Debates of March 13th, 2002

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this what the secretary of state calls minimal impact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just arrived and I heard most of my hon. colleague's speech. There is one thing I would like some additional information on. I was recently at the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress. They were speaking about the new air transportation security agency and the composition of the board of directors.

At the transport committee meeting they had reason to believe and they were led to believe that there would be labour representation on the 11 person board of directors of the air transportation security agency. I am wondering what happened.

I am at one meeting and I get a report that even though people are apprehensive about the creation of this new arm's length agency, at least they are kind of relieved that they will in fact have proper representation and an opportunity to get labour's points of view put forward as this agency moves forward. Then I come to the House of Commons where I work and find out that the rug has been pulled out from under that idea. The transport committee recommended it and had a tacit agreement from all parties. Then what happened?

Perhaps the hon. member, because she is a member of the transport committee, could tell me what the heck happened there and how did we lose those seats on the board?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty simple. We lost it because we cannot trust whatever comes out of Liberals' mouths.

There was a tacit agreement that there would be representation. The minister's comments were debated at length at the department, in cabinet and in committee. He understood that there would be pressure from labour for dedicated labour representation on the board.

However, there are other parties who are affected by the operations of the security authority. Yes, there are other parties involved and there is the entire nation. I have indicated the number of workers, pilots, flight attendants and other crew people that lost their lives on those flights. They have an extremely important interest in what happens with airport security. They are the ones that are on those planes when something happens with a passenger who becomes enraged. I have yet to see a member of parliament from the Liberal side be damaged or injured on a plane as a result of lack of security. We certainly see it happening to airline workers all the time.

Who has the greatest interest here? They are the workers in that industry and the passengers that quite frankly they are standing up for as well. The government is not.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member who just spoke has a compelling interest in the rights and advantages to workers as I do. I grew up in Saskatchewan, good CCF country when I was a kid and later NDP country.

I have always felt that it was important to fight for the little guy, the one struggling to make ends meet. In fact what brought me into parliament was observing so many people struggling to make ends meet because of their high tax load.

The question I wish to ask the hon. member has to do with this new exemption for tools for mechanics. I do not how aware she is of this. I know she is not a regular member of the finance committee but I am wondering if she has had some input from her constituents on this issue.

In my view that measure in the bill is completely inadequate. It has a $1,000 ceiling on the amount of expenses that can be claimed to reduce one's taxable income. It is even lower than that if one's income is less than $20,000. It would only apply to apprentice students and not to people who work as mechanics day after day and suffer the long term losses of their tools or needing to replace them because of obsolescence.

Has the hon. member had any input from her constituents on that question?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have had a lot of input from mechanics in my riding and have discussed with them over the last number of years their ability to deduct the cost of their tools. Coming from a riding with a number of industrial sites I recognize the high cost of tools for trades people.

In answer to my colleague, he is absolutely right. The bill does not seem to address the need of students by only allowing them to claim a certain amount. The legislation is totally inadequate. Quite frankly, I see it as a double standard by the government. A professional worker is able to claim a business lunch, a box at the Blue Jays stadium, or a Senators box here in Ottawa. A dentist and a doctor can claim their tools.

The government is using a double standard by not recognizing trades people as equal and valued partners in society and not allowing them to claim the tools they need for their business. It is disgusting and shows the double standard the government uses for ordinary working people. The government probably thinks these other people deserve a bit more. The member is absolutely right. Mechanics, carpenters, electricians, trades people or any worker who need tools to do their job should be able to claim them as a tax deduction.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for her compelling presentation in the House today. She, like other members on both sides of the House, is very concerned about this new air security tax.

This poll driven, focus group economics government does not build public policy around what Canadians need but rather builds public policy around the fears driving the polls today. It is such a focus group, poll driven government that everything is focused on what it believes will quell public opinion in the short term, but very clearly ignores the long term needs of Canadians.

The air security tax is based on fear. The government is trying to raise a $1 billion surplus to what is actually needed to provide the security Canadians require. The air security tax would raise an additional $1 billion which is like EI fund 2 or Liberal gouge 2, the sequel to the EI fund. The finance department has underestimated air traffic over the next several years in such a way that this tax is inflated to create a $1 billion surplus over the next several years. How unconscionable can the government behave when we see it use September 11 as a vehicle through which to raise $1 billion for other spending activities?

At a time of economic tumult the government has put a $2.2 billion tax on Canada's most vulnerable industry, the airline industry. It carried out no impact analysis on the regions of the country, on smaller struggling airports that are having difficulty making ends meet or on competition in Canadian air space which we have already seen with the loss of Canadian, Canada 3000, Royal and CanJet under the government's stewardship.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 6.12 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Canada Elections Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Canada Elections Act in order to grant the right to vote to those residing in Canada with landed immigrant status.

