Debates of March 11th, 2002

Questions on the Order Paper

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 52 seeking leave to move that the House now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.

I provided you with a written notice dated March 7 in which I sought leave to move adjournment for the purpose of discussing last Monday's decision by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to approve both research on and the destruction of human embryos and to encourage such research by providing federal funding for it.

As members know, the Standing Committee on Health carefully considered the draft legislation on assisted reproduction and related research. It worked hard to submit its report to the House in December. Parliament has been waiting eight years to receive and debate the legislation. We eagerly anticipate it within three months because the minister promised the health committee 18 days ago that it was on its way.

The CIHR announcement effectively pre-empted the debate by allowing research on human embryos to begin before legislation is in place. It is vitally important that the House be seized by the fundamental question of the moral and legal status of human embryos prior to the commencement of research to ensure all future research is focused on enhancing human life.

The CIHR ruled on a question of national and ethical importance when it knew legislation was only months away. It knowingly usurped the authority of parliament and contradicted the recommendations of a standing committee of the House. A decision on a fundamental matter involving the dignity of human life has been made not by representatives of the people of Canada but by a small group headed by an unelected, unrepresented and unaccountable arm of the federal government. Canadians deserve to have their voices heard in parliament before any decision is taken regarding research on human embryos or embryonic stem cells.

I therefore request that you convene an emergency debate on this life and death issue at your earliest convenience.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has heard the submissions of the hon. member and I had the advantage of course of reading the letter that he sent to me indicating his intention to raise this very important matter this afternoon.

I have no doubt that the matter is of considerable importance. The question that concerns the Chair is the one of urgency, and under the standing order I believe that in this case there does not appear to be urgency as required by the standing order.

I note also, without making any further comment on it, that there is an opposition day tomorrow and there is going to be another one on Thursday. It is the hon. member's party's chance on Thursday and I know that he might want to see that the issue is brought forward at that time. Certainly he could do more on an opposition day with a motion than he could at an adjournment debate that I am allowed to grant under the standing order. Accordingly I must decline his request at this time.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians waited two years for the government to bring in a budget. We all waited for some positive action to be taken to ensure the economic viability of our country. We waited, and in December of 2001 we received a budget, a budget that left us all disappointed.

The government had the opportunity to finally address issues directly affecting Canadians, namely taxation. Instead of helping to alleviate some of the burden of taxation on Canadians, the government chose to add to that burden.

The auditor general stated that priorities needed to be re-examined to ensure that money was spent in priority areas and that this examination could realistically lead to the termination of some areas and departments that were either wasteful or no longer priority areas. According to the government, there was not one area of wasteful spending in any government department. This meant that there was no money available to reallocate to more important areas such as national security.

The events of September 11 affected every one of us. The insecurity and fear of that day linger on. The safety and security of Canadians became a top priority, and rightly so. There were now national security issues that needed to be addressed immediately. We needed to have airport and airplane security in place to ensure the safety of Canadians.

We needed to have a government that would take the initiative to implement a plan that would ensure our safety. Instead, we were met with a government that floundered in the face of this challenge. The United States put together legislation dealing with air travel safety immediately. That same legislation was passed within 10 days of September 11. Its plan was swift and immediate.

Canadians waited for a plan, and we waited and we waited. When a plan was finally submitted, Canadians found that they would be taking care of the bill. One hundred per cent of the airport and airline security measures would be paid for by the travelling public.

The Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations put together recommendations outlining how these new measures should be paid for.The recommendations from that committee would be fair to all involved. That recommendation 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.

This recommendation sounds reasonable and fair.

Instead of implementing a sound, fair and financially feasible program, the government chose to ignore the recommendations of the committee. This is a trend that seems to have developed within the Liberal government. The arrogance is astonishing. These committees are set up to deliver fair and reasonable views and solutions that would benefit Canadians. Instead, the government chooses to ignore its committees and acts on its own.

The air security tax to be paid solely by air travellers is neither just nor fair. What is needed in the bill is balance. There must be balance among the needs of Canadians, the security needs of airports and carriers, the travelling public's ability to pay and the government's obligation to Canadians.

At a time when we have seen many air carriers struggling, the government chooses to further endanger the viability of this industry. In adding extra taxes on air travel, it will effectively be reducing the amount of air travel in this country.

We have heard the following analogy before, but it is worth repeating. The high levels of taxes on a pack of cigarettes are there to help discourage people from smoking. It only stands to reason that adding more taxes to airline tickets will then discourage people from flying. This is not fearmongering, it is a logical statement. To make a product more expensive will lead to fewer people buying that product. If this theory were not true, I would be driving a convertible instead of a compact.

