Debates of Feb. 7th, 2002

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find of great interest in the hon. member's speech is that he is critical, and apparently scandalized by the fact that the government is pocketing, via the EI fund, $42 billion belonging to workers, an amount that increases by $6, $7 or $8 billion yearly. The hon. member also said that students are being treated very badly as far as student loans are concerned.

I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about the fact that this same government is, year after year, pocketing $400 million that belongs to those in our society who are the least well off: the seniors who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. This means that, over the past eight years, this government has pocketed $3.2 billion, which it has used to pay off its debts at the expense of the least well off members of society.

I would like to know whether the member is aware of this, and what he thinks of it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He raises a very important point and I do understand these issues he raises.

Starting with the last point, I would say that withholding the guaranteed income supplement from senior citizens who are eligible for it is one of the most cynical things I have seen the government do. It has deliberately withheld money from senior citizens who are eligible for this supplement. It has chosen not to give it to them. Even after the government was aware of who they were and where they lived and aware that they were eligible and did qualify, the government chose not to give that money to them. I feel there is some hope and optimism that we will resolve that issue within the coming year, thanks partly to the advocacy that the hon. member has shown in this issue.

As far as EI goes, a $40 billion surplus that was supposed to go to income maintenance and training has gone to things like tax cuts for the wealthy. The government is taking money from the poor to give to the rich. It is a reverse Robin Hood. It is fundamentally wrong.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the member to comment on the security board that would bet set up to manage security issues all over the country? The 11 person board would be appointed by governor in council, which means the minister can pick whoever he or she wants on the board.

Has she given any thought or comments on the efficacy of that board and whether it will be a good, a useful board or a costly board?

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this board could be like any of the other boards created by the government. People who worked for the Liberals during election campaigns get appointed to these boards.

The important thing is the accountability factor. Whenever an arm's length board is appointed, it gets further and further away from being accountable to the House. There is a budget of over $2 billion and a tax on airline travellers. We have to be able to judge how that affects the industry. However this is removing the decision making process too far out of the House. That is more critical than who will be appointed to the board.

We have seen many examples of this from the immigration refugee review board to port authorities and so on. Positions on boards have been used for patronage appointments to reward people for working for the party. Canadians will not feel secure or will not feel their best interests are being considered knowing that the airline industry is being looked after by people with absolutely no knowledge or background in that area.

We are always concerned about arm's length boards; who will sit on them, how will they respond back to parliament and how they will be held accountable. We are also concerned that most of the money be used for the security of the travelling public, not to cover the cost of administering the board.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments of the hon. member about the actual formation of the crown corporation, having read the bill she knows that the Minister of Transport is ultimately responsible for that particular crown corporation. He is also responsible for making those appointments. She should also know that the industry itself has the opportunity to make appointments to the board. All these appointments are governor in council appointments. What we then have is a mixture of appointments with industry representation on the board. This should give the member some assurance with respect to how it would function.

With regard to the funds that are collected from the security fee, we have said that we are prepared to review this on an annual basis and ensure that they are allocated to the proper areas. We will ensure that safety is uppermost in people's minds. We have an opportunity to review this on an annual basis. We will certainly have a five year review.

Members of parliament will have the opportunity, as they have today, to ask questions, point to inefficiencies if they exist and propose improvements. That is really the purpose of the House. I encourage the member to continue to do what she is doing. At the end of the day, I believe we all have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it interests me that the hon. member on the Liberal side can make that argument in this instance, yet when it comes to a couple of billion dollars for the infrastructure grant, the Liberals use the opposite argument. They say that it has to be a minister of the crown who makes these determinations and who answers directly to the House on those determinations. Why is it okay for the infrastructure money to be handled this way, but for aviation security it has to be handled by this arm's length board?

The government needs to make up its mind as to the most efficient and best way to handle these things. In one bill it is giving us both entities but is using a different argument for each. However, in essence it is still overseeing over $2 billion of taxpayer money to provide a service for Canadians. Why the discrepancy? It does not make sense.

The government is showing its lack of foresight and lack of vision. It is not taking into consideration a committee report on which members spent many hours working. They did their homework. Government members of the executive branch completely ignored it. This shows lack of vision on the part of the government.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification. This is a crown corporation that is being created with respect to the infrastructure. The original announcement was for a strategic foundation. There is a difference.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, only in the minds of the Liberals can it be seen as being different because it is still overseeing the spending of taxpayer dollars to the tune of $2 billion. Their arguments are ridiculous.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many areas on which a person could criticize the budget. There is such rampant waste and mismanagement that I could stand here for hours listing them.

There are three areas in particular that the budget did not appropriately address. The first one is the national debt. I hope I will have time in my comments to talk about that in a little more detail.

