Lynne Yelich

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration continues to push his pet project, the national identity card. He is fond of saying that we need a national debate.

The results of that debate are coming in from his cabinet colleagues, from his committee witnesses, from the privacy commissioner and in a flood of letters to his own department. Canadians are not keen on his scheme.

Why can the minister of immigration not take no for answer to the national identity card?

[Canada Airports Act, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that we have to hear from the airport authorities across the country. Whenever I meet with representatives of the Saskatoon authority I am always surprised at what they tell me and they are very anxious to meet with me about the bill.

Because not everyone can come to Ottawa, we do not get all the players at the table. I would recommend that the committee travel across the country. That is how we would reach every region and representatives from all sectors. I certainly agree with the member.

[Canada Airports Act, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is one part of the legislation that in fact is welcome, which is anything that has transparency and accountability.

The one part of the corporate governance we are just a little concerned about is that the airport authority should have representatives from the air industry on the board. That is the part with which we are most disappointed.

[Canada Airports Act, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today's debate on Bill C-27, the Canada airports act, a piece of legislation which in my mind is remarkable for what it does not do rather than for what it does do.

The air transportation system is a vital component of the economy not just here in Canada but on a global scale. Let me give the House some figures. Airports produce more than $34 billion in total economic activity each year. They generate more than $4 billion in tax revenues. Construction at major airports has attracted more than $5 billion in private sector capital investment.

That said, our airline industry is in a crisis. The number of passengers has decreased. Service has been cut. The need for security has overridden our desire for convenience, and costs are skyrocketing.

When I said Bill C-27 is notable for what it does not address, these are the issues that come to mind. Outrageous airport rents are one of the costs passed on to airlines and subsequently to consumers.

Starting in 2005 Saskatoon's airport, which serves the people in my riding, is expected to pay more than $500,000 in rent annually. Saskatoon Airport Authority representatives have said this is unaffordable and have recommended that rental charges should be scrapped in an effort to reduce the volatility of the airline industry. Other facilities such as Winnipeg International Airport will be hit even harder in the next few years. Rent there is expected to jump to $7 million by 2007.

According to the Canadian Airports Council, the 26 airports in the national airports system paid $240 million in rent to the federal government. That figure is expected to rise another $20 million this year.

The situation is a major concern to Canada's airports and a problem for the aviation industry in general. Federal rent, the single largest uncontrollable cost for most airports, drives up the price of the services that airports provide to customers.

By raising the cost of travel, this situation threatens the many benefits that have been realized from the transfer of NAS airports to local control in the early 1990s. Not only has the airport devolution process relieved the federal government of the responsibility and financial burden of managing airports in terms of capital and operations, it has enabled local communities to operate airports in a manner consistent with local needs. Despite the heavy burden airport rents put on the industry, the issue is not addressed in Bill C-27.

With air security having become such a headline issue following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, one would think by now that Canada would have a secure air system. After all, Canadians have been paying heavily for security ever since the air travellers security tax was introduced to fund tighter controls. Reality however tells a different story. The fact is our airports have become slightly more secure than they were. That is not to say they are secure, or that all airports have the same level of security. They do not.

One of the most obvious holes in our security is that in most cases once passengers enter the system, they are in regardless of whether they were screened at a large airport where security is naturally tighter, or at a small local airport where security is lax or even non-existent. Unlike in Europe, passengers entering the system from small centres are usually not re-screened. It certainly is not mandatory, even though such a practice could offer better security. Bill C-27 does not address this point.

Talking about security reminds me of fees. When the air travellers security charge is collected, it is held in trust, which means it is protected. It is not so for airport improvement fees which tend to be included in ticket prices and therefore collected by the airlines before being turned over to the appropriate airport authority. If the airline collecting that money falls into financial peril, there is no guarantee that the airport authority could collect the money it rightfully deserves.

Again, if I might use the Saskatoon Airport Authority as an example, when Air Canada slid into bankruptcy, it owed the Saskatoon Airport Authority about $300,000 worth of airport improvement fees. Because the airport authority stands as an unsecured creditor and the money was not held in trust, the authority could lose the entire amount. There is some indication that part of the money will be repaid, but the potential for losses is what I and the airport authority find disturbing. Again, Bill C-27 does nothing to ensure that airport authorities will receive the money the bill itself allows them to collect.

That addresses some of the opportunities that are overlooked in the bill. Now I would like to talk about what is in the bill.

When I look around me today I see people who travelled here from across the country. Some arrived by car or train, but it is likely most came to Ottawa by air. To get here each person made his or her way through at least two different airports in different communities. I suspect there were noticeable differences at each of those facilities. That is because, like the communities and the people they serve, each airport has its own unique profile. Some are large international hubs while others cater solely to domestic clientele.

Bill C-27 does not recognize those differences. In this attempt to re-legislate the current management practices at Canadian airports, the government has chosen to adopt a blanket approach that forces some of our smallest airports to match the obligations of their larger, busier, metropolitan counterparts.

No one within the air industry has called for such measures and I question why the government has chosen this path. The real irony is that within this blanket system, Bill C-27 proposes a two tier approach that will hold former national airport system airports to one set of rules while non-NAS airports will have to abide by another.

For example, clause 57 of the bill limits a former Transport Canada airport authority's ability to invest in another corporation to 2% of gross revenues per year.

Clauses 62 to 64 deal with the corporate governance of airports but do not require the board to have an airline industry representative. Again, this applies only to certain airports.

The proposed Canada airports act is flawed. It essentially re-regulates airports without any obvious benefits and does so in a way that does not reflect the unique needs and characteristics of our airports.