If it were only passengers who were to benefit from these new measures, it would make a little more sense to have them paying the bill. That is not the case. These new safety measures will be to the benefit of air carriers and their staff, employees of airports, including shops and services found in those airports, and to the general public.

To force only one group of people to pay for security is unfair and unreasonable.

The amount of this new tax, $24 for a round trip, is excessive. In some instances it constitutes a full 58% of the total ticket price. If the government cannot see the debilitating effect that it would have on the air industry, then it is not looking hard enough.

In the United States passengers pay $2.50. Figuring in the exchange rate this is still far below what Canadians are expected to pay. In airports such as Saskatoon, which is in my riding, the amount of tax expected to be collected from passengers would exceed that airport's annual operating budget. Amendments to the bill must be made before it is implemented. The Canadian Alliance proposes that the maximum tax collected from any given airport should not exceed 50% of that airport's annual operating budget.

Changes to the bill need to be made to adequately reflect the various airports in Canada. There are some small regional airports that cannot support the burden that this new tax would present. Revisions should be made that would see a progressive tax being applied, 50 that the amount of the tax would be a percentage of the ticket price. There is no reason that a short flight from Saskatoon to Regina should be subject to the same tax level as a flight from Vancouver to Toronto.

I received a letter from the Saskatoon Airport Authority outlining its concerns in relation to the proposed tax implementation. It states:

We are entirely self-financing and all earnings of the Authority are reinvested in airport operations and development of the infrastructure for the benefit of stakeholders including the Community of Saskatoon and the aviation industry in general.

The events of September 11, 2001 have changed the world and produced unprecedented hardship. The financial crisis facing the civil aviation industry is particularly intense with costs skyrocketing and revenues plummeting at a time when economic events before September 11 threatened the financial stability of the industry.

Saskatoon is particularly concerned about the negative effect the proposed tax will have on our operations. We are reliant on short haul flights. The additional charge levied by the Government of Canada will have a negative impact on our airport. We believe that many potential passengers may choose to utilize other modes of transportation.

This letter goes on to outline specific concerns of the Saskatoon Airport Authority in relation to this new tax. They include the accountability for the collection of the funds, the unfair application of the user pay concept, the discriminatory aspect on short haul flights and the lack of a clear link between the fee and the level of security provided.

The government must re-examine the proposed security tax on air travellers. Canadians demand and deserve a fair and equitable source of funding for the added security measures needed.

[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.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although we agree with the proposed amendments, I would like to take advantage of the time allocated to me to once again speak out against the harmful effects implementation of the new security tax will have on the airline and tourist industries.

Effective April 1, 2002, a new tax will be imposed on the users of air travel. This tax, a set fee of $24 for a round trip, will impact on the industry. When we asked the Minister of Finance to provide us with the impact studies done on this, he admitted candidly that there had been none commissioned. This is unimaginable.

Security is, above all, a national issue. The victims of the September 11 attacks, which brought down the World Trade Center towers, were not all on board the planes. A large number of them were at work in their offices. It is possible to imagine that a cargo plane could have had the same impact.

The government seems in a rush to impose its tax. The Air Transport Association of Canada, which represents the major airlines, travel agencies, airports and reservation systems, has asked for time to study the new tax. The association's request is based on the need to carefully assess the repercussions it will have on ticket prices. It seems the problem lies with stopovers and transfers.

It seems that the airline people have discovered that calculation of the charge might lead to higher ticket prices, because it is so complicated, not to mention the fact that it is not clear how much time will be allowed for a stopover. Some travellers might end up being taxed twice if they were more than a few hours between planes.

There is also the request for a grace period. Inevitably, charging the new tax will result in some mistakes. Will the government give a positive response to any requests made to it?

As the government sets up this new security agency, to be funded by this new tax, its mandate is not yet clearly defined. We know that it will look after passenger safety, among other things, but what other responsibilities does the Minister of Transport plan to give it?

This morning the secretary of state reiterated that urgent action is needed in the aftermath of September 11. Yes, people's safety must be assured, but not willy-nilly.

May I remind the secretary of state that the last act of terrorism involving an aircraft in Canada occurred in 1985 when an Air India aircraft exploded in Toronto, killing 329 people? The bomb was hidden in a suitcase stowed in the baggage compartment. Yet, to this day, it appears that airlines are still not required to conduct security checks on all the baggage that they carry. Every day, baggage is put on board aircraft without adequate inspection.