Madam Speaker,it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise this evening to debate my private member's Motion No. 122. At the outset, I would say that I have been extremely fortunate in this parliament, since I joined the coalition in particular, to have motions and bills selected for debate. Of course it was not due to some prodding from my Progressive Conservative colleagues that I would say such a thing. I would have admitted that freely even if they had not prodded me to do so.

I am pleased to bring this motion before the House to be debated among all colleagues. After all that is one of the principal functions of this Chamber, a place in which to consider, to discuss and to exchange opinions and ideas. With this motion, that is what I am asking today. I propose that the House and this government consider amending the Canada Elections Act in order to grant the right to vote to those residing in Canada with landed immigrant status.

We are seeing unprecedented levels of voter apathy and voter disillusionment in the country. The credibility of our democratic and parliamentary institutions are in question by many Canadians. Their confidence that their opinions and that exercising their democratic rights will actually make a difference has been severely eroded in recent years. Why would their faith in our democratic process not be shaken?

In the 2000 general election, Canadians who actually voted for this so-called majority government were fewer than eligible voters who did not cast a vote at all. Furthermore, just 61% of eligible voters actually cast a vote in that election. It is sad to note that is an all-time low.

I could spend a very long time here listing the reasons why many Canadians have turned away from the electoral process such as a government that rules with empty promises and encourages arrogant disregard of basic democratic parliamentary and political processes, even within its own party.

However, I suggest we set aside the debate over how voter cynicism and apathy have reached such critical levels and move forward to find new ways and improved methods of boosting participation in the democratic process, otherwise we will continue on in this vicious downward cycle that is counterproductive to Canada's progress and evolution.

The need for democratic renewal also kick-started the initiatives recently proposed by the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative coalition. That discussion paper on democratic reform is a co-operative and meaningful effort to resuscitate our political, democratic and parliamentary institutions. It includes substantial proposals and reforms that would empower those affected by the policies and decisions of the federal government; the people. In that same spirit of revitalizing democracy, I propose we discuss the merits of including landed immigrants who are permanent residents of Canada in our electoral process.

Throughout my political career, I have continued to be impressed by the active interest of landed immigrants in our affairs of state. Many of these immigrants have a keen desire to participate in the political process and to provide input into the government of their adopted country.

There are a number of reasons for this particularly elevated level of interest, including the fact that immigrants may be less likely to take democracy for granted. Most have chosen to live in Canada, as many of my colleagues will agree. When people have chosen a path or have made a very careful decision, they are much more likely to maintain interest in the consequences of that decision or more closely guard any benefits that arise from that choice.

In other cases, immigrants have originated from countries bereft of democracy or human rights. They may have seen horrible poverty and human suffering. They have a real appreciation for the quality of life in Canada and they wish to preserve it. The best way to preserve what one values is to become involved and make one's opinions known; to vote.

A landed immigrant is “a person who comes to settle in Canada as a permanent resident”. These individuals are part of our communities and part of our society. In 1996 there were nearly five million immigrants in our country. Their rights are equal to those of Canadian citizens in every way except one. They do not have the right to vote in a federal election. Imagine denying the entire city of Toronto or more than the population of British Columbia the right to democratic representation.

I propose that we ask ourselves whether their exclusion from the federal electoral process is justified. Landed immigrants work, they pay taxes, their children go to public schools, they have chosen to become permanent residents in Canada and they are participants in our society. Just like every Canadian citizen, their lives are affected by the decisions made at all levels of government including those before the House, decisions that will affect their present and their future and perhaps more important, their children's futures.

Many eventually will become Canadian citizens. In the meantime, is it justified to deny them a say in the future of their new country? If they do not plan on becoming citizens, and there are various legitimate reasons both practical and personal for such a decision, are we certain we wish to dangle the right to vote as some kind of a reward for choosing official Canadian citizenship? Is citizenship in our communities not enough, in and of itself?

Some undoubtedly will answer that yes, certainly the right to vote should be a privilege enjoyed only by citizens. That is fine. Again, I remind the House that I am encouraging this debate to bring all opinions forward. While the idea of granting voting rights to landed immigrants has not really been the subject of much consideration before, at least not in Canada, there are other countries where some non-citizens have the right to vote.

For example, there are a number of countries that grant the right to vote to non-citizen residents coming from specific countries only. In Australia, the United Kingdom, Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, those holding citizenship in another Commonwealth country may vote, though all but the United Kingdom require minimum periods of residence in that country ranging from one year to seven years. Portugal grants voting rights, without residency requirements, to citizens of the European Union member states or Brazilian citizens carrying equal rights status.

However it is the voting eligibility rules of New Zealand which deserve particular note. New Zealand has the most inclusive view on voting rights of any other nation and we have very good reason for taking a good look at the example they have set. After all New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant women the right to vote.

There is even further reason to consider following their lead. Voter turnout in New Zealand's 1999 general election was 85%. As I reminded the House earlier, voter turnout in Canada's 2000 general election was just 61%. It was pretty dismal.