[David Eckmire, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my condolences to the family of David Eckmire of Saskatoon. David passed away in April at the young age of 59. David was an accomplished and multi-talented professional in many ways, but perhaps he was best known in my riding and in much of Saskatchewan for his passion for and contribution to the local aviation sector.

As one of the greatest aviation champions in the province, David was an enthusiastic pilot who loved to fly, but also worked tirelessly on the ground to promote aviation in Saskatoon and Saskatchewan. He was a founding member of the Saskatoon Airport Authority, past president of the Saskatchewan Aviation Council, past chairman of the Nav Canada advisory committee and a member of the Civil Aviation Tribunal.

David's contribution to the community lives on, as we now enjoy better air links to the city and a state of the art facility in Saskatoon.

His spirit and dedication was an inspiration to all who had the opportunity to know and work with him. It is with great sadness that we mark his passing.

[Immigration, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this problem did not show up overnight. We are talking about 36,000 cases.

We heard the minister's plans to eventually reduce the backlog of deportees. How does he intend to do that? How does he intend to find them? When will he deport these individuals?

[Immigration, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration claims security is his top priority. Yet, figures from the Auditor General tell us the minister has lost track of 36,000 deportees.

How can the minister bluster about the importance of security when he fails to ensure the deportation of these individuals?

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, new arrivals are waved through, directed to immigration offices and expected to show up on the honour system. I do not think Canadians believe the honour system is the best approach to national security.

Why has the Liberal government failed to protect our border by not staffing 84% of our ports of entry with immigration officers?

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, immigration officers are present at only 44 of 272 staffed ports of entry. In light of terrorist threats, the question is, who is getting through the other 228 ports of entry?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, April 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the recent federal budget and give the perspective of the people in my riding of Blackstrap on why it does not work for Canadians.

The riding I represent in Saskatchewan is predominantly rural. Agriculture is the mainstay of our economy. It is an industry that has been in crisis for several years.

According to figures from Statistics Canada, last year's growing season was the worst in decades for some of the province's major crops. Spring wheat production was down 40%, barley production dropped 34% and canola production fell to nearly half its 10 year average level.

Unfortunately, this situation has continued without the federal government assuming a leadership role in finding a solution to restore profitability and stability to the national agriculture sector.

In his 2003 budget, the hon. Minister of Finance committed millions of dollars to promoting linguistic duality, billions to unspecified Kyoto initiatives and not a dime of new money to the struggling prairie producers, the primary producers of this country, the people who literally feed this nation and the world.

I question whether the present government has the capacity to understand the significance of the crisis in agriculture, much less the capacity to address it.

The legacy budget of 2003 does not lead one to believe that the government can see the critical role agriculture plays in the economy of our country.

The agriculture sector is not the only one our federal government has let down with this budget. Yesterday I met with representatives from the real estate business community to hear their thoughts and the government's approach to savings and how it affects the economy.

Although there have been minor concessions made in the realm of retirement savings, RRSPs are the only savings venue open to many Canadians, particularly the nearly 2.4 million self-employed workers in this country. Yet the government has chosen not to make this a more viable and realistic option.

The increases are incremental. If the government seems to believe in the need for an increase in limits, why not make them now? Why wait until 2006 to receive the full benefit of an increased limit? Even raising the RRSP contribution limit still leaves much room for improvement in the area of helping Canadians plan and save for their futures. The American model allows contributed money to grow tax free in retirement savings plans. What a concept: leaving Canadians money to spend how they wish; and letting people decide what they want to do with their own money instead of committing it to this irresponsible legacy budget for which generations of Canadians will be forced to pay.

The spend and tax policies of the government are hurting Canadian businesses. As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport I witness firsthand the difficult times the airline sector is facing. Air Canada went into bankruptcy protection yesterday and while it has many problems to address and restructuring to complete, the impact the government's taxation policies are having on the industry overall cannot be understated.

The government takes $600 million annually from air travel consumers through airport grants, fuel surcharges and the air travellers security tax. That would be a good place to start looking to make some changes.

The government has a history of crippling the competitiveness of Canadian businesses with its burdensome taxation policies. One can promise all the new spending one wants but someone has to pay for it. Generations of Canadians are never going to see their way clear on the financial hole the government has dug for them.

When I was flying back to Ottawa on Sunday I sat next to Mr. Anthony Pollard, the president of the Hotel Association of Canada. Mr. Pollard told me that his industry generates $10.8 billion in revenue annually, employs 239,000 people and turns back more than $4 billion in taxes. He wrote a letter to the Prime Minister outlining his concerns about the impact the government's policies will have on his industry.

He wrote:

It is imperative that you take immediate action to restore confidence, friendship and mutual respect with the United States of America. The largest single customer base for the hotel industry outside of our country is the United States of America. Last year, 16,152,000 Americans came to Canada, stayed overnight and spent $8.5 billion. Clearly Canada enjoys a very special and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States, which had been severely called into question these past few weeks with the war in Iraq. Inappropriate and overtly damaging comments have severely tried this relationship.

We are already witnessing convention and room cancellations from our largest market. The chronic and sad fact is that we could be capitalizing on the United States visitor when they would typically wish to travel here as opposed to Europe and other overseas markets in times of and following global conflict. Instead it appears as if we will miss this opportunity completely

Mr. Prime Minister, it is never too late to build bridges and restore confidence with your best friend and ally. On behalf of the 239,000 Canadians working in the hotel industry we ask you to immediately reach out to the United States and demonstrate our support to our American friends. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Anthony P. Pollard

I could give many more examples of how Canadians have been let down by this budget. I find them wherever I go, at home in my riding, at work in committee, travelling, and here in the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister may see this as his legacy budget, but for Canadians it is a legacy of burden we could all live without.