Sure, people who fly have noticed a number of changes at departure points. But what about what goes on behind the ticket counter, or on in the baggage conveyor area? The Airline Pilots Association is condemning the lack of adequate security measures in certain areas at airports. The only noticeable and visible changes are with crew members, who are implementing stricter control measures.

In its December budget, the government allocated $1 billion to buy a bomb detection system. The problem is that this system, which costs $1.6 billion, is only made by two companies in the world and they cannot keep up with demand. When will we have these systems in our airports? And how long will it take for all the security measures and necessary equipment to be in place and fully operational?

Let us now look at the financial impact of this tax. The secretary of state should tell us how he calculated his tax. Just last week, the Toronto Star wrote that the new tax on airport security would bring in $130 million more than necessary. By the year 2006, the surplus generated would reach $250 million.

What we know right now is that this government plans to collect $2.2 billion dollars over the next five years. It has a duty to tell us exactly how this money will be spent for our security.

A rapid calculation makes it clear that surpluses can be expected. I know that the Minister of finance is not very good at calculating surpluses: I understand that he is incapable of forecasting one.

We estimate a surplus of approximately $223 million in the first year that the new tax takes effect. Will the government siphon this off, as has become its sorry practice? Is the government telling us that it plans to help itself to the surplus from this tax, as it has done in the case of employment insurance?

Although the government likes to say that this new tax will be used to pay for new security measures in airports and that it will have little or minimal impact, it is unable to provide convincing evidence. Where are the impact studies related to the introduction of this new tax?

We cannot let go by without comment another rather disturbing point, that being the establishment of the federal security authority. Prior to September 11, the provision of security services in airports was contracted out to private companies. We had no special requirements with respect to the hiring of employees.

The establishment of a federal authority held out the possibility of better trained, and certainly better paid, employees. Now we learn that the authority is authorized to award contracts to the same companies now working for the airlines. It is true that the companies will have to meet Transport Canada's requirements, but we do not know what these new standards will be.

In conclusion, much remains to be done. I do not understand why the government wants to move so quickly.

The Minister of Finance said in the House that he would review the application of his tax in the fall. This statement leaves me very confused. This is the same government that got itself elected by promising to eliminate the goods and services tax, the GST. The election took place and the tax remained. Once the tax is in place, the odds are good that it will remain.

Why make Quebecers and Canadians pay a $24 tax, when our American neighbours are paying only $10?

This tax is in addition to the GST on some flights, to the fuel tax charge, to security fees, to charges for air navigation and to airport improvement fees. As a result, once the new tax is applied, the price of a ticket for a flight from Edmonton to Calgary will go from $100 before September 11, to $180 after April 1, 2002.

What would happen if travellers gave up on air travel because the costs were too high? Airlines would abandon certain less profitable flights, and it would be the small communities that would pay the price.

What would be the economic consequences? What would be the consequences for development in the regions, in particular the remote regions? Quebecers and people in the other provinces will have to shell out and take it. This is not the first time the Liberals have racked up a surplus, and this tax, without any thought to its consequences, will only further inflate the government's surplus.

We are warning this government: it must hear our appeals and review its position. It has the responsibility to carry out economic impact studies and present us with their findings, now, while there is still time, rather than promising a review once the damage has already been done.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget debates are a time traditionally when members of parliament can raise other issues in the House that bear some relationship to things fiscal and financial. I am particularly pleased to see the member for Elk Island here today in the House as I make my speech because the member for Elk Island was on of two members of parliament in this House who raised the issue of gambling and criticized gambling as a problem that is afflicting Canadian society, during a debate in 1998 that had to with controlled substances.

It was Bill C-51 and that also included the government's proposal that the criminal code be amended so that casino gambling could take place onboard ships. The member took the opportunity to raise the issue to express his concern that gambling in general had become a problem across the United States certainly but across Canada.

The member for Winnipeg--Transcona also raised the issue during that debate. He has a particular interest in it because there are two casinos in Winnipeg and gambling in general in Manitoba is an example where people are genuinely suffering.

The problem is that no one wants to talk about it any more. Nobody is talking about it at all other than these two instances in the House but gambling has become a scourge, an affliction that is doing all kinds of social damage to Canadians at every economic level in society.