New Zealand must be doing something right in to garner such an impressively high participation level in its electoral process. No doubt it is partly due to the fact that everyone is made to feel as though they are part of the democratic process in New Zealand. Any resident 18 years of age and older who has been continuously resident in New Zealand for one year is eligible to vote. In the New Zealand perspective, if one resides in the country, one probably is paying taxes and contributing to the community. It then follows that one has the right to be involved in the political and democratic systems.

That raises issues of taxation without representation. Need I remind anyone that the independence of our great neighbour to the south was forged over this concept? Canada's landed immigrants are obligated as residents to pay Canadian income tax on their worldwide earnings. Are we justified in forcing them to pay taxes while denying them the right to help determine how that money is spent like all other taxpayers? I know how frustrated I would feel if I were denied any say in how my tax dollars were spent.

Though this issue of granting voting rights to landed immigrants has not been widely debated before now, I firmly believe that it will become a much larger subject of discussion in the near future.

One need only look at the census results which were released today in papers across the country. They show how much immigration means to our country because of the declining birth rate of Canadian citizens.

The world has changed and continues to change considerably with regard to immigration, trade and our increasingly international and mobile workforce. Nations are recruiting skilled workers from all over the world to fill shortages in entire sectors of their economies. Canada has been actively recruiting workers from other countries to fill vacancies in our high tech industry, for example.

As the worldwide trend toward a migrant workforce expands, we must consider all the implications. As increasing numbers of landed immigrants contribute to our labour force and we become more and more dependent upon them to lend expertise in certain sectors of our economy, do we continue to deny them the right to vote?

Landed immigrants have committed, in good faith, to participate and contribute to our country. I propose we indicate that we value that commitment by acknowledging that it is reasonable for them to ask for equal rights in every way, including the right to vote.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to the motion that would grant the right to vote to those residing in Canada with landedimmigrant status.

I am thrilled because this debate touches on two special issues that I hold very dear, the sustainable contribution of immigrants to Canada and the fundamental role of elections and the right to vote in our democracy.

To begin with, I am sure all of us in the House recognize the tremendous contribution that has been made to the development of this country by immigrants. This is seen in every area of Canadian life: business, government, academia, culture and the arts. All of us recognize that our country has been enriched by their accomplishments and by their descendents who are now playing their own part in our national saga.

Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that all of us in Canada are either immigrants or descendents of immigrants. For whether it was tens of thousands of years ago in the case of aboriginal Canadians or more recently as with other Canadians, all of us or our ancestors came from somewhere else. As a result, Canadians cherish their immigrant heritage and offer a warm welcome to newcomers to our country.

Unlike our neighbours to the south who take a melting pot approach, we in Canada view diversity as a valuable asset to be treasured and nurtured rather than a potential source of conflict that must be eliminated at all cost. Not surprisingly, we have been quick to accord many rights to landed immigrants or permanent residents as they are more properly known in Canadian law. These include the right to receive Canada student loans and vote in municipal elections, to name just a few. The Canada Elections Act extends to permanent residents the right to encourage electors to vote for or against a particular candidate and to make electoral contributions.

We are also aware that the first few years in Canada can often be a destabilizing factor for many new immigrants, who have to get to know a new country and a new people and to take major decisions concerning their families, their financial situation and their work.

Besides granting new immigrants a number of rights, we also impose a few restrictions on them.

For instance, should they need help, permanent residents have to rely on their sponsors and they also have to wait to benefit from medicare, at least three months in Ontario.

We also prevent them from voting in federal and provincial elections, a right they will, however, be able to exercise fully once they have taken Canadian citizenship. The reason for this is that over the years Canadians of all political persuasions have agreed that the right to determine the future of this country is so important that it should be reserved for those who have made a permanent commitment to it by taking Canadian citizenship.

This was underlined in the 1991 Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, or the Lortie commission as it is popularly known. It recommended that we continue to require that people be Canadian citizens before they can vote in federal elections. It stated that:

Those who wish to participate in Canada's political life must commit themselves to a permanent stake in our government and share in its risks; they have an obligation to seek Canadian citizenship. The right conduct of politics in representative governance implies that the vote is significant to citizens. This demands that only citizens possess the franchise.

In its report the commission laid out a number of criteria for deciding who should have the right to vote. These criteria included: holding a stake in the governance of society; the ability to cast a rational and informed vote; and conforming to the norms of responsible citizenships.

It does not take long to realize that these criteria are totally reasonable. It is quite normal that only the people directly concerned by the future of a country should have a say in the governance of that country. The best way to show their dedication to this country is to become a Canadian citizen.

