air carriers themselves, by this new tax, which will be detrimental to their competitiveness. This means that there will probably be more residents in remote parts of Quebec whose areas will be served less frequently or certain routes will simply be eliminated altogether. May we have an explanation of why this is the case? This is the type of question that will be raised in committee. We will have a lot of questions to ask.

Here is the list of the affected airports throughout Quebec: Alma, Bagotville, Baie-Comeau, Chibougamau, Gaspé, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Kuujjuaq, La Grande Rivière, La Grande-3, La Grande-4, Blanc-Sablon, Mont-Joli, Montreal, Quebec City, Roberval, Rouyn-Noranda, Sept-Îles and Val-d'Or. Virtually all regions are affected.

Do people really think terrorism will be an issue in Kuujjuaq, and that we should improve security there that much in case something unfortunate happens?

Sometimes, a little bit of logic helps. Once again, why are there more airports in Quebec than in Ontario that are dealt this blow against the competitiveness of airlines? Will the prejudice caused by this charge be greater in Quebec than in Ontario? We need an answer.

Just like the general content of the budget did, Bill C-49 makes us wonder about the abilities of the Minister of Finance. And we are left to wonder even more, after what happened in the last 24 hours. We have to ask whether the minister should let somebody else take over. It is fortunate the Deputy Prime Minister is there to put a semblance of order in government business. Otherwise, the government and its management would really not look good.

The Bloc Quebecois has always strived to improve things. Right after the events on September 11, we urged the government and the Minister of Finance, who is forever doing flip-flops, to help the economy weather the storm, but the minister did not listen.

At the time, either late October or early November, we even presented a five-point emergency plan to help the businesses and workers who could be seriously affected by the economic downturn, not to say recession, then anticipated. We even put down suggestions in writing and sent them to the Minister of Finance, who has run out of new ideas and does not know where he is headed.

We said, “We will sit down at the drawing board. We will make some appropriate suggestions and we will give him a little help. He may have run out of ideas and have problems, but we have ideas on how to help people and companies”. We then made public our emergency plan, which included a real reform of employment insurance. Why? Because this government has slashed EI benefits and literally stolen from the pockets of unemployed workers and people who pay into the EI fund.

People should never forget that the federal government is no longer putting a red cent into the fund. Proportionately speaking, the premiums paid by employers, employees, SMBs and average wage earners account for the bulk of the fund. But, year after year, for the last five years in particular, this government has literally been stealing the surplus from the EI fund. This minister keeps telling us how well he is doing his job, but the real reason he has a surplus and can look so good is that he has been stealing other people's money.

Our emergency plan included provisions for improving the EI system so as to help support the economy in two ways. First, by helping those who make the economy run and who were in danger of being affected by the downturn. We have seen the increase in unemployment in recent months. Our plan was to help these people qualify for EI, because many of them could have been excluded by the stringent and inhumane requirements imposed by this government. Our plan contained provisions for helping current and future unemployed workers with a humane and decent system, which would not be governed by completely inhumane and vicious criteria, like those this government introduced a few years ago.

Second, our plan provided for the injection of new funds into the economy. Let us not forget that each time there is a flow of new money, it can help boost the economy. It can help the regions through the economic downturn. We were told no.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development made 17 recommendations. These were unanimous recommendations. Unanimity is not common here. All members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, including Liberal members, signed a report containing 17 recommendations designed to improve the employment insurance plan by making it more humane, more accessible and more universal. Right now, only 40% of Canadians are covered under the plan. Is it not stupid to have a plan that does not even cover the majority of the people it should help? It is absolutely ridiculous.

Despite such unanimity—and we know the proverbial courage of Liberal members, who may say many things in committee but later get their arms twisted and say nothing when it is time to vote because they all have the ambition of becoming ministers—they all voted in favour of the budget even though it contained only one measure out of the 17 recommendations. We do welcome this measure, which gives more flexibility to parents with children who are hospitalized for extended periods, because we, in the Bloc Quebecois, fought for it. It was part of the improvements we asked for so as not to exclude certain people, especially among the most disadvantaged.

My colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques fought for this. Before him, it was my colleague, the member for Mercier, who is now our party's critic for foreign affairs. All of the Bloc Quebecois fought for these types of improvements. We are being shown an improvement when there were 17 recommendations that would have used part of the $7 billion surplus from the employment insurance fund, not all of the surplus. The measure proposed involves spending some $50 million.

They must be joking when they say “We are helping the unemployed”. One would have to be a heartless millionaire to propose this kind of thing and then say “we are helping the unemployed”, while proposing measures as insignificant as these. Eventually something is going to have to happen, because it is ridiculous to manage taxpayers money like this and mislead Canadians every year with surplus forecasts that are way off.

We had also asked, as part of our emergency plan, to anticipate—because we, on this side of the House, are responsible—measures which are not costly but which could provide a leg up for business, particularly in times of crisis, after the events of September 11, to help them weather the economic turbulence that we experienced at that time, but also to help them get through the economic downturn, which had begun prior to that.

We proposed a measure that would cost the government virtually nothing. It was the deferral of corporate tax instalments. We know what businesses must pay periodically. We said, “Let us allow them to regroup. Let us allow them to assess the situation, take corrective measures, in terms of managing their business, strategic planning, and as a result of the events and the downturn. And in order to give them a real hand, it would be a good idea to defer their tax payments, their corporate instalments, by six months”.