Six hundred thousand to a million Canadians are problem gamblers. We have situations where people are losing their houses. They are losing all their worldly goods. They are going to the casino or sometimes the bingo halls, usually the casinos or even worse the video lottery terminals, and they are losing hundreds if not thousands of dollars in a single event. There is a relationship between this occurrence and an increase in certain areas of crime because of course these people have to pay for their habits.

I should help you recall, Mr. Speaker, that up until 1969 the criminal code forbade gambling and under pressure from the provinces the federal government amended the code to allow lotteries, and you will remember Lotto Canada started in 1969. Only a year later the provinces persuaded the federal government to offload the responsibility or the right to raise money by gambling through lotteries to the provinces. That was done in exchange for some $30 million. That was the revenue that the federal government was to get in exchange for giving this right to the provinces.

That has never changed except through inflation. The federal government's total take on gambling across the country after these amendments to the criminal code, and most of the gambling is conducted by the provinces, is only $43 million but the total take of the provinces is $9 billion. That is not the figure that really should concern us. The total money spent by people in casinos, at video display terminals and at the track is $27 billion.

What has happened is that the provincial governments and the charities indeed have become addicted themselves to revenues from gambling. They pay no attention to the social costs. I invite you to do as I have done. I go across the country. I am not a gambler, but I go to every casino that I can and it is amazing to see the social differences in casinos. In the casino in Montreal, for example, it is mostly high stakes tables. In the casino in Winnipeg it is nickel slot machines.

We can see the clientele in the casino in Winnipeg. The people are on social assistance and are senior citizens. What we cannot see and what the few studies that we do have are pointing out is that this scourge of gambling is reaching into the middle class as well. What is happening is the people who are well educated, people who have university degrees and who have good jobs, are now going to these casinos and to these video lottery terminals and are spending money.

The irony is that we are destroying people's lives through these gambling institutions that every province is now supporting and most charities are supporting. We are destroying lives and we are giving nothing in return. There is almost no money being spent on trying to rescue people who have been afflicted by gambling.

Every one of us knows that we do not need fabulous studies to see in our communities people whose lives have been destroyed by gambling. The irony is that if it was not for the fact that the federal government amended the criminal code, if it was not for the fact that the provinces have set up casinos and VLTs wherever they can, these people would not be victims of the disease that afflicts them. We know that gambling is very like alcoholism. It is a weakness we are basically born with, and when the temptation is presented, some people, no matter what their best intentions, are going to fall victim to it.

We are doing nothing about it. All we are doing is pocketing the money and it is basically the provinces that are pocketing the money.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker. Federally we spend $90 million a year on the tobacco reduction strategy. We spend nothing to help problem gambling across the country. There is the odd $100,000 here or there to some social agency that has it as part of its mandate, but there is no plan, no strategy, at the federal level and nothing at the provincial level to actually address the problem of problem gamblers.

We are talking about 4% to 6% of all the people who have access to gambling venues. These are the ones who are problem gamblers who cannot control their habit, or pathological gamblers, where they go and go and they will rob banks and will do anything that is necessary in order to feed their habit. This is a very serious affliction.

I feel very strongly that the House has to address the problem of gambling, because it is not going to come from the provinces. I will give the example of Ontario. Ontario takes in $2 billion in profit from gambling. It says “Ah well, this money is going to be used for charity”, but it gives only 5%, that is 5%, to the Trillium Foundation of that $2 billion. That is the charitable component. Instead, the rest of the money goes to enable the provincial government not to raise taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that if gambling is the source of revenue that replaces raising taxes, then what you are doing is raising taxes on the weak and the poor and you are taking advantage of people's weaknesses. I only have contempt for charities that take that money, take the $100 million from the Ontario government and purport to use it in the public interest when in fact, in a very real sense, if the money comes from casino gambling or VLTs and charities are using it, then in every sense it is blood money.

We have to, as a parliament, do something about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that I am the critic for the coalition on transport so on speaking to this bill I will be dealing mainly with the airport security fee that has been instituted with this piece of legislation.

As we have heard from many others, this security fee is not well thought out. The committee on transport spent three months investigating airline and airport security and how to deal with it. The minister always told us that the security at Canadian airports was far superior to that of the American airports at the time of September 11, and I do not disagree with him. Canada needed it because it was home to a terrorist attack in 1985. The Canadian government and the Canadian airports had to increase the security.

One wonders, when we are already starting from a position of strength where our security apparatus is much greater than that of the Americans, why we felt it necessary to charge so much. Where the Americans are charging $2.50 one way, we are charging $12 one way. Canada and Canadian airports already have a lot of the equipment while the Americans are having to buy more equipment and to increase their participation in security to a much greater degree than Canadian airports. Why is the amount of money so much greater here in Canada when we are already starting ahead of the Americans?