Then, too, if voters are to make a rational and informed decision about the issues of the day they must be familiar with the history, values and character of the country and have a good knowledge of its laws and the operation of our institutions of government. This is clearly not something that can be learned in a few days, weeks or months. Rather, it can only be done by living in Canada for an extended period of time and sharing in the life of the nation, as occurs when people are permanent residents for a few years prior to applying for citizenship.

I might add that requiring people to be citizens before they can vote is not something that is peculiar to Canada. Rather, it is the standard for most if not all of the major democracies, including the United States, Great Britain and France for example. Nor do any of the provinces allow non-citizens to vote in their elections. For these reasons, it seems wise to retain the current restrictions in the right to vote to just Canadian citizens.

Therefore I will not be supporting this motion and would urge other members to do likewise.

Having said that, I want to thank the hon. member for his interest and deep commitment to making citizenship meaningful and to urging Canadians to participate as much as possible in our political institutions. This is also what our government and I are aiming for.

I would urge all members to work with the government in this area so that we can share our insights, ideas and dreams, for it is only then that our country and its people will be able to realize their full potential.

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

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 122 before us reads specifically as follows on page 39 of the Wednesday, March 13, 2002, Order Paper and Notice Paper:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Canada Elections Act in order to grant the right to vote to those residing in Canada with landed immigrant status.

In the usual pattern, the member has reasoned himself into an illogical position.

We can just think back to recently here in the city of Ottawa, the capital, to January 2, 1997. At that time, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration noted that it was the beginning of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Canadian law under which we are Canadian citizens, for we must remember that in January 1947 the Canadian Citizenship Act first came into effect.

Prior to this event, people living in our country were considered British subjects residing in Canada. The passage of the act signified that Canada was at last a full fledged and equal member of the community of nations. We had a lot of celebrations that year. It was certainly a chance to reflect on the successes of our country and what we enjoyed over the previous decades. It was also a chance to think about the rights that we share as Canadian citizens and the responsibilities that go with such a distinction. We had special ceremonies and since then there is often a citizenship week in February.

Let us just look for a moment at what it really means to be a Canadian citizen, for Canadian history and traditions have created a country where our values include tolerance and respect for cultural differences and a commitment to social justice. We are proud of the fact that we are a peaceful nation and that we are accepted in many places around the world as peacekeepers. It does mean something when we wear the Canadian flag on our lapels when we travel abroad.

As a small population occupying a vast northern land enriched by immigration throughout its history, Canadians have developed a kind of genius, I think, for compromise and coexistence, which lie at the heart of our federal system of government. We value the fact that we live in a democracy where every citizen is encouraged to do his or her share. Our democratic values are the basis of our laws. These values include, among other things, equality. In other words, we respect everyone's rights, including the right to speak out and express ideas that others might disagree with, and we never take up arms as a result of that. Governments have to treat everyone with equal dignity and respect, which are both fundamental to our form of democracy.

Second in the values that I am talking about is tolerance. We try to understand and appreciate the cultures, the customs and the traditions of our neighbours.

Next is the ethos of peace. We are proud of our non-violent society and our international role as peacekeepers.

Next, then, is law and order. We respect democratic decision making and the rule of law. We promote due process so that the courts and the police will treat everyone fairly and reasonably and we ensure that our elected governments remain accountable to Canadians.

As we reflect on these values, we ask ourselves what responsibilities we can take around citizenship. One of those fundamental benefits that really makes citizenship valuable and that makes it mean something is that we have the right to vote. We have equality rights, democratic rights, legal rights, mobility rights, language rights, minority language rights and education rights. These are some of the general rights that come to us as benefits of being a Canadian citizen.

Also with being a Canadian citizen come some responsibilities. Canadians also share common responsibilities such as understanding and obeying Canadian laws, participating in Canada's democratic political system, voting in elections, allowing other Canadians to enjoy their rights and freedoms and appreciating and helping to preserve Canada's multicultural heritage. All Canadians are encouraged to become informed about political activities and to help better their communities. Also, we have a multicultural heritage.

However, we must also look at the charter. Under democratic rights, the charter states:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Therefore I have to pose this question to the member proposing the motion. Is the member also suggesting changes to the constitution of the country, to the charter of rights and freedoms and so on, before he proposes a change to our law here?

The problem is that the motion has an inherent meaning of undermining the value and the legal significance of citizenship. We must reflect on how such a high price was paid for citizenship of our country and what it really means in its fullest sense, represented, perhaps, by the graves of our soldiers around the world.

Canadian citizenship is a great gift, perhaps next to the charter of rights and freedoms which talks about life and security of the person. Consequently it would be it most disrespectful, I think, to support the motion before us today. We need to better promote Canada and what it means to be a Canadian citizen and to defend that from all those who would diminish the culmination of our great national achievement: to be a citizen of Canada.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are debating tonight Motion M-122, which says, and I quote:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Canada Elections Act in order to grant the right to vote to those residing in Canada with landed immigrant status.