The employment insurance fund is a rip off. The federal government is siphoning over $5 billion a year in excess of the premiums that employers and employees pay and dumping it into the consolidated revenue fund. I hope I will have enough time to explain how, as employers, municipalities are facing the same rip off. By virtue of that fact, property taxes are being diverted into the consolidated revenue fund of the federal government and are being wasted on handouts to special interest groups and grants to corporations.

Another thing is the inherent unfairness of the tax system of which the Liberal government is so supportive. Using Liberal terminology, the tax system is called progressive. The member for Markham wrote an editorial for the Globe and Mail some time last year. He raged on about how progressive the tax system was. In the recent budget the Minister of Finance added a tax rate. What is meant by progressive tax system, is that tax rates progressively increase the more money we make.

Progressive sounds like a positive term, but if the government wanted to be intellectually honest, it would say that we had the most regressive tax system in the world. To progressively increase tax rates is punitive. The more money we make, the more we apply ourselves and the harder we work, the more we pay. It penalizes success and rewards failure. It is inherently unfair.

The member for Markham wrote an editorial using intellectual dishonesty. He called the Liberal tax system progressive. The truth is, it is progressively punitive; it is regressive.

I told him that I had read his editorial and that I found it objectionable that he had used that kind of language. When people read this they probably thought it was the most progressive system in the world so the Liberals must be good. A former economist of a bank ought to know how punitive the tax system is to hard working Canadians and inherently unfair.

When I spoke to the member for Markham I used the perfect example of a friend of mine who was in a low income situation for several years after high school and decided he wanted to better himself and generate more income. He had some goals, dreams and aspirations so he went back to school. He took out student loans. Besides the demands of the study that university required, he had a part time job on evenings and weekends to help get himself through school. After all the years spent at university, where he obtained a professional designation, he had a substantial debt to pay, but he became a great productive member of society.

We should support education more. Maybe the Liberals should look at spending more money on education and health care instead of handouts to Liberal business friends and special interest groups. We should be encouraging education.

My friend became a contributing member of society. He worked long hours at his chosen profession to pay back his student loans. However, as a result of the Liberal progressive tax system, he is paying the highest rate of taxes.

My friend is being penalized for having spent all those years going to school. He had to work evenings and weekends to help put himself through school so he could earn a decent living. However the Liberal tax system penalizes him. Not only will he pay more taxes because he is earning more, he is disproportionately penalized because he is bumped up to ever increasing tax brackets. We could have a single rate of tax so that the more money we make the more we pay.

The more overtime that people work, the harder they work and the more they apply themselves, the more they will be penalized. That is wrong. I used that example and asked the member for Markham how he could justify that. I said that not only was his article intellectually dishonest but he was promoting a very unfair system of taxation. He replied that fairness is a relative concept.

What does that mean? I want the people of Markham, Unionville and other areas in his riding to know this fact. He is supportive of a punitive, regressive tax system which says the harder that people work, the more they apply themselves, if they want to obtain more education, they will be penalized.

That is the inherent truth of the Liberals' tax system. It is wrong. It is offensive and it is unfair. The member ought to know better, being a former economist of a bank. I hope the bank replaced him with someone with a little more common sense. I hope voters send him a very clear message in the next election that they do not want to be penalized for working hard. They do not want to be penalized for helping their kids become educated so they can get better jobs and be successful.

People do not want to be penalized. The Liberals' regressive tax system should be changed. Let it be known that progressive tax is an intellectually dishonest term. There, I am glad I got that in.

I do not want to use up a lot of time going through the history of the employment insurance fund. Suffice it to say that the unemployment insurance system initially brought about in 1940 has evolved over the years. Today it is a program whereby employees and employers pay premiums on income and that money goes into the consolidated revenue fund. Benefits are paid to people who claim them.

The premiums people are paying currently sit at $2.25 for employees and $3.15 for employers per $100 of earnings up to a maximum amount of $39,000. Those rates are 15% higher than what is required to have an even flow of money in and out of the fund. Since 1995 an excess of money has been paid into the consolidated revenue fund than what has been paid out in benefits to people who become unemployed. Currently that 15% constitutes $5.4 billion a year.

At the present time the EI surplus is approximately $38 billion. Since 1995 the federal government has taken in $38 billion into the consolidated revenue fund and it has been spent. In other words there have been grants dished out to the Liberals' corporate friends and handouts to special interest groups and all the wasteful government programs. Some $38 billion has gone into this fund and has been spent. It is called the surplus but it does not exist. The money has been spent by the federal government. That is bad enough.