There is some concern with the manner in which this whole airport security fee has been put on the table. The transport committee investigating this whole issue recommended to the government that it be a shared responsibility, shared with the industry, shared with the taxpayers and shared with the travelling public. The reason was that there were more people who were not flying in airplanes, who did not go through an airport security screening process, who ended up dying on September 11.

This does not just affect people who happen to get themselves into airplanes. This affects everyone who is in an arena, at an event, in a place where people gather and even on the receiving end of water distribution systems. This affects all Canadians, so it seems somewhat unfair that only the Canadian travelling public ends up picking up the costs of a terrorist activity or the potential for a terrorist activity.

The fact is that the government did not look at the variety of airports and the variety of security that is required. The hijackers did not look at a small twin engine airplane that was going from Edmonton to Calgary or even from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. They looked at large transcontinental aircraft that were full of fuel because they would make an impact. A little airplane with a single engine prop is not going to destroy anything except itself if it goes into a building. There is a variety of needs for security and not all airports have the potential or the facilities to provide that kind of security, but that was not part of the plan. There was no impact study done to see what the impact would be on smaller airports, on rural airports, on airports that just have perhaps float planes flying in and out or at a maximum a small twin engine plane, a Dash 8 or Dash 7.

No impact study was done to see what kind of an impact this kind of security fee would have on them or on the airlines that fly those smaller planes. For the Hawkairs of British Columbia or their people to have to get involved in an airline security fee does not make sense. They only fly Dash 8s and Dash 7s from small communities into Vancouver. There should have been an impact study done. There should have been some consideration of the security requirements that vary from larger airlines to smaller airlines and certainly there should have been more of an impact study done on what it will mean to the travelling public.

I would argue with the government that this is what will happen when we have a WestJet flight between Edmonton and Calgary that costs $100. With this fee they will pay $89 of taxes on top of that $100. That is $189. In essence what it will do is take people out of the airplanes and put them in the congestion of our highways. I do not have to tell the House about the numbers of accidents that happen when more people in cars and trucks use our highways. I suggest that more people die per year in highway accidents on the North American continent than died flying in the aircraft used as weapons on September 11.

It really does make a person wonder whether the government is looking at this security airport fee in the truest sense of it being used for security purposes or if the government had some other reason for it. When we look at $2.2 billion being set aside from the budget for this security fee, we see $1 billion for equipment.

The government gave the equipment now in airports to a non-profit company that is a spinoff of the airline association. The government gave that to this association, so the question is this: Will the government get back at no cost all this equipment it gave away or will it be paying this not for profit company for that equipment it gave to the company in the first place?

Is this $1 billion to be written off all in one year? It is an ordinary Canadian company. It has to amortize the cost of capital expenditures over a period of time. Many transportation companies, particularly rail, have argued that they should be able to amortize that over shorter periods of time because the equipment wears out, but they are not allowed to do that.

Here we have the government putting $1 billion into equipment, writing it all off in one year and collecting this supposed airport security tax of $24 per return fare to pay for that equipment, but what we are hearing is that potentially this fee will create such hardship for small companies that they will lose travelling public and it may shut them down. From others we are hearing that the large number of passengers will lead to the accumulation of so much money that it will be far more than $2.2 billion and will create this huge pot of money. This is where I get back to the purpose of this tax and the government's real agenda.

I would suggest that it is possible the government saw an opportunity to make some money to use for projects other than airport security. I use the example of the employment insurance pot. The people who know how these things work said that $15 billion would be more than adequate as a rainy day slush fund in order to handle heavier unemployment in the future. They said that $15 billion was more than enough. The government across the way has now accumulated almost $40 billion in that fund. Is it used for employment insurance? No.

Time will tell if this fund grows and this money is used for purposes other than airport security. If that happens it is a fraud to the travelling public who have been asked to pay for the cost of providing for airport security.

The government has said that it will be reviewing this airport security fee in six months to see whether or not it is meeting the needs. That is interesting, because earlier today we were also told that the government is already going to start to collect this but that the equipment will not be in place until probably six months down the road. How will the government know whether or not the money it collects will meet the needs of this whole new program if it is not up and running by the time it makes its assessment?