Mme Marois, in Quebec City, did not wait until December. She proposed this measure right away, and was applauded by the business leaders. But no. Our Minister of Finance was thinking. He was not acting. And when he thinks, it is dangerous, because he changes his mind about four times in 24 hours.

We are pleased with this measure, because it is included. The Bloc Quebecois fought to have this measure included, to allow small and medium size businesses to defer tax instalments, so as to make it easier for them to make it through the economic downturn. It would have been so easy to announce and implement this measure at the end of October. It would have been a breath of fresh air for businesses. But no. The minister had to think. And since this idea was not his own, perhaps it was not such a good idea. There is a bit of narcissism in politics. The Minister of Finance is not immune to it.

We are also pleased about another measure. It would be difficult to feel differently, because we are the ones who proposed it. I am referring to the tax deduction for mechanics' tools. It was my colleague, the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, our deputy whip, who made that suggestion through a bill he introduced in the House several months ago. We are not talking about last week. That was a number of months ago. He was a forerunner and his proposal is included in the December budget.

When my colleague presented this most beneficial bill—because tools now cost a mechanic or an apprentice a small fortune; there are incredible technological advances in this area and there is a need for this type of measure—our Minister of Finance, the stand-up comic, told his Liberal colleagues—we saw him, we were there—to oppose my colleague's bill, instead of supporting it, because he had not sponsored it. This minister is as proud as a peacock.

Mr. Speaker, we sometimes we get carried away by our emotions. But I refrained from saying certain things. It could have been worse.

We were pleased to see this measure included in the budget. But again, why wait almost a year before implementing such a measure, when it would have been so easy to announce it immediately? The minister thought this was a good idea since he used it. He thought the Bloc Quebecois had a good idea since he included it in his budget.

But why did he vote against the bill introduced by the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans? This is called petty politics. To engage in petty politics is to put one's image, one's prestige first, it is to give the impression that we have ideas and to present them in a budget and get all the praise. One can either engage in petty politics or truly help people.

The Minister of Finance decided to turn the budget into a show, with surprise announcements at the end of the year about surpluses that were larger than expected, when one would have to be completely stupid to come up with the sort of forecasts he did, containing errors that gave him an extra $50 billion to play around with over six years.

This is called looking out for one's political career, one's political image, one's chances of winning the next leadership race. It is a cheap stunt, because the money we pay to this government does not belong to the Minister of Finance. It is not his to do with as he pleases. It belongs to taxpayers. Taxpayers expect their money to be used honestly and in a transparent manner, and they are tired of being fed ridiculous forecasts.

We came up with a good measure. The Minister of Finance waited, presented it himself, and it was passed by a majority. However, this measure only went part way. My colleague's bill was much more complete. It affected all mechanics, not just apprentices. Bravo, we are happy for apprentices, but it would have been a good idea to allow tax deductions for all those in this line of work, to make deductions universal, as with other professions. But no.

Sometimes we have trouble understanding the reasoning and the philosophy behind the decisions and the flip-flops of the Minister of Finance.

I am sorry that the Minister of Finance is not more clairvoyant and not more courageous in his ideas and measures. In the last budget, there could have been tremendous opportunities for improving the general wellbeing of society, of taxpayers, of unemployed workers and of companies. The Minister of Finance could have jumped at this chance to show us just once that he was capable of coming up with ideas, that he too had a vision for the future.

Taking Quebec—not that we want to imply that we are better than anyone else—just look at what has happened in the last two budgets. Quebec's minister of finance and deputy premier, Mme Marois, has succeeded, with the little funds available to her, to put in place some forward-looking meaningful measures. Do hon. members realize why we have so few measures in the Quebec government, by which I mean budget measures? It is because the federal government has deprived it of them. SInce 1995, the federal government has outrageously slashed transfer payments for health, education and income security. This leaves Quebec in a budget situation that is not characterized by the same huge surpluses that are enjoyed here by our minister, Mr. Flip-flop.

Nevertheless, we have successfully put in place programs to assist the regions, to attract investors to the remote regions, to improve the secondary and tertiary processing sectors in the resource regions, to attract foreign capital, to earn Montreal the reputation of an international financial capital, to make the regions more than just the source of workers for the major centres. We have put measures in place to allow young people in the regions to stay home, to enjoy a decent life, to earn a living and to prosper and thus improve regional prosperity.

While over here, nothing at all was happening, Mr. Landry's government was helping the Gaspé. With very little means, helpful measures were developed. It does not take billions of dollars to do so.

We have living proof. The Minister of Finance has billions of our dollars, taken in excess from our pockets, and he is still unable to come up with development policies and policies to help support the economy. He shows up late with his measures. They are pieced together and based on the most erroneous forecasts of the surplus.

And to top it all off, eight weeks later, he changes his mind. I do not know how he manages to maintain his credibility, but his is a pretty strange way of managing public finances.