I have listened carefully to the speech of the member for Prince George--Peace River, who introduced the motion, in order to understand. At first glance, I asked myself what could motivate him today to introduce a motion which would give landed immigrants the right to vote in the future. I will come back to that issue because one of the arguments formulated has not convinced me.

It is a given—and I believe that everyone has said it, even though it is not the subject of this debate—that we all recognize the importance of the contribution of immigrants to an open and democratic society. Any society which wants to expand and progress should show some openness. This was the case of Quebec and Canada who have successively considerably expanded and which will continue to do so thanks to what immigration has helped us to become. But this is not the issue. I believe there is some kind of consensus in society about that.

However, I have not felt that the right to vote for immigrants was an important demand in Quebec these past few years. I did not feel that many people were asking for that because everyone agrees quite clearly that the right to vote comes as a result of citizenship. Citizenship entails a certain number of privileges and responsibilities, but also a certain number of other things. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says clearly, under section 3 if I am not mistaken, that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly.

From the moment someone chooses to become citizen of a country, in this case Canada, from the moment they get their citizenship, they have that privilege.

I was not convinced by the argument according to which people should have the right to vote from the moment they become residents, pay taxes and contribute to our society. That reasoning could actually apply to 16 or 17 year old citizens who work and pay taxes. Based on that argument, those people should also have the right to vote.

I do not think therefore that this is an argument which necessarily leads to the conclusion that, just because an individual has come here and is in the process of integrating with society, he or she is automatically entitled to vote. A period of acclimatization, transition, adaptation to a society is defined as the time between arrival and obtaining Canadian citizenship, before one is able to participate in the choices made by the community to which one has decided to belong in future. This strikes me as fairly reasonable, and is the way things are at present. It seems to me that there is a pretty strong consensus within society on this. This criterion is not being challenged by anyone, and is reasonably well accepted by all.

The other argument I heard at the beginning of the speech was the point made, and rightly so, about the disconcertingly low turnout rate, particularly in the last federal election. Barely 60% of eligible voters exercised their right to vote. This is extremely worrisome.

It leads us to wonder about the nature of what we do, the distance that is developing between politicians and ordinary citizens, and the way issues are being defended. People's degree of involvement depends on the issues, and on how they identify with those issues.

I am more familiar with the situation in Quebec. For example, I know that the participation rate in provincial elections in Quebec is always around 80 or 85%. The reason for that is that people feel close to the issues. They vote and they get involved in the campaigns. We had referendums, including the last one, in 1995, where 97% of Quebecers chose to exercise their right to vote.

So I think that, when important issues that people can identify with are at stake, people do participate.

As for the fact that 39% of people did not vote in the last election, it sends us various signals, but we have to try to decipher them. Saying that we will automatically give landed immigrants the right to vote to solve the problem of low participation rates seems to me like a shortcut. I am not saying that the member suggested that it was the only way. I understand that he said that it could be part of the solution.

I think there are other elements that explain the increasingly low participation rates in federal elections. That argument did not convince me any more than the tax argument.

What we have in place now seems normal to me: when a person is granted citizenship, he or she acquires the right to vote and the right to run for office in a federal election. After listening to the debate so far, I believe that the majority of members still agree on that.

But I certainly do not want to criticize the member for raising this issue. In a democratic society, issues are debated. The member who brought forward this motion has a different point of view. I respect his point of view, but I do not share it. Nevertheless, this motion allowed us to reflect on our democratic practices and to initiate all kinds of interesting debates.

I hope that we will also reflect on other variables of our democratic system. While we are talking about the importance of the right to vote in our society, I have serious concerns about the fact that there often is very little control regarding the way voting is conducted.

In the last election, and in the past—this is nothing new—people have used other people's identities. I would like to see more care taken in federal elections to check the identity of voters who come to cast their ballot. This does not strike me as unreasonable either. It would also be very much in our interest to ensure that a citizen's right to vote, which is extremely precious and powerful as well, is exercised by the right person. Much work remains to be done on this score.

Other aspects of this issue are worth looking at in order to ensure that people identify more with the issues. There are all sorts of debates. Should we have elections with a certain degree of proportionality? This would allow particular groups to be heard, to get their point across, and citizens who identify less with the mainstream to vote for parties which defend more specific causes. This also deserves some thought.

Unfortunately, there is no forum as such to frame this debate, and the government has no desire to open up the debate on this for now. However, people are talking about these issues. I know that very shortly, in Quebec, a parliamentary committee will be studying the future of the democratic system because many people are saying that we need to improve our voting system, and perhaps consider proportional elections, for example, as is done elsewhere in the world.

So there is a whole series of questions that are being raised. Regardless of whether someone is for or against the idea, the debate will take place. But at the federal level, no one is receptive right now to this, or no one is sending this message to the government, telling it that we do need to ask these questions. We need to ask ourselves why so few people go out to vote.