The government has not done an impact study. It has no idea whether it is going to work. It is picking on the travelling public and not sharing the cost among all Canadians who would benefit from this security. This just shows that it was very poorly thought out and should probably be reviewed within the next couple of months rather than in six months. It should probably be set aside if changes are not made to make it more fair to smaller companies and the travelling public.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

Before we resume debate, I want to give a ruling with regard to the point of order raised this morning by the hon. House leader of the official opposition with regard to the status of the motion to be debated during the opposition day tomorrow.

The hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford contends that the motion should be non-votable. I have now looked into the matter and it appears that there is disagreement about the allocation of votable motions among the various parties in opposition.

I wish to refer all hon. members to Standing Order 81(16) which reads in part as follows:

Not more than fourteen opposition motions in total shall be motions that shall come to a vote during the three supply periods provided pursuant to section (10) of this Standing Order.

I do not think I need to read the rest of it. I refer hon. members to Marleau and Montpetit. It is quite clear about the guidance that is given to the Chair in these matters when it states at page 726:

The allocation of the 14 votable motions is worked out in an informal agreement among the opposition parties.

In the absence of such an agreement, Marleau and Montpetit does not suggest that the Chair provide a resolution.

I refer you to page 726, and I quote:

However, except in a situation where the limit of allowable votable motions in a Supply period or in any year has been reached, it is not within the competence of the Chair to rule whether or not a particular motion should be votable.

I would therefore invite the opposition House leaders to discuss the matter as soon as possible since this item of business is before the House tomorrow. I would hope that they will be able to resolve the dispute that has arisen and inform the Chair of that resolution. Failing such an agreement, I would propose to proceed with the consideration of tomorrow's motion as it now appears, that is, as a votable motion.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, then you have just made the decision, have you not? You have basically said if we disagree with this and we cannot come to something that is of mutual satisfaction to all parties, then you have declared it votable.

The fact is there are 14 votable days. If you give one more to the Conservatives, then in all equality in the House, you will have to give one more to the NDP. If you do that, you will have to give two more to the Canadian Alliance.

As was previously agreed on by the House leaders--

[The Speaker]

I am afraid the hon. member's statement is incorrect.

I received a letter from one House leader indicating there was an agreement and I promptly received a letter from another House leader saying there was not an agreement. This was a year ago.

As I have said, I hope that the parties can work out some kind of arrangement. I suggest they meet and do so.

The Chair, based on the authorities that I cited, has the power to refuse a votable motion after we reach the limit of 14. We have not reached the limit. Accordingly, I decline to intervene.

The House leaders are free to make arrangements as to who gets which days and which days of the week, and things like that. I would invite them to meet and have further discussions on the subject. I am sure they will be able to come up with something quite reasonable.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend you on your ruling.

I was going to reference the letters. You have already referenced the fact that there was no agreement between House leaders.

The interim House leader for the Canadian Alliance Party brought this matter before the House in a rather clandestine way. There was no notice given, but that is to be expected. The rather acerbic comments that he has put forward really do not bode well for any future agreement.

This issue ties into another larger issue you are aware of and on which you have also ruled. That is the fact that the coalition now has 19 members, members of the Democratic Representative caucus and members of the Conservative caucus. It was different when the original arrangement was--

[The Speaker]

Order. The Chair is making no ruling whatever on any of this. The Chair is saying that members should get together and have a little chat about it. I do not think that having the chat here in the House is going to assist in achieving an agreement.

I hope that the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford and the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, helpful as I know they are trying to be to the Chair, would restrain themselves because really, we are making commentary on a ruling which as they know is out of order to do.

There has been a ruling. We all enjoy these comments, but they are not helpful for the Chair after I have made a ruling.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10, 2001, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[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.

[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.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as we are debating security measures in the budget it was appropriate that we had a moment of silence today for the events of September 11. On Saturday of last weekend I attended a gala in Anchorage celebrating Canada-U.S. relations. A plane full of people from Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and the Northwest Territories went to the event. There were 500 seats available which were sold out weeks in advance. The event was attended primarily by Americans and Alaskans celebrating their relationship with Canada and the way we assisted after September 11. I mention this for the people who might have questioned what we did.

I will start by talking about the amendments we are debating this afternoon. The first amendment is related to a report to the government about the effects of security. I am happy to say it has already been dealt with. The Minister of Finance made the commitment that in the fall there would be a report on the issue. The promise that the issue would be investigated is what convinced members of the finance committee to support the provision. The exact cost of the security measures and equipment and the revenue from the fees cannot yet be determined. However it will all be reviewed.