I was saying that despite Ottawa robbing the provinces when it comes to transfers for health, education and revenue equalization, Quebec has managed, in its two most recent budgets, to come up with measures that help people, that help business and that help the regions that are in trouble, whereas here, we have not even been able to lift a finger to help the regions that are experiencing hard times, not even to improve the employment insurance program, even though we are experiencing a downturn, and unemployment has risen.

I find it somewhat indecent that Bill C-49 is being introduced and that we are being asked to support it because it contains good measures. If it does contain good measures, where did they come from? They come from suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois. Because the pressure on the Minster of Finance was too great, he had to give in on certain small measures, otherwise he would not have survived.

If there is one thing the finance minister should be thinking about first and foremost, it is the well-being of our fellow citizens. First and foremost, he should serve taxpayers well and stop using his office as a platform for the upcoming leadership race. Every single one of his budgets, especially the 1996 one, was aimed at boosting his ratings, taking credit for unexpected surpluses, claiming to be a good manager who made all the right decisions, when in reality the provinces, especially Quebec, have fallen on hard times since he became finance minister. He ruthlessly cut health and education transfer payments that should have been maintained.

The Government of Canada invests respectively 8 cents and 13 cents for every dollar invested by Quebec in health and education. That is the contribution of this government. This is the lowest in history.

This government is sending us by mail documents—in Quebec this document is not the same as in the rest of Canada— which state on the first page that health is paramount and education is an investment. Oh yes? The Government of Canada contributes 8 cents out of every dollar invested in health and 13 cents for education. And health is of paramount importance and education is an investment?

One has to have a lot of gall to advertise how much the Canadian government invests in health and education, when in reality it hardly contributes any money any more to these areas. One has to have a lot of gall to say that the government actually contributes 50%, because it includes the tax points transferred in 1977 in the calculation of federal expenses regarding transfers to the provinces. One has to have a lot of gall to do that.

When you sell your house, Mr. Speaker, do you go and tell the new owner 20 years later that this house still belongs to you? Tax points were transferred and the tax system was rebalanced. In those days, we had ministers, and prime ministers too, who were intelligent enough to know that the tax powers of the various government levels were in need of rebalancing.

What we are asking for today with regard to correcting the tax imbalance is nothing new. History has seen two major conferences aimed at balancing the taxing powers of the provinces and the federal government, namely the Quebec City conference and the one that took place in 1977. That is when tax points were transferred. At that time, nobody used the kind of demagogic arguments and meaningless rhetoric used by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to lead us to believe that there is no tax imbalance. No. People had discussions and they believed that it was a good idea to do some kind of realignment, especially since the main functions of provincial governments and of the Government of Quebec are to provide essential services in areas such as health and education, and now manpower training as well.

For all these reasons, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, will continue to defend the people, to fight for the most effective use possible of the funds entrusted to this government and to see to it that the flip-flop minister quits changing his mind this way every 24 hours, quits promoting himself as a politician and starts putting the well-being of those people whom he purports to represent above everything else.

We will keep working for the major reforms we have been demanding for years, especially the reform of the employment insurance plan, so that we will have a fair and decent plan. We will keep fighting for the elimination of outrageous conventions between Canada and Barbados, for example, that allow tax avoidance with the complicity of the government and the Minister of Finance, who may have assets in Barbados. Actually, he does have some. The organization chart of his companies shows that he has some in Barbados.

We will continue our fight to help the Quebec government and other provincial governments to get a new fiscal balance in Canada. While the federal government puts up a big show, flip-flops, smiles broadly and boasts about the economic and financial performance, there are real decision makers and managers in the Quebec government and other provincial governments who look after the people, because their job is to manage health care, education and income security.

A time comes when some have it easier that others. In the coming months, the Bloc Quebecois will work eagerly to get a better balance in taxing powers to better serve the citizens, and not the ambitions of the Minister of Finance.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friends across the way honour me with their presence in wake of the speech I am giving.

I want to say a few words about something that is perhaps the greatest flaw in this budget and it is really the greatest flaw of the government in general. The Liberal government has been in power since 1993. Where it falls short, more so than in any other way, is with respect to the economy.

The government makes decisions every year about how to spend roughly $170 billion of taxpayer money. I think it is engaging in a game. It takes the hard earned dollars of taxpayers and appropriate them to itself in the form of taxes and then hands the money back to those same taxpayers and tells them to be grateful. That is fine as far as it goes. However, as members across the way know, that has a terrible impact ultimately on the economy. I will get into that in more detail in just a moment.

The truth is that in the last number of years Canada's standard of living has fallen rather dramatically. I want to quote some statistics in order to help make that case. The 1990s really was a decade of drift in Canada. I want to touch on some numbers and I hope members will allow me to do that.

Taxes drifted higher as a share of the economy in 2000 to 44.3% of GDP, up from 44% in 1999. The Canadian living standard fell $44, or about 0.2%, from $17,915 in 1989 to $17,871 in 2000. Over that entire decade our standard of living actually went down.

The U.S. standard of living increased by $2,573 or about 13% from U.S. $20,546 in 1989 to $23,119 in 2000, an average annual increase of 1.1%. An average American could buy more in 2000 than they could in 1989. They were much richer.

The gap between Americans and Canadians increased 61% between 1989 and 2000. By 2000, Canadians were just 70.3% as well off as Americans, down from 79.3% in 1989.

