Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the first group of amendments, most of which were put forward by the Canadian Alliance members.
One of the motions moved by a Canadian Alliance member is particularly interesting. It moves that there be periodic reviews of the impact of the new tax proposed to pay for airline security.
When I listened to the evidence of public servants during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Finance, I was surprised to learn that there had never been any sort of study done of the impact of introducing a new air travel tax.
At the time, I moved a motion that all impact studies and analyses related to the introduction of this new tax be made available to committee members. To my great surprise, the General Director of the Tax Policy Branch, Mr. Dupont, candidly admitted that he had done no analysis of the impact on air travel demand, on the survival of small regional airports—those in Baie-Comeau, Sept-Îles and elsewhere—and on the implications of this new tax for the Canadian tourism industry. No questions had been asked about the impact such a tax would have on the development of the regions. I was flabbergasted.
Analyses and impact studies are often done for much less significant measures. In a sector such as the airlines, which has been sorely tested since September 11, and even before because of the economic downturn, such a tax can be fatal. It can make it impossible for small airports and small carriers to continue to operate.
What does this mean? It means that in this country there are two kinds of citizens: those who have access to services because they live in major centres and will still have access to these services at fairly competitive rates; and those who live in remote areas, who will be cut off from major centres—such a trend is already apparent—who will not have access to adequate air services, and who will not have access to frequent flights between so-called remote areas and major centres.
Even before the minister had such a stupid idea as to introduce a new tax in the airline industry, we were hearing warning bells in the regions. When the Bloc Quebecois held prebudget consultations in the regions, we were told that because of the increase in ticket prices since 1983, it was already getting difficult to keep regional carriers afloat and maintain connections with large centres.
Despite their natural beauty, some areas such as Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Gaspé Peninsula, the Magdalen Islands, and others, are unable to set up a tourism development plan, due to the lack of flights—my colleague from Sept-Îles can confirm this—since this is often the only efficient means of transportation to link a large centre or part of a remote area with another even more remote area.
The Minister of Finance comes up with this stupid idea of imposing a tax on air transportation that will add to the already very expensive ticket prices in Canada. For example, since 1983, there has been a 10% increase in airline ticket prices in Canada. Some may say that since 1983, 10% is not much, but during this same time in the United States, ticket prices have dropped 43%.
So we find ourselves in a situation where the airline industry is having problems, aggravated by the events of September 11, when it was already suffering from a lack of competition that did not allow it to take advantage of profit margins as much as Americans or others could. It is important to understand that our population density is not comparable to that of the United States, Asia or Europe. How then can such a new tax be justified?
Over the weekend, our brilliant Minister of Transport said that carriers should lower airfares. How can they lower airfares when they are having difficulties ensuring their survival?
Also, what is being replaced right now are expenditures for which airports, in particular, were responsible, to the tune of $120 million annually. Now, they are being asked to fund a new $2.5 billion tax. This is more than triple what they were asked before, and the Minister of Transport is telling us “There is no problem. Carriers can absorb these new costs, because they no longer absorb the previous security related expenditures. These are assumed by the government. Moreover, carriers have enough flexibility to hide this tax in the airfares without increasing them and get away with it.»
To present things in that fashion is really not to know the industry at all. I remind those who are listening to us that all members of the Standing Committee on Finance, including government members, were stunned to learn that no impact study had been done before deciding to impose such a tax. This morning the secretary of state tried to justify somewhat the government's actions by saying “As you know, we have had to act quickly since September 11. We had to act quickly and propose such a tax”. To act quickly is one thing, but to do things intelligently is another matter.
This government is not acting properly when it is considering imposing this tax as of April 1. It is time the government got into a better frame of mind. It has had time to do some thinking over the past six months, since September 11. Then why, in spite of the unanimity among the airline and tourism industries, among stakeholders involved in regional development, among people who manage air transportation and tourism services, as well as small airports on a daily basis, does the government not listen to the arguments of all these stakeholders, who unanimously condemn such a tax? Why did the Minister of Finance, who believes that there is no fiscal imbalance—people are again making fun of him—with his huge hidden surpluses, not show some flexibility and provide $2.5 billion over a five year period—it is not much—to fund all these security initiatives?
Security concerns everyone, not just those who fly, particularly when such a measure could jeopardize air connections between major centres and so-called remote regions. The development of these regions is being jeopardized.
This is why I will support the Canadian Alliance motion. The Bloc Quebecois will continue to condemn this tax, which does not make any sense.