There is the process as such, and then there is what is at stake. This does not seem to be a problem that the government wants to acknowledge right now. This is understandable, they are in office and, therefore, they are benefiting from the current system. Yet this is cause for concern, and the government should be worried about this variable that the member was justified in raising at the beginning of his comments, that of the poor turnout.

In concluding, I would say that, in my opinion, the motion before us today is not going to solve the problem. The issue is much more about what citizenship brings or not. I believe, as many if not all of my colleagues do, that there is a consensus that citizenship and the right to vote go hand in hand. This is the normal and reasonable direction to go in a democratic society. This standard is being applied in Quebec, in Canada and in several other societies.

It has been said that some countries allow permanent residents to vote, depending on the country they come from. This worries me somewhat. How do we define discrimination? If they come from a specific country, they would be allowed to vote when they become permanent residents and, if they are from another country, they would not be allowed to vote. This seems like a troubling discrimination, and I am not sure that it is in keeping with the values held by our society.

There is a consensus about the status quo. I hope that some points of the debate will be discussed further, including the low turnout at federal elections and the weakening of democracy that may result. This is a great concern to me. I think this is a debate that should be pursued.

In closing, I am clearly not in favour of the motion as such, and even if it is not votable, it has still allowed us to address the issue of the principles and values that we want in our democracy.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Prince George--Peace River for raising this interesting subject and stimulating the debate we are having which has grown into quite a pluralistic kind of debate.

It quickly moved off the simple goal of the motion put forward by the hon. member and has broadened to a much larger debate about immigration generally, growing our country through immigration, citizenship, and now electoral reform because this is what the motion would entail. It would have Canadians revisit our electoral system to decide whether or not we would allow landed immigrants to vote.

I note from other speeches the point that there is precedence in some other countries that allows landed immigrants the franchise to vote. It is not an outlandish idea. Nor is it a particularly radical idea when we consider that landed immigrants in this country are not allowed to become citizens until they have spent 1,095 days or a full three years here.

If an election occurs during that period of time, it is a full three year wait even if a person had every intention of seeking Canadian citizenship at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps that is another issue we should add to the growing list of subsequential issues to the original motion. Perhaps we should revisit the length of time that landed immigrants have to wait prior to being allowed to become Canadian citizens.

The shocking truth or keynote of a number of speeches was that an awful lot of Canadian citizens do not vote. That is the real tragic issue with which we are coming to grips. So many Canadians have lost faith, hope and confidence in their electoral system that they simply ask why bother and do not show up to vote. The figure used from the last election was that 61% of Canadians voted. In actual fact 61% of registered voters came out to vote. It was only 50% of all Canadians who were 18 years of age and eligible to vote. Only 50% of all eligible voters actually chose to cast a ballot for any political party. That is something that is very worrisome.

I come to this argument from a different angle than perhaps the previous three speakers who spoke against the idea. I like the idea. It would be an important vote of confidence and an important gesture on the part of Canada if we allowed landed immigrants to vote during the period of time prior to becoming Canadian citizens.

The logic I use is that landed immigrants are subject to the terms, conditions and rules set out by the Government of Canada through the political process. They live under those rules. It is a natural justice issue. They should have some right to influence the terms, conditions and laws under which they live.

As soon as they get here they start paying taxes. As soon as they get here and achieve landed status virtually all the rights and benefits of Canadian citizenship are available to them except for the right to vote.

I do not believe it would end there. I honestly believe that we would be better off and would get a more honest input in terms of whether the country is serving their needs as it should. That would be a valuable contribution and an enabling measure, a gesture to the world, that we value their presence in our country, that we want them to come to our country and help us grow this great land.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration we dealt with the citizenship bill. We wrestled for a long time with what it means to be granted the right to be a Canadian citizen and how much we value it.

All member should be aware of the conclusion we came to, that when we extend rights to a certain group it does not diminish the rights of others. In fact it strengthens the rights of others. The idea of rights is not some finite pie that if I give someone else too much I have to accept less. It does not cheapen or diminish my Canadian citizenship to extend the rights of citizenship to others, even prior to their actually taking out that piece of paper. I think it is an excellent debate and it helps us to achieve our immigration goals.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration also dealt with the very compelling fact that without immigration we are at a below zero population growth. At the current level of population growth in Canada we would be a country of 18 million people in 50 years without immigration. We would have shrunk from 33 million people to 18 million people or about the size of Minneapolis in 2050.

It is critical we encourage more and more people to choose to make Canada their home. If they are to have this three year waiting period of 1,095 days prior to which they can actually get Canadian citizenship, surely in the interim we should be able to tell them that they will enjoy the rights and privileges of all Canadians as soon as they become landed immigrants, including the right to cast a ballot or vote in a federal election.

Landed immigrants are free to take part in the political process. They can join political parties. They can make political campaign contributions. They can be elected delegates to political conventions. They can go to nomination meetings and choose candidates. They can do everything short of voting.