The second amendment we are dealing with is related to members of the board of directors. Two are to be drawn from the airline industry and two from aerodrome operators. It makes eminent sense that this not be done in isolation by government but that the people most intricately involved have a chance to provide their input. That is why I support the careful and thoughtful steps as well as the time that the Minister of Transport has taken to put this in place. It is another step in that direction.

The next two amendments deal with the issue of whom the fees would be applicable to. I was happy to see the loyal opposition supporting the fees but asking for certain exemptions. I am delighted that the Minister of Finance has exempted small airports in the territories where there is no screening and the fee would not be necessary. I am delighted he listened to members from the territories and made that consideration.

The fifth and last amendment we are discussing today is related to what appears to be a standard administrative procedure, namely that if a fee or tax is collected by accident an employee should not be blamed. This applies in common sense to administrative situations in general and would not need to be stated for this case.

I will reply to a few comments made by other members during the debate. First, I was delighted that members from the Bloc emphasized that we need security. We are debating only the nature and extent of the security and the fees involved.

I was also happy that the Bloc and the Conservative coalition brought up the Air India terrorist bombing we had many years ago just to keep it on the record. People have approached us and said there is no terrorism in Canada. As members know, we have had acts like that for many years. Increasing vigilance is as necessary in Canada as it is everywhere else.

In relation to the Air India incident, a member from the Bloc said it was important that checked baggage be secure. He seemed to suggest nothing had been done. I can assure the hon. member that checked baggage is carefully examined and more provisions are in place. The hon. member himself mentioned that we have expensive machines for detecting explosives. I have been on a number of flights that have not proceeded until each piece of baggage has been checked with a passenger. Often passengers have gotten off and waited until their baggage got off. That never occurred with any frequency in the past as it does now.

The studies were raised a number of times in the debate and, as I already said, a study will be done. Bloc members also mentioned throughout the debate that there were all kinds of surpluses. I think that will be the exact description in the Hansard of this afternoon's debate. They could not have read the budget documents because, as it was a balanced budget, there was no surplus.

They went on to suggest elimination of fees or spending on all sorts of items. Those would have to come from somewhere, but, of course, they never mention from where. It does not add up as to where these would come from in a balanced budget, when every dollar of revenue is accounted for with an expenditure.

A member of the Conservative coalition mentioned small planes as if they could not create damage in a terrorist attack or that they would not be used in such a situation. As my colleague mentioned, small planes are exempt. However we all know there are already a number of incidents where people have used small planes for acts against other human beings. A small plane carrying explosives could crash into a crowd. Whether one person or 3,000 people were killed, if the individuals who was killed was a member of one's family that would be just as important. We have to ensure there is security in all areas within our control.

In the feedback I received, a lot more people suggested they were happy with these security provisions. They would not shift to highways, as the member from the coalition suggested.

On the shift to the highways, they are suggesting there is no tax on highways to ensure safety. As everyone knows, there is a substantial gasoline tax for highways. There is a fee to keep that infrastructure and mode of transportation safe as well.

I want to close by commenting on what the preceding speaker said. He suggested that no one ever listened to him. I would like him to know that I listened carefully to his full comments. I was glad he raised the topic of taxes in Canada. What he failed to mention was that this budget maintained the largest tax cut in Canadian history. I would assume he would support us cutting taxes in that manner.

He went on in his remarks to strenuously suggest that we cut a government fee, a government revenue. They have given a whole list of things on which the government could spend more money. This happens quite often. Once again, it does not add up. We cannot cut fees and taxes and then spend money.

His last comment was about the Liberals throwing money around for the things they liked to do. I thought spending on security and improving security for Canadians after September 11 was something the Alliance supported as well. We heard no end of it in the days and weeks following September 11. To suggest it is not a good thing now, in a different context, again does not add up. We have to have some common sense and logic that fills the total picture, not just an individual debate.

[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.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite with great interest but also with great sadness. He belongs to a party which aspires to govern. It thinks that the only tool available to a government is the tax structure and that the only way to help Canadians is by cutting taxes.

I live in the province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, as do you. We know that we have a government which cut taxes and simply left the province in a deficit. The people of Ontario are paying a larger and larger debt.

The member mentioned brain drain and sustainable jobs for Canadians. His party wants to cut taxes so that the brain drain will stop and these jobs will magically appear. I must say this is not what Canada is about and it certainly is not what the role of the federal government is in this wonderful Confederation in which we live.