I want to underline that those are not my numbers. It was just a couple of years ago that the former industry minister, now the Deputy Prime Minister, raised these issues as the industry minister in the House. He said that the average standard of living for Canadians at that time was lower than that of the poorest of the poor U.S. states, Alabama and Mississippi. That was a tragedy. Does anyone know who that was a real tragedy for? It was a real tragedy for the poorest of poor Canadians.

For years I have sat in this place and listened to the government lecture us on how it cared about the little guy. However when the economy does not move at its full capacity, who are the people who are hurt? It is not the people with big incomes and all kinds of education. It is not the people with all kinds of contacts. It is not part of the family compact. It is not people who are connected to the government. Those are not the people who are hurt. It is the people without skills. It is the people who come from underdeveloped regions of the country.

The reason our economy does not move at full capacity and why we have an unemployment rate that has gone from 7% to 8% to 8.4% in the last several months is because the government decided it was willing to sacrifice economic growth in order to sustain billions upon billions of dollars in funding that it can use to politically benefit it and its colleagues. That is a moral outrage and a disgrace but it happens every budget.

What the Liberals should do, and they know this because they have economists who sit in their caucus, is pare out the unnecessary spending. By definition, if it is unnecessary, it is a waste and should not be in there. They should turn it back to people in the form of lower taxes, which creates more activity in the economy and broadens the tax base. When more businesses start up because of more activity, more jobs are created and eventually the unemployment rate is lowered.

The best example is the recent expansion in the United States. I pointed to this many times in the House. During the height of the U.S. expansion, the unemployment rate in the black community in the United States, which traditionally has been the poorest ethnic community in the United States, dropped to 7%. It was the same as our national unemployment rate in Canada. That was a wonderful thing because the black community had been disadvantaged for so many decades in the United States.

As a result of that great expansion, many companies that could not find workers when the unemployment rate was 4% went into areas where the unemployment was very high. They went into ghettos. They said they would train the people because they wanted them to come to work for them. Maybe these people had been on welfare their entire lives, or did not have the skills or had not finished school. However the companies wanted them to work for them. The companies said that if they did, they would not only get a wage but they would get some training, some contacts, some confidence and some hope, something they had not had that until then. That is the great triumph of an economy that is moving at full capacity.

In Canada, our economy cannot move at full capacity because it so weighed down by taxes and debt that the government has built up.

The way to change that is to change the entire course of what we do. We do not just maintain the status quo or make it worse by increasing spending by 9.3%, which was what the government did last time around. We shed all that heavy baggage of extraordinary spending that is not needed and offer it back to people in the form of lower taxes. We cut unnecessary regulation and pay down debt. The government should focus on its core role, which is to ensure that we have a peaceful country and that people are protected and secure.

If that were done, eventually underdeveloped regions of Canada, just like occurred in the United States in the recent expansion, would see industries move into them, like Cape Breton, Newfoundland, or northern Canada, northern Ontario, northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan. Industries would move there because of the pools of labour, those people who do not have jobs but want them. Pretty soon people would have the opportunity they did not have before.

It is to the shame of the government that it has never ever recognized this obvious fact that it needs to do things to make our economy work much faster so that people who are on the bottom end and who have never had a chance in Canada will finally have some kind of an opportunity.

I promise the government that as long as I am in opposition, I am going to harry it on this every chance I get. It has been completely hypocritical to the point where the Liberals speak forever in this place about how much they care, yet on the other hand, their actions show something completely different.

I am simply going to conclude by saying the budget implementation act should not be supported. Again, this is a disgraceful budget, the worst effort ever by the finance minister. We see that in recent developments where the government is still trying to tinker with it two months after it coming out. We see the judgment of the markets in the form of a falling dollar. It is rather obvious the markets do not care for it and think the government is out of control. A 9.3% spending increase is absolutely shocking.

For instance, the government has not put any emphasis on providing for our military, those brave men and women who are going to Afghanistan. It has not put a priority on protecting them by funding them adequately and ensuring they are well equipped. The same applies to customs officers, immigration officials, RCMP and CSIS agents, all those people who do so much to protect our country.

I urge members around this place to vote against Bill C-49, the worst budget ever produced by the government.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the budget implementation act, Bill C-49. I regret to tell the hon. member who just spoke that it does not enjoy the support of the official opposition.

As I have said before in the House, this is the worst budget the finance minister has ever brought down. Frankly, it is a disgrace to see spending rise by 9.3% and to see some other things that have occurred. We had a $6.2 billion planning deficit until this year when the government conveniently changed how the books were kept to avoid the embarrassment of having the deficit exposed by its own documents. These are not just my observations. Others have observed them. I will say more about that in a moment.

The markets have passed judgment on the budget. We saw this in the precipitous fall of the dollar in the last several weeks. The decline has been absolutely amazing despite the amateurish efforts of the government to talk up the dollar, as if anyone could talk up the dollar on a permanent basis. It can only be done in the short run.

The government is confused. We have seen that in the events of the last couple of days. The government is talking about changing the infrastructure program it proposed from an arm's length program into one run by the Deputy Prime Minister and subject to the caprices and whims of a politician. At bottom that is what the Deputy Prime Minister is. Being a politician he is always tempted to use government money for his own political ends. It is a dangerous situation and we need to be wary of it.