It has become a bit of an emotional argument or there must be some kind of a sentiment that it will somehow diminish or cheapen my citizenship to offer the right to vote to landed immigrants. I urge members to get beyond that point of view. It is not positive and it is not helpful to the larger debate.

As the hon. member mentioned, the issue of electoral reform is critical. We should all be concerned with these terrible numbers, that only 50% of eligible voters cast their ballots. The issue of proportional representation has been raised. Our political party has been doing some work on that by meeting with the fair elections league which advocates PR for the simple reason that votes are not wasted.

In other words, if I were an NDP voter living in Edmonton my vote would be lost in the haystack. With PR one's vote counts no matter what because if one's party gets 10% of the vote nationally it gets 10% of the seats.

It would encourage more people to come out and vote if they knew their vote would not be wasted or lost. Whatever political stripe, they would be comfortable that their vote would actually mean something and they would not just be going through an exercise.

I know we will not get a chance to vote on this motion because unfortunately it has been deemed non-votable. It is something Canadians should address in a far more serious way.

I encourage members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to look into this area of study. Standing committees have a right to choose what areas of research they undertake. I think they should dig into this area more deeply and perhaps they will be motivated to do so because of the debate we are having today.

At least two out of five speeches agree that it is an excellent idea. I think it is an idea that has enough merit. It should be dealt with further at the standing committee and perhaps adopted and introduced. It would be a very proud day for Canada to be able to announce to landed immigrants that in the next federal election they will be asked to cast their ballots and that their views will be valued in our electoral process.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting motion. It raises interesting points for debate. I like private members' business and initiatives that allow an exchange of ideas. It gives us a chance to point out different ways in which people look at issues before the House.

The member who just spoke referred to the certificate of citizenship as “that piece of paper”. It is much more than a piece of paper. That so-called piece of paper means a person is entitled to hold a passport that is respected around the world because Canadians have earned a reputation that is respected around the world. It is not just a piece of paper.

A person who is not a Canadian citizen and has committed a criminal offence is subject to deportation under the laws of Canada. Citizenship is a declaration of commitment to Canada. To get that piece of paper people must demonstrate they can speak and read functionally one of our official languages. They must study an introductory book about Canada and be able to demonstrate a knowledge of our country. People under the age of 18 and over the age of 59 do not have to take the test. They are exempt. However those between the ages of 19 to 59 are subject to a written or oral test of their knowledge of Canada.

Citizenship is not just a piece of paper. It is something we have earned. It is something we cherish. It is something that gives us benefits and rights.

Most of the hon. member's motion deals with voting rights. It would allow immigrants to vote because they pay taxes and participate in society in other ways. The premise is that this would somehow fix voter turnout rates. The reality is different. Voter turnouts in various political jurisdictions can go higher or lower depending on the circumstances.

For example, in the city of Mississauga we have nine councillors and a mayor. An election comes up every three years. We have a popular and long serving mayor, Hazel McCallion, who is over 80 years old. During the last municipal election she was on a trade mission to China. She was running for election but was out of the country. She won because she had already earned enough support. The voter turnout was less than 30%. It was around 22%. I am a longtime resident of Mississauga. When there have been contested mayoralty races the turnout has been 60%, three times higher, because the principal position in the municipality has been contested by at least one credible opposition candidate.

In recent elections Canada has shown a slight decline in the number of voters who have turned out to exercise their right and, I believe, their responsibility to vote for the people who represent them in their various jurisdictions. However there have been varying circumstances during this period. One of them, and the hon. member will not like this, is the fact that in 1993 the Conservative Party had so turned off the people of Canada that it was reduced to two seats after being a majority government. There was a big negative vote against the party. At the same time a new party was created but it was an unproven party. Canadians will only elect a party if it demonstrates that it is a government in waiting.

We had a situation where one party was being thrown out for its bad government and a new party was coming in that had not had an opportunity to demonstrate its ability to lead the country. The electorate did not have a choice. It had to make sure we had a stable government in place.

Quite frankly, these have been the circumstances in the 1993, 1997 and 2000 elections. The opposition parties have not demonstrated that they are governments in waiting. For that reason I have had people tell me we would win automatically. They have told me it was obvious because of all the seats we had in Ontario and elsewhere. This may be oversimplifying but circumstances in Canada have demonstrated it.

There is another aspect I thought was interesting. Over the years we have had a significant increase in the number of new Canadians because of the aging of our society. Many new Canadians come here and take out citizenship after their four year waiting period. Sometimes they do not vote. People have told me they are citizens and are on the voters list but do not vote. Many new Canadians come from countries where the political process is corrupt, jaundiced and vicious. Let us look at what is happening in Zimbabwe and other countries. There is a fear of politics. There is a fear of voting. This is a reality.