However municipalities are employers and they pay premiums as do their employees. Using the city of Saskatoon as an example, the 15% overpayment by employees and the city as the employer was $800,000. Some $4 million since 1995 has been diverted out of the city of Saskatoon's property tax revenues and into the federal government. I used Saskatoon as an exmaple because that is where I am from, but everywhere in the country, people's property taxes are being siphoned off into the Ottawa sinkhole of waste and mismanagement. Property taxes were never intended for that purpose.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was just terrific to hear someone call a junior minister on some of his past record. It is very interesting to see anyone who is a Liberal, not exactly fiscally responsible to be sure, have the opinion that this is just a relative thing. That is just ridiculous.

A young fellow has gone back to school to try and better himself. We all did that, took out student loans and worked at part time jobs. All of us in the House should pay tribute to people who as adults go back to school. There are some in the House. They need to be celebrated and appreciated. The House of Commons should acknowledge that it is a brave thing to do. Many of these people have young families. They scrimp and save and manage to get by. To then turn around and have it slapped out of them does not exactly serve as an incentive for anyone.

Beyond that, with respect to employment insurance, municipalities are putting out enormous amounts of money, sending a one-way cheque to Ottawa. They might as well throw it in a big black hole. It is interesting to see the spin put on it by the government's communications experts.

We look at these things in terms of absolute billions of dollars that are being spent. I think for instance of when we put the budget through and we look at ways and means. We just swoop $50 billion here and $20 billion there through the House in a matter of moments.

I would like the member to comment on how the government thinks it is responsible to send amazing amounts of money through the House without even so much as a by your leave or even a few minutes to deal with it in committee of the whole. In terms of democracy, spending enormous amounts of money and trying to be responsible with it, does the member think it would be wise for us to at least have some pretty serious comment on this rather than just the hoopla that goes on when we pass billions and billions of dollars through the House?

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there needs to be a far greater degree of scrutiny and accountability over the expenditure of public funds, taxpayers' money. Canadians work hard. They pay their taxes and they have expectations. They deserve to have that money treated in a very accountable, transparent, responsible fashion.

I would just say this about the irresponsible fiscal management of the government. The recent budget has no provision to make even a single payment on the $565 billion national debt for the next three years. What Canadian would manage his or her personal finances that way?

We are talking about people getting an education, trying to better themselves and get ahead in life. At some point most people eventually take out a mortgage and buy a house. Imagine someone saying to the bank manager “I want to borrow money but I think I will just let the interest float for a few years”. The bank manager would say “That is irresponsible, smarten up” and would give the guy a slap or whatever. Yet the government does it with our own money. It is absolutely incredible.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is meeting in Ottawa. The Minister of Finance will be speaking this evening. Perhaps he should be asked what I am going to ask the member.

We look at the downloading that has happened from the federal government to the provincial governments, and the provincial governments to the municipal governments. We pay property taxes so that certain basic services can be provided at the municipal level. How can municipalities deliver the basic services we need when that downloading has occurred, and the money they should have for those services has been grabbed by the federal government?

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The simple answer is that they cannot.

Municipalities are struggling. They are under intense financial pressure at both ends. There is downloading on the one hand. On the other hand as I explained regarding property taxes, some of the money is used for infrastructure and some of it is used for the delivery of services by the municipality. That is money the municipalities need to operate and function and provide the services that they do. However part of that money is being siphoned off through this tax grab of the employment insurance fund in Ottawa.

We could do the math. I do not know what it would come out to for all of Canada but in the city of Saskatoon since 1995, $4 million has been diverted to the federal government. That money should have gone toward roads and bridges in our city.

[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.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

This is an excellent answer.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

As my Liberal friend just said, this is an excellent answer.

But if members look at the bill tabled on February 5, things are different.

[Some hon. member]

Hear, hear.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

I am looking at the list of airports on page 70, for the information of the members of this and of the taxpayers of Nunavik.

Nunavik is a vast remote area, some 2,000 kilometres due north of my home town, Val-d'Or. The Inuit of Nunavik pay taxes. In fact, they pay so much tax that a litre of regular gas, which costs 50.8 cents in Ottawa today, or 62.5 cents in Hull, this morning, costs $1.20 this afternoon in Nunavik. In the north, food costs three times as much as in the south.

This is to tell you that, if people are penalized with a $12 or $24 tax, the issue is serious. We are already penalized with the landing fees. There is the issue of plane tickets. If you go from Ottawa to Kuujjuaq City—it is not in the same category as Kansas City; the fare to go there is $400 perhaps—it will cost $2,400 for a round trip.

People from this area called me. They said “Guy, this is nonsense”. I have received the list prepared by Transport Canada, where one can see on the left what is planned for airports with security measures. But when one looks on the right side of the form I received, one sees the name of the following airports. Out of the 45 airports mentioned by Transport Canada, there are 24 in my riding alone, and 12 are not listed. This means that in my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, there are 24 airports listed in the document of Transport Canada; but there are 36 airports in all. I will not talk about the others.