We saw the government propose another accounting trick in the budget where it would take $500 million and put it into a trust. This is what it did with the Africa Fund. The finance minister today said no, that would not happen. He said the money would go into debt retirement. The government has been stung by the accusation that it has not retired debt this year. Even $500 million is a pittance when we have a debt of $547 billion. It would take hundreds of years to pay down the debt if we proceeded at a pace of just $500 million a year.

The budget is a disgrace for other reasons. At a time when the whole world has been rocked by the events of September 11 and when the first role of government must always be to protect its citizens, it is an absolute disgrace that so little emphasis in the budget was put on protecting the public. I will talk in greater detail about that in a moment.

It has been revealed that the government has made a $3.3 billion accounting error à la Enron in the last couple of weeks. This points to how money seems to flow through the fingers of the government like water. It calls into question whether the government has done an adequate job of scrutinizing all it does to find waste and mismanagement. I would argue it has not. I will say more about that in a moment.

To sum up, this has been a terrible budget. It does not do the finance minister any credit. The finance minister has won plaudits even from the opposition for some though not all of the things he has done. However he blew his reputation completely with this budget.

I will offer as evidence some newspaper commentary we saw in the wake of the budget. Here is one from the Montreal Gazette . Commenting that the finance minister “spends like Santa”, it says:

As the first budget in 22 months, it was unforgivably tardy. As a security and military spending boost, it was undeniably tepid.

Here is another from the Montreal Gazette . It quotes Jack Mintz, president of the C.D. Howe Institute and one of the most trusted economists in the country. He called the infrastructure foundation “the Liberal Leadership Candidates' Strategic Slush Fund”, noting it could be used for anything that fits under a broad description.

Here is what TD Canada Trust had to say about the budget:

--under the older planning framework, the government would be targeting a deficit in the order of $5.5 billion for fiscal 2002-03.

Here is an editorial from the Ottawa Sun :

This budget demonstrates marvelously that the biggest threat to the nation's finances isn't recession or terrorism, it's this government's abject refusal to embrace a policy of spending restraint, especially during tough economic times.

Andrew Coyne's headline in the National Post calls it:

A reckless, dishonest, two-year con job: Budget casts aside undeserved cloak of fiscal responsibility.

Here is what Terence Corcoran of the National Post had to say about the budget of December:

--Paul Martin reiterated his commitment to the contingency reserve as an annual $3-billion pool that would be used to cover forecasting risks and other economic errors. “It is not a source of funding for new policy initiatives. If not needed, it will be used to pay down the public debt.” Yesterday, Mr. Martin rewrote the rules.

Walter Robinson of the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation said:

Minister Martin has once again refused to institute a schedule of legislated debt reduction...and thereby, continues the fiscal crime of intergenerational tax evasion perpetuated against our children--

I offer these quotes as evidence of my assertion that this is the worst budget the minister has ever brought down.

I will say a few things about what the budget did not do. It did not inspire confidence in the ailing dollar. The fall in the dollar since the budget came down is evidence of that. It has done nothing and will do nothing to improve our productivity. That can only happen when the government withdraws to some degree from the economy, is less intrusive, lowers taxes and provides some kind of economic vision for the future. That has not happened.

As a result the budget has done nothing to offer new job opportunities at a time when unemployment is rising. Surely to goodness the government should be concerned about that but it was not reflected in the budget. The budget has done nothing to offer new opportunities for investment in Canada, something which is completely linked to the concept of productivity.

In short, there is no vision to help Canada reach its incredible potential as a nation. The government did not rebalance its spending. In the wake of September 11 that is shocking. In not doing so the government is almost guilty of gross neglect.

For every year in the $170 billion budget a spending envelope of about $15 billion would go to grants and subsidies. I will not say the entire $15 billion consists of things that can be cut out of government without harming people. However billions of dollars in the envelope are examples of unnecessary and low priority spending.

Grants to artists and regional development grants have been shown over and over again to distort the economy and hurt businesses that are making it on their own. They are always subject to politics. We have often revealed in the House how the government rewards its political friends by handing out grants and subsidies so liberally. I say that both figuratively and literally.

In not addressing the $15 billion envelope of grants and subsidies the government did not find new money without raising taxes that could have been used to help it fulfill the most important role of any government. What is the primary role of government? It is to uphold the law. No society can long survive unless there is a government that consistently upholds the law.

In order to do that we would need a strong criminal justice system. We would need the police to enforce it. We would need good controls on our borders and on immigration. We would also need a strong national defence and a strong intelligence arm.

However the record of the government is to take what is the core business of government and chop it to the bone while it expands spending in all other areas that really are slush funds, in my judgment, and money the government uses to help it win elections.

The result is that organizations like CSIS, which is our intelligence arm in helping to protect the Canadian public, has been slashed to the bone. Previous to this budget, the government introduced cuts to CSIS of about 28%, and even with the money it put back into CSIS, we are still at 1993 funding levels in inflation adjusted dollars.

CSIS, an organization that has been charged with finding out if there are terrorists or criminal elements trying to get into the country, if they are active in the country, what they are doing, how active they are and if they are infiltrating government, for instance, has been cut to the bone under the leadership of the Liberal government.