I would like to talk about sustainable jobs. I would like to talk about the spending side of budgets, not only in this budget but also budgets passed. I want to say that we too have cut taxes but we have also increased spending in appropriate areas, those which reduce the brain drain and create the sustainable jobs that the member opposite was talking about.

I was shocked the week before last to hear one of his colleagues attacking our support of the SSHRC which is the main funding council for social science and humanities research in Canada. His colleague read out a list of the grants in support of research into Canadianness which he objected to. That is the sort of thing we need to teach people in Canada, the idea and real understanding of what the country is about.

I want to go back a few budgets to the time when we came into government. We inherited a fiscal situation in which the government of the day, the government which preceded us, was borrowing almost a billion dollars a week to pay its way and was simply adding almost a billion dollars a week to the debt which we are all still paying off. That adds up to about the budget of the province of Ontario being borrowed by the federal government every year and added to the debt for future Canadians.

We came in and we sorted that out; we downsized government. However, in those very years when we were downsizing we started spending money in areas which in the long term, and I understand that it is not easy for governments to think long term, would make for a stronger economy and for a stronger Canada.

For example, we started increasing funding for research to the council I just mentioned, or to NSERC which is the engineering and sciences research council, or to what was then the health research council. We steadily increased funding to those councils. That money went to researchers, to graduate students and to universities and colleges to help the quality of work which was being done there.

Another example is the health research council which is now called the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Last year we doubled the funding for health research in Canada.

This has two effects. First, it improves future health and future health care. It also helps us retain the best and the brightest of health research workers. That is not a casual decision. Its budget went up again significantly in this current budget. That has been a steady and gradual increase in an area which has strengthened Canada. It has strengthened sustainable jobs and reduced the brain drain which the member was talking about.

Over that period we brought in the Canada Foundation for Innovation. One of the problems that our institutions were facing, largely because of decreased provincial funding, was that they lacked the infrastructure for research labs. Our hospitals lacked the infrastructure for research labs. The Canada Foundation for Innovation was brought in to fund that sort of thing and for a number of years now, including this year, it has been flowing money for the infrastructure of research in our hospitals, universities and, I must stress, in our colleges.

We know that applied research is going on in community colleges all across Canada. It is involved at the very grassroots of some areas of technology. A portion of the funding of the Canada foundation for innovation was put aside deliberately for our colleges in every part of the country. A particular part of it was also put aside for smaller institutions, the smaller universities of Canada.

When a small institution finds itself with brilliant young researchers it is often difficult for it to give them the infrastructure backing that they need. One of the roles of a national government is to look in the regions to see where the talent is and to reach out and help tap that talent. Perhaps it is a small province that cannot support it. Perhaps it is in a part of a large province that does not get its share of research funding. That is the Canada foundation for innovation.

I am now talking about a broad sweeping policy addressing the matters that the member opposite was talking about. The government invested in 2,000 fully funded Canada research chairs for universities all across the country. It included support for infrastructure for those chairs so that if a small university got one of the chairs it would be able to either bring back to Canada a researcher who had left or keep a young researcher here who otherwise would have left. It not only got the salary for that researcher but it got some infrastructure support so that it could hold the person who got the research chair. There are 2,000 of those flowing across the country.

In the budget we are discussing today there was another remarkable step. I have already mentioned the infrastructure of research but there was another aspect which was the general indirect costs of research.

For example, a university or a college in northern Ontario may receive a grant of $100,000 to do some wonderful research that has to do with the lumber industry or mining or whatever. The money would not all go into equipment. There would be costs for research assistants, perhaps some students for the summer to work on the project. The small university or college would not have the money and could not afford the indirect costs. They could perhaps pay the research assistant but would not have a room or a computer. Those are called indirect costs.

For the first time, and the federal government is the first to do so, it has agreed to support indirect costs of research with a formula which means that smaller institutions would get relatively more indirect costs of research than larger ones. The reason is that a big university always has a few spare rooms to house assistants.

There is a progression of five or six years in the budget. It would culminate with keeping the best and brightest here, attracting the best and brightest back, and using the knowledge and research they do to enrich the country. The real wealth of the country is of course the people.

I was shocked at the Canadian Alliance member talking the way he did and thinking that all we had to do was cut taxes and magically the whole country would be better. Of course there should be no unnecessary taxation, but if that party aspires to govern it must learn that there is a tax structure and there are ways in which taxes are spent.

We need to make this country fully sustainable through thoughtful and creative expenditures of the moneys which taxpayers will gladly pay if they know in fact that the country will be stronger in the future because of those expenditures.