I could give the list because this is important. I have 20 minutes, with 15 minutes remaining. I did not prepare any speech, but I can say that the government will directly affect our Inuit friends, our Cree friends and the people living in areas such as Abitibi, Témiscamingue, the Gaspé Peninsula, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, in remote areas that have airports.

I will start by naming the airports listed by alphabetical order. When I have finished, I will be able to say “all aboard”; we will get on board to pay the fees; we will not get on the train to go south, because the railway system does not go to this area.

Here are the names listed: Akulivik, Aupaluk, Chisasibi, East Main, Inukjuak, Ivujivik, Kangiqsualujjuaq, Kangiqsujuaq, Kangirsuk, Kuujjuaq, Kuujjuarapik, La Grande-2, La Grande-3, La Grande-4, Némiscau, Povungnituk, Quaqtaq, Salluit, Tasiujaq, Tête-à-la-Baleine, Umiujaq, Val-d'Or, Waskaganish and Wemindji.

Ours is one of the remote areas, but there are others where it would be crucial that this charge not be applied: Alma, Bagotville, Baie-Comeau, Blanc-Sablon, Bonaventure, Chevery, Chibougamau, Gaspé, Gethsemani, Havre-Saint-Pierre, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, La Tabatière, Mont-Joli, Natashquan, Pakuashipi, Port-Meunier, Rimouski, Roberval, Rouyn-Noranda, Schefferville, and Sept-Îles.

It is important to name all those airports. Otherwise, people will wonder which ones we were referring to.

That is the list. Taxpayers in those areas will be charged an extra $12 each way, or $24 for a round trip. People from northern regions, especially Nunavik, who are also taxpayers, travel a lot. They have to come down south to see the doctor because, as we know, there are no specialists in Nunavik.

As far as hospitals are concerned, the Quebec government did a good job in Kuujjuaq, Povungnituk and Grande-Baleine, where they have good hospitals. Also, there must be a local community health center, a CLSC, in each of these communities.

However, if a family or a person goes south for medical treatment, not only will the individuals have to pay for their airfare, which is very expensive, but they will also have to pay an extra $24. There is worse yet. If a father is in the hospital in Montreal or Quebec City and members of his family want to go and see him, they will each have to pay $24, and we know that Inuit families have seven or eight children.

Section D-11 of today's edition of La Presse contained an article entitled “Air travel penalized in small towns”. This is about small towns. The reporter wrote “The increase announced in December may discourage some travellers who may decide that other means of transport would be more appropriate”. He also wrote “Ottawa will collect a tax in the amount of $12 on a one-way plane ticket, and $24 on a return ticket”. It was also mentioned in the article that this would convince many travellers to choose the car over the plane.

But the problem is that there are no roads to travel from Kuujjuaq or Ivujivik to Montreal. Transport Canada is making a mistake in imposing such a hurtful tax.

We know that $24 is a lot of money for a family living in a remote area like Rouyn-Noranda or Val-d'Or. We are not talking about civil servants travelling on behalf of the Government of Quebec or the Government of Canada, because their plane tickets are paid for by all taxpayers.

Let us take a closer look at the family situation. Earlier I mentioned a person who had to go south to see a medical specialist. Let us talk about a woman who goes to Montreal or Quebec City to give birth. We know that all deliveries do not always go smoothly. Sometimes there are complications. Some women need cesareans, and so on. I must say that it hurts to see family members having to pay $24 more to go visit their mother in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto or Quebec City. From a social standpoint, this $24 tax makes no sense for a large family.

Let us go back to what the member for Stoney Creek said earlier. This Liberal member mentioned that there would be a review each year. However, for remote areas, following the finance minister's response, this review should take place immediately.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. There seems to be a great deal of interest in what the hon. member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik has to say. Members are impatient to get to questions and comments. I would ask hon. members to be patient so that the member can conclude his remarks.

The hon. member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik.

[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—

[An hon. member]

And Air Alma.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

One of my colleagues mentioned Air Alma. Air Alma as well. Whether Propair of Rouyn-Noranda, Aviation Boréal of Val-d'Or, all these small companies, because they are currently paying high landing fees.

This is serious. We are talking on behalf of the people living in remote areas. We are being penalized with the cost of food. Do you know how much a loaf of bread costs now? Here, a loaf of bread costs $1.10. I checked in Ivujivik, where it costs $3.42. People have cut down on hunting activities because of the price of gas. Everybody talks about 50 or 60 cents a liter here, but it is $1.20 a liter in remote areas.

I will not say “in the name of the law”, but in the name of all our Inuit friends, of the people living in these areas, in all parts of Quebec and Canada, the government should have a little more gratitude and eliminate this tax when it comes to small, remote airports. Such charges should be eliminated entirely.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure you will find unanimous consent in the House to allow unlimited time to the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.