Debates of March 1st, 2002

Question No.100—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas would like to repeat it.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to repeat it. I am seeking unanimous consent of the House to immediately dispose of the amendment which would reverse the decision of the committee and which shows such contempt for the work of the committee.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle to briefly wrap up.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder about the whole process of parliament. This committee was dominated by government members who supported an amendment to the bill. Members of all five parties supported the amendment to the bill. It comes to this place as an amendment to the bill from the finance committee of the House of Commons and the minister says no, it is not any good and he will wipe it out entirely.

Now one of the members of parliament has moved a motion to dispose of this amendment by the Minister of Transport and a bunch of Liberals rush in from eating their dinners with food crumbs on their suits not even knowing what they are voting on and voting against what the finance committee recommended in a democratically constructed House of Commons.

What shame. What contempt for the parliamentary process.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you as a former referee in the national hockey league must be feeling exactly the same way as I am feeling about the way this place operates and the lack of respect--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I have tried to be generous with the hon. member in extending his time for a few seconds, but we will resume debate.

[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.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot about democracy in the House, unfortunately when the opposition members vote together they consider that democratic but when we vote together, apparently it is whipped, which unfortunately is a misrepresentation.

I cannot believe some of the comments I have heard from the other side. It is very disappointing to hear some of the comments given that some of these members, when things are explained to them, turn around and say things which they know are incorrect. Nevertheless, some of the members seem to have a really good grasp of the finance committee, even though they have never attended it.

I would like to comment particularly on Motion No. 10 which deals with the issue of aerodromes north of the 55th parallel and how they would be served.

In the committee, we responded by saying that the listed airports, those airports that are planned by Transport Canada to benefit directly from security enhancements under the new authority, would be in place. All these airports currently have pre-board screening practices that would be continued and enhanced under this authority. Therefore, for travel in Canada, the charge would apply to flights between the listed airports. Direct flights to or from small and remote airports that are not listed airports will of course not be subject to the charge. Further, this would reduce considerably the incidents of the charge in remote areas in the country.

The list of airports will be reviewed, as has been said many times in the House, on an ongoing basis and, if necessary, revised to reflect any changes in the provision of security in those airports.

Further, on Motion No. 17, the charge will fund enhanced air travel security, which I believe is the goal of all members of the House. This would be based on national standards developed by Transport Canada and applied to the new air transport authority. This is extremely important.

Transport Canada has recently established security responsibilities and determined where and how the security will be enhanced.

The charge will not apply at airports where the government will not be providing enhanced security. Not applying the charge in respect of flights to and from portions of the listed airports that may not have screening services would raise, obviously, two difficulties.

First, it would be administratively complex and perhaps unworkable to identify each separate circumstance in which the charge would not apply at a particular time for a particular listed airport.

Second, it would create a cost advantage to operate flights from unsecured portions of listed airports that would be inconsistent with the key goal of enhancing air travel security. I am sure my friends on the other side do not want to see that as they are always talking about their concern for the dollar. They are all concerned about the issue of security and yet they, by their actions, would in fact put the public at peril by not supporting the notion of the type of security measures that are being implemented.

Further, the legislation already provides the authority to the Minister of Revenue to waive all or part of any interest on penalties otherwise payable on late or deficient payments. This was an issue that was raised at the committee. If the minister considers it reasonable to do so, then the minister will take the appropriate action.

This ministerial authority is consistent with the authority provided under the tax statute, such as the goods and services tax legislation, and the income tax legislation.

The authority would be expected to be exercised by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in its administration of the charge in the same fair and reasonable manner as exercised in relation to other statutes.

Finally, the budget sets out a fiscal track for funding the enhanced security expenditures by way of the air travellers security charge, which entails a total budgetary commitment of $2.2 billion over a five year period. The integrity of that fiscal framework is dependent on the charge going into effect April 1, 2002.

The air travel industry which consists of air carriers and travel agents across the country and abroad needs certainty as to when it would need to begin collecting the charge. It is gearing up to collect it as of April 1, 2002.

Projected revenues from the charge in the first two years are lower than projected expenditures. It is only in 2004-05 that annual revenue is projected to exceed annual costs. The air travel industry must buy the appropriate equipment and put it in place, so expenditures would go higher than revenues initially. Only by 2004-05 would it make up for the earlier shortfalls.

The government is committed to an open and transparent process. It was said time and again at the committee that the charge must be reviewed annually. The Minister of Finance is on record on repeated occasions in the House as saying he would review the charge to ensure revenue over the five year period did not exceed the costs of the enhanced air traffic travel security system.