The government should be roundly criticized for that because when it does something like that it puts public security at risk. We have seen many examples in the last several months of terrorists who were allowed into the country, in some cases being sought by international authorities in connection with the efforts of al-Qaeda and perhaps even in connection with what happened on September 11. That is disgraceful and we should not be allowing it.

It is not to say that could never happen, even with a fully funded organization, but obviously the government has to put more priority on it. The same applies to immigration. We pointed to problems over and over again in the House. We think immigration is positive and it is a good thing but it does not mean that we just let everybody in. There should be some scrutiny at the borders but that does not require a bunch of new laws, laws like the government gave to itself in the wake of September 11 that allow it to do all kinds of things without consulting parliament, things that are contrary to our common law tradition, where the government can arrest people for 72 hours without allowing them to access a lawyer and without pressing charges.

We really need more officials at the border to handle all the cases we have but we do not have that. It is well know that there are many thousands of people who have been allowed into Canada as refugees and were subsequently turned down but we have no idea if they actually left the country.

Why were they turned down? They were suspected, in many cases, of being a security risk. We have no idea whether they left the country. There are some estimates that as many as 27,000 of those people may be running loose in Canada. Rather obviously, that should be a huge concern of the government but the government has always shortchanged security even though it is the primary role that any government should play.

It was a few years ago that the Canadian Alliance pointed out in the House that the RCMP in British Columbia did not have enough money to put new tires on its cars. It did not have enough money to put fuel in its boats and planes, and to do drug interdiction on the west coast. It was an absolute disgrace.

The primary role of government is to set the laws and enforce them because no country or society can exist without that. However the government had no money for that while it spent billions upon billions for discretionary spending on all kinds of crazy things. That was a disgrace.

We are now trying to play catch up, but it really is an indictment of the government that it made it such a low priority for so many years. Over the last couple of days we have had examples of how the government has failed our customs officials who are the first line of defence when people come into Canada.

When people enter the country the first people they meet are our customs officials. Customs officials must uphold dozens and dozens of statutes in Canada. We have heard stories of how customs officers, who are not armed by the way, have been so afraid of some of the people they are dealing with at the border that they have actually allowed them into the country because they themselves were not armed and feared that the person on the other side of the window was. We have heard from customs officials themselves that this has occurred.

We are arguing that the government has done a terrible job of looking after our customs officials to make sure they are adequately protected and can make sure that these people who are suspected of criminal activity or even terrorist activity not be allowed into the country or in fact arrested.

It was revealed the other day that customs officials at Pearson airport do not have any protective gear. They do not have pepper spray, batons or flak jackets. However we understand that immigration officials have been issued those things. Is that not a little ironic? The customs officials are the first ones to deal with new arrivals into Canada but they are not given those things. It is only after these people have been pulled aside by the customs officials that they are handed over to the immigration officials.

We asked the Deputy Prime Minister about that yesterday and he was quite confused about it all. He did not know that it was happening. We have it on good authority that it is happening. We want the government to start taking the security of Canada seriously, something that was simply not reflected in the budget.

I find it ironic that in the last number of days there have been a lot of concerns coming from the Liberal backbenches and actually even from former cabinet ministers, like Lloyd Axworthy, about sovereignty in the wake of what happened on September 11 and in the wake of discussions about co-operating more fully with our allies, especially the United States, on security measures, for instance. The reason this is very ironic is because the same people who have repeatedly voted against increasing funding for Canada's military, the RCMP and CSIS, are the same people who complain about a threat to our sovereignty by the United States.

They do not worry about the threats to our sovereignty by terrorists or criminals that are caused by a lack of funding for officials who have to greet dangerous people at our borders. However the moment we talk about working in a co-operative way with the United States and exercising our sovereignty by making a decision in the interest of Canada to work with the United States, they rise up on their hind legs and start to scream bloody murder. I think they are guilty of gross hypocrisy.

It does not end there. What do we mean when we talk about sovereignty? I think we mean that if a country is sovereign it has the ability to make decisions that affect its own destiny. What happens in Canada if we as a country make the decision to work co-operatively with the United States on issues that we think will benefit Canada? What if we exercise our sovereignty in that way? Is it offensive to members across the way if we make that decision? We are exercising our sovereignty.

I do not think the issue here is the issue of sovereignty. What members across the way have a problem with is co-operation with the United States of America, which many of them frankly resent. They resent the Americans because they have become so extraordinarily wealthy at a time when our standard of living is falling against that of the United States. They resent them because they are able to put more money into public health care than Canada has with its socialized medical system.

They have become resentful. They mask this resentment with the argument about sovereignty but let us look at it for what it is. It is bitterness and resentment, and it is time it was exposed.

I want to--

[John McCallum, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to present Bill C-49, the Budget Implementation Act, 2001 for second reading. This bill would implement many of the measures announced in the 2001 budget.

I would like to begin by giving an overview of the 2001 budget, which will set the context of the measures contained in this bill.

Allow me to go back for a moment to September 11. The terrorist attacks perpetrated that day in the United States constituted first and foremost a great human tragedy, measured in lost lives, destroyed families and rekindled fears,as the minister of finance pointed out. Budget 2001 deals with the economic impact of this tragedy.

