John McCallum

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the great bulk of the additional security costs the government has implemented come out of the general revenue. The measures announced in the budget to improve security would total $7.7 billion. All that would come out of the general revenue except for the $2.2 billion, about 30% of the total, that would be applied to air travel.

The government believes it is fair and reasonable in the case of air travel that a user charge or the equivalent of a user charge be borne by those who are the principal beneficiaries and users of the system. It is not an unreasonable position. WestJet has recently bought new airplanes and issued new dividends to its shareholders. It is not about to go bankrupt. In any event, as I have said several times, the whole program will be reviewed in the fall.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, 20-20 hindsight is wonderful. However I will take the hon. member back to September 11.

There was a sense of crisis, a sense that Canadians demanded action to improve security at airports. It was not a time for more studies. It was a time for resolute action and leadership to provide security to air travellers and restore the confidence of Canadians in air travel. That is precisely why the government has taken this firm action rather than requiring months of studies as the opposition seems to demand. The time was for action, not studies.

That having been said, in the fall we are committed. The legislation would give the government the right through order in council to reduce the charge. As we have said many times, this is precisely what we would do in the event the revenues appeared to exceed the expenditures.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would think that the fundamental principle of democracy is that the House of Commons makes the ultimate decision, not the committees, and that is indeed what is happening in this case.

That having been said, I did promise to the hon. member that I would convey his desire for labour representatives to the Minister of Transport, which I have done. It is really a decision for the Minister of Transport and the new agency to make, not the Department of Finance.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we want to proceed quickly, because we experienced a real crisis on September 11. The airline industry suffered huge losses. It is absolutely critical to have the confidence of those who fly.

Long delays mean that the new agency cannot begin to improve security. The more the legislation is delayed, the more the implementation of these security measures is delayed.

Following the September 11 events, these security measures have become absolutely essential to restore traveller confidence and ensure Canadians' security. This is the responsible thing to do and this is why we are doing it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are two answers to the question. First, the $12 charge has the virtue of simplicity. Second, it is fair in the sense that the cost of the additional security is not a function of the cost of the ticket. It is not a function of the distance travelled. The security cost to fly from Victoria to Vancouver is the same as the security cost to fly from Victoria to St. John's. In that sense it is fair.

That having been said, the government is committed to a full review of the program in the fall, at which point the legislation mandates the government to reduce the charge if circumstances warrant. In addition to that, the government will even be open to representations from interested parties that might want to recommend an alternative structure.

[Air Transport, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable for there to be a set fee, when the cost of security is not a function of the distance flown.

As we have said, we are flexible and, in the fall, we will hear representations from those concerned. It is possible that the charge will be reduced, perhaps even the structure could be changed. We shall see.

[Air Transport, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as we have explained several times in the House, users pay perhaps $2.2 billion, but the total cost of the security program is $7.5 billion. We therefore feel it is reasonable for users to pay a portion of these costs, but not all of them.

In addition, as we have also said on several occasions, in the fall we will be reviewing the program. We can change the situation and there can be a reduction, if conditions allow.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to my hon. colleague for giving me this opportunity and additional air time. In fact I had been on the job less than 24 hours when I made those comments. If we refer to press articles and so on we will see I made no commitment to do anything specific. I said I would look into it.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed modest reductions in credit card interest rates. There was a new credit card introduced by one of the banks in the last few weeks which had an interest rate of prime plus two. There has been a modest amount of progress but this is not to deny that most credit card interest rates remain very high. We encourage individuals to search for the card that suits them best. We have our own Industry Canada website which makes comparisons.

The other thing we are trying to do is enhance competition in financial services. One of the major thrusts is to increase competition by making it easier for credit unions and insurance companies to compete with banks, to allow foreign banks to come in, and for new banks to start up, et cetera.

I would like to see lower credit card interest rates but our primary thrust is to provide better information so that consumers are better able to shop around and to increase the degree of competition in financial services in Canada.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member understands the situation. The government is not taking one additional penny from school boards.

It is simply not allowing them to claim a 100% tax reduction. It was always the system of 66% or whatever percentage it was. It was always the intent and the rule. We must protect the tax base from erosion and we are enforcing the tax system as it was originally developed and put into law.