However members on the other side of the House only seem to hear what they find convenient, and they are not prepared to hear the views of the committee. A number of times they were not even at the committee. They did not seem to feel they received a positive response to the issues they raised so they took their marbles and went home.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day we are responsible for the security of Canadians. We want to make sure air travellers are secure. We want to make sure the costs are partly borne by the consumer. That approach has been taken. I would hope the majority of members of the House support that approach.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

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

Frankly, what is shameful is that the federal government is ignoring workers.

Honestly, I do not blame the Liberals for thinking that way since as they said this morning they have their votes anyway. They are saying “We can crucify them every day, we can hit them in the face, we can do whatever we want to workers, they will vote for us anyway.”

I hope workers are listening to what I am saying. The transport minister believes it is not enough. In his opinion, there is no need to have workers' representatives on the committee. It is not necessary, they already have their votes.

I will remind the House of something. In my riding, my predecessor used to say the same thing, “Between elections people in Acadie—Bathurst are mad at the Liberals, but when the election comes, they vote for us anyway.” In 1997, he saw that they did not. Maybe the Liberals will stop being so arrogant and show some respect for workers.

I hope that workers in Toronto are hearing what I am saying. At the Toronto airport, they are represented by a union. The Minister of Transport jhas ust said that it is not necessary to have representatives of the workers, but that airport authorities can be represented. Airlines can be represented. Are they going to be represented by Air Canada? By WestJet? Is it these two, the only two airlines in Canada, that will decide? Is it the minister who will decide?

Workers are being told, “You, the workers, do not have anyone competent enough to represent you”. This is what the minister should have said in the House this morning, “You cannot have representatives, have someone to represent workers”.

Again, this is a disgrace, and the government talks about democracy. Earlier, the Liberals rose and said, “According to them, democracy only works when it comes from the opposition. When it does not come from the proper side, it is not democracy”. I can guarantee that democracy exists everywhere, as long as it is based on respect for everyone.

I am convinced that, in this particular case, unions could make a useful contribution to the committee. They would bring nothing but good things to the committee.

But it is not good enough for the Minister of Transport. No, because it is not his gang.

When the Minister of Transport appeared before the committee, he said that, even though there is a collective agreement, the act could not even go against the agreement as regards official languages. Well no, because the idea was to represent workers. It is always the same thing in these cases. You never stand up for the workers.

At no time have I seen the Liberals get up from their chairs and fight for the working people but they brag that they are getting their votes. I hope the working men and women of Canada recognize this once and for all.

We got the Minister of Transport to come to the House this morning to remove the amendment that was put to the House. To have only two persons on the committee on airport security who represent working people is a shame. It is because the minister does not trust them.

The Liberals trust the working people on voting day. They even brag about it. As my predecessor said, between elections the working class is always pissed off at the Liberals but when election day comes it votes for them anyway.

The Liberals go across the country and make promises about roads. They say that with the Liberals in office working people have hope. They have had hope for 10 years but it is an empty hope because the roads are not being built. This is the type of hope we get from the Liberals: empty hope with no results.

This morning the Minister of Human Resources Development was bragging about all the good things the government has done to Employment Insurance. It made all the cuts in 1996 and she has the guts to brag about it. The hon. member for Toronto--Danforth, who is a Liberal, said he would tell employees who tried to hang him out to dry on the national stage that they were working for the wrong company. On the national news he said employees who did not have good witnesses for their ministers would lose their jobs.

The Liberals talk about democracy. I hope they have a bit of conscience left and change their minds. I hope they appoint labour representatives to the board so the working men and women of Canada are represented rather than just the big corporations. That is what needs to be done.

The Liberals should be ashamed to have the nerve and the guts to come before the House and say, “We will boot the two union representatives out, because workers on the work sites will vote for us anyway”. I hope that Canadians will be able to see through the Liberals opposite.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order. I wonder if there is unanimous consent in the House to allow the hon. member to continue his speech.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst spoke from the heart and I would like to do the same. We all know that he is a very compassionate man. Unfortunately, the flu I have been fighting for the last two weeks will prevent me from bringing as much passion as he did to this debate, which I tend to do at times.

I just want to remind the hon. member that he can name his predecessor, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst, his predecessor, the one who was elected with the Liberal government in 1993, when referring to him in the House. His name is Doug Young. As transport minister at the time, he was my counterpart for a few years until the current member for Acadie—Bathurst was kind enough to send him packing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh.

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

Doug Young is now a lobbyist very close to—

Mr. Speaker, could you ask the chihuahua from Beauharnois—Salaberry—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. We are having a very important debate.