It is based on a long term government plan to build a strong economy and to ensure a safe society, but it also responds to Canadians' immediate concerns regarding the economy and security following the events of September 11, in four ways.

First, the budget stimulates the economy in this period of global downturn and uncertainty. It provides Canadians with the means to fully benefit from the expected recovery.

Second, it acts to build personal and economic security by protecting Canadians, by keeping terrorists out of our country, and by maintaining a secure, open and efficient border.

Third, it keeps the nation’s finances healthy by balancing the budget this year and for the next two years.

Fourth, it fully protects the $100 billion tax cut announced in October 2000 and the $23.4 billion in increased support for health care and early childhood development announced in September 2000.

I wish to assure members of the House that the events of September 11 have not shaken the government's budgetary convictions.

Our government continues to lay the foundation for a better future. It continues to invest in human resources, to cut taxes, to pay down the debt and to build a strong economy.

We stand by our commitment to reduce the debt. In addition, the 2001 budget confirms that the government will continue to implement its long term plan of investing in the future without falling back into a deficit situation. This is the result of our prudent approach.

Having given a background regarding the budget, let me turn now to an overview of the bill. The major points the bill seeks to achieve can be summarized as follows.

First, with respect to transportation there is the creation of the Canadian air transport security authority, along with the introduction of the air travellers security charge. Second, there are some measures to improve the income and business tax system, as well as the employment insurance system. Third, there are measures to establish the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund and the Canada fund for Africa.

Let me speak briefly to each of these major areas in turn, beginning with the Canadian air transport security authority. As part of the government's comprehensive response to the events of September 11, the 2001 budget committed $2.2 billion over five years to enhanced air travel security. This commitment is crucial to assuring air travellers that Canada continues to have one of the safest and most secure air transportation systems in the world.

Air security services will now be consolidated under the new Canadian air transport security authority which will provide key air transport security services, a consistent and integrated air transport security system across the country, and enhanced security performance standards and services.

The authority will be responsible in the following areas. The first is the certification of screening contractors and officers. The second is pre-board screening of passengers and their belongings, taking over this function from the airlines and of others who have access to aircraft or restricted areas through screening points. The third is the acquisition, deployment and maintenance of explosives detection systems and conventional pre-board screening equipment at airports. The fourth is federal contributions for airport policing related to civil aviation security measures. The fifth is contracting with the RCMP for armed police on board aircraft.

Transport Canada will continue to regulate and monitor the provision of security services while the new authority will be responsible for delivery. This separation between service delivery and regulating and monitoring will enhance checks and balances in the system. Air travellers can now be assured that Canada continues to have one of the safest air transportation systems in the world.

I come now to the question of the air travellers security charge. The enhanced air travel security system will be funded by a new air travellers security charge. The charge will be collected by air carriers or their agents when airline tickets are purchased.

Enhanced air travel security will principally benefit air travellers using the air transportation system. A user charge is therefore fiscally responsible and reasonable.

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. These amounts are inclusive of GST where the GST applies.

For travel in Canada the charge will apply to flights connecting the 90 airports where the government is planning security enhancements. Small aircraft such as those carrying only four to six passengers as well as certain specialty services such as air ambulance services will be exempt. All proceeds of the charge including net GST will be used to fund the enhanced air travel security system.

The last point on this issue is a critical and very simple one. If revenues exceed costs over time, the government will reduce the charge.

Let us now look at the measures having to do with the EI system.

The first measure I would like to examine improves parental benefits under the EI program.

In order to improve the support provided for families, among other measures, the 2000 budget extended the duration of parental benefits under the EI program from 10 to 35 weeks, thus allowing parents to spend more time at home with a newborn or a newly adopted child. Bill C-49 further improves these benefits.

Under the current EI program, certain seriously ill women may not qualify for extended parental benefits because of the 50 week ceiling on the combined total of sick leave, maternity benefits and parental benefits an individual is allowed.

Bill C-49 increases this ceiling by one week for each week of sick leave taken by a mother during her pregnancy or while she is receiving parental benefits, so that she may benefit fully from the special benefits. This change will take effect on March 3, 2002.

The second measure takes into account the fact that parents must now apply for parental benefits in the year following the birth or adoption of a child. This may limit benefits when a child is hospitalized for a long period after birth or adoption.

In order to allow a bit of leeway to parents who want to start applying for the parental benefit once the child comes home from hospital, they will now have up to two years to apply. This change will come into effect once Bill C-49 is passed.

I come now to the third element, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund. As I said, the government's long term goals are to build a strong economy and a secure society and to improve the quality of life for Canadians. The strategic investments in the 2001 budget help achieve these objectives by dealing with today's needs and bridging to a better tomorrow.

The modern economy of the 21st century requires a backbone of sound physical infrastructure to sustain the nation's growth and our quality of life. Canada must have the physical infrastructure it needs to succeed. Previous budgets allocated funding to improve provincial and municipal infrastructure. In particular the 2000 budget introduced both the infrastructure Canada program and the strategic highway infrastructure program.

To meet the need for additional support for large strategic infrastructure projects, Bill C-49 will establish the Canada strategic infrastructure fund with a minimum funding of $2 billion as set out in the 2001 budget. This new fund will compliment other federal infrastructure initiatives such as the two programs I just mentioned.

Working with provincial and municipal governments in the private sector, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund will provide assistance for large infrastructure projects in areas like highways and rail, local transportation, tourism, urban development, and water and sewage treatment.

Investments in these projects will stimulate job creation and confidence in the short term and will make the economy more productive and competitive in the medium term. The minister of infrastructure will be responsible for all government infrastructure initiatives to better co-ordinate all government activities in this area.

I come now to the subject of the Canada fund for Africa. As my hon. colleagues will recall, the Speech from the Throne last January indicated the long term well-being of Canada and Canadians depends upon success in improving global human security, prosperity and development.

At the G-8 summit in Genoa last July, African leaders presented their proposals and G-8 leaders, Canada included, pledged to support this initiative. The partnership is about Africans taking control of their own development.

Since then the Prime Minister has restated his commitment that development in Africa will be one of the principal themes of the G-8 summit that we will host this coming June. As was stated in question period today, the Prime Minister's support recently in New York for this project received strong support.

In recognition of this commitment the 2001 budget announced $500 million for African development. The new Canada fund for Africa will provide $500 million in funding for activities that will help reduce poverty, provide primary education and set Africa on a sustainable path to a brighter future.

I come now to investing in skills and learning. Another strategic investment in the budget involves these very things. The acquisition of skills and learning is further encouraged through a number of changes to the tax system.

First, tax assistance will be provided to help apprentice vehicle mechanics cope with their extraordinary costs. A second measure affects adult students who received government assistance to pay their tuition fees for basic education at the primary or secondary school levels.

This assistance must be included in income without any offsetting credits. For many the tax cost of receiving this assistance is a real burden and discourages them from advancing their education. Bill C-49 will exempt from tax the tuition assistance for basic adult education provided under certain programs including employment insurance. This measure will apply to eligible tuition assistance received after 1996.

A third measure will help more students undertake lifelong learning. Beginning in 2002 the education tax credit will be extended to students who have received financial assistance for post-secondary education under certain government training programs including employment insurance.

These changes would provide significant tax relief to approximately 65,000 Canadians for upgrading their skills and give them access to the same tax benefits that are available to other post-secondary students.

I will briefly mention a number of tax measures to improve the personal income tax and business tax system. First, there would be an improvement of the tax treatment of intergenerational transfers of woodlots.

Second, we would make permanent the 1997 budget measure that provided special tax assistance for donations of certain securities to public charities.

Third, there is a measure to improve the system for providing GST credits.

Fourth, to provide a cash flow benefit to small business, federal corporate tax instalment payments for January, February and March 2002 would be deferred for at least six months without penalty.

Finally, although this is not an exhaustive list of measures, the budget allows full deductibility for the cost of meals provided to employees at temporary construction work camps where employees could not be expected to return home each day.

In conclusion, Canada's air system is among the safest in the world. The new air security authority will make it even safer.

The charge for air passenger security is financially wise and reasonable, and it is only logical that the costs of these new expenses relating to security be borne by passengers using the airlines rather than all taxpayers.

The changes to the parental benefits available under EI will help families of newborns or newly adopted children.

The Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund will make it possible for Canada to have the material infrastructure it requires for success in the 21st century.

The Africa Fund is concrete proof that Canadians have not lost sight of their obligation to help those who are less well off than themselves.

What is more, the income tax changes help enhance the simplicity and fairness of our taxation system.

The 2001 budget reflects the decisions reached by the government in these uncertain times. Managing the economy in hard times is a matter of balance. The 2001 budget is the best example of this. It provides the support that is essential during a crucial period, but not at the expense of past progress or future prospects.

In conclusion, I encourage hon. members to give the legislation their full support. I remind them that both the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and the Air Travellers Security Charge must be in place by April 1.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John McCallum, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10, 2001.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

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

Mr. Speaker, without having been at committee to listen to all of the argument it is difficult to respond, but I will respond to the member's direct question.

It would seem that the government has once again, in pursuing legislation, just simply ignored some amendments that certainly would have improved the legislation and allowed for more self-government.

As far as charging a fee for water is concerned, the area of Nunavut is still a territory although we may not completely support that and would expect that it would move toward further and greater self-government and actually to complete responsibility for its own area. However, as long as it is a territory the minister would have to sign and it makes absolutely no sense that the minister would have final authority for water on Nunavut owned lands. The whole principle behind the evolution of responsibility and devolution of power is to actually give power to Inuit organizations, to first nations.

A good example of that for the hon. member is Bill C-49, which we passed in this House. It gave greater power and full control of land and the resources on it to first nations on reserves in southern Canada. There were 14 first nations in the original group in Bill C-49 when we passed that legislation. For the first time it gave those first nations full control of land use on reserves.

Many Canadians thought that first nations already had full control of land use on reserves, but they absolutely did not. They needed a permit from the minister if they were to cut logs, cut firewood, dig a well, put in a septic system, gravel a road, build a road or even start a gravel pit.

This is good legislation. It is legislation that is needed, but it is certainly not the end of the road for this piece of legislation or any other. It is not untypical of a lot of legislation that the government brings in. It goes partway but it really does not finish the job.

I hope those comments are satisfactory to the member.