We must earn the respect of new Canadians by demonstrating that the democracy we enjoy in Canada is a friendly democracy. We must show them it is not only a privilege but a right and a responsibility to participate in the electoral process. We must show them that as citizens they can be elected representatives in our country.

Many hon. members in this place were not born Canadians. They emigrated here. There are many examples. On the parliamentary website there is a special section with a list of all of members of parliament who were not born in Canada.

Allowing immigrants to vote may increase the number of voters but I doubt it would increase voter turnout. I suggest it would decrease average voter turnout because many immigrants come from places where the electoral process is a negative for them. They have lived in fear. They have lived in repressive regimes. They have lived in dictatorships. They have lived in places like Zimbabwe where police chase them away from voting stations. They have lived in places like Romania which has had a dictatorial system. They have lived in other countries with longstanding practices of suppressing the democratic process and punishing people who speak out.

Considering the circumstances some new Canadians come from we can imagine their shock when they come here. They realized they were coming to a free, peaceful and democratic country but are amazed at what a beautiful country this is because of the rights and freedoms we all enjoy.

We welcome all Canadians regardless of whether they take out citizenship. People coming to our shores enjoy the protection of our charter of rights and freedoms. It is part of our value system that we extend the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens to all who come to our shores.

However we have rules for becoming a citizen. There is an important reason for this. We need to hold on to our value system. Canada is a sovereign country. It is a place that gives hope to people seeking a better life. We changed the coat of arms of Canada. We added a ribbon and put in the phrase “they seek a better life”. We did so because Canada has grown and prospered because of new Canadians. We have embraced them. We have demonstrated to them that we are not only everything they thought we were. We are much more. That is why citizenship must be encouraged. It should carry rights and privileges as well.

I want people to become citizens of Canada. I want them to participate in the electoral process. Unfortunately we cannot legislate that. It has to be earned. I am delighted at how that works.

I encourage all members to look at a booklet that is available from the House that can be used to inform people in our communities who have not taken out citizenship but who are eligible, on how to become a citizen so we will have more citizens on the electoral roles.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the five minutes I have to close, I first want to thank my hon. colleagues for participating this evening. I refer to my Liberal colleague from Halifax West who first addressed the motion following my intervention; the Canadian Alliance member for New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby; the Bloc member for Témiscamingue; the New Democratic Party member for Winnipeg Center; and the Liberal member for Mississauga South who most recently rose to participate in the debate.

Part of what I intended to do was accomplished tonight. Part of the purpose of private members' business, whether it is a motion or a bill, is to bring debate to the floor of the House of Commons and to get, hopefully, some stimulating debate on certain issues that are important to the people in the real world outside this place.

Some of what I heard tonight was reasonably informative but some of what I heard is of concern to me. A couple of points the member for Mississauga South made seemed to imply that because new citizens take a test they are somehow better equipped to understand politics and therefore cast a ballot.

I have often heard that there should be some sort of means test. I have heard many people who actively and consistently participate in the democratic process by casting their ballot, whether in a municipal, provincial or federal election, suggest that many people do not follow the issues sufficiently before casting their ballot.

I do not think we can pass judgment on landed immigrants in such a cavalier manner. Just because they may only have been here a short time does not mean they do not take enough of an active interest in the election campaign to cast an informed vote. That is not fair to them. It was a bit presumptuous on the part of the member for Mississauga South to make a statement like that.

It is interesting to note as well that he did not take any responsibility for the drop in voter turnout, something I addressed, albeit briefly, in my remarks, almost as an aside to this whole issue of whether landed immigrants should be granted the right to vote.

I and a lot of members on the opposition benches accept the fact that we need to take some responsibility for the drop in voter turnout. We are not presenting a legitimate government in waiting to the voters and, in some respects, perhaps in their minds, not presenting them with a viable choice between the existing government and a government in waiting. I accept that but I think the member for Mississauga South is skirting the responsibility he and his government should be taking for fueling the cynicism and distrust that we see constantly building out in the real world between people and their government.

Several comments made by various members were based on the premise that if we were to grant landed immigrants the right to vote that would somehow fix the problem of voter turnout. That was not the thrust of my speech nor the thrust of me bringing forward this particular motion.

I fundamentally believe, as does the member for Winnipeg Centre, that at minimum we should have an informed, wide ranging debate on this particular issue. We should engage as many Canadians as possible in this debate, landed immigrants included, to see if there should be some changes made. That was the purpose of my bringing the motion forward.

I am extremely disappointed, as I have often been, in the fact that there many good issues, and this is just one example, that warrant more debate and ultimately a vote in the House of Commons.

This motion is about voting and we do not even get the opportunity to vote on it in the House of Commons. I do not think that is right. All private members' business, be it motions or bills, deserve the right to more debate and subsequently a vote in the Chamber.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business is now expired.

Since the motion is not votable the item is dropped from the order paper.

It being 7.12 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.)