FINA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
Standing Committee on Finance
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 26, 2002
| ¿ | 0945 |
 |
The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
Mr. Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.) |
| ¿ | 0950 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
Mr. Wilfert |
|
Mr. Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.) |
| ¿ | 0955 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Valeri |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1000 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques E. Pigeon (Senior General Counsel, Department of Transport) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. William J. S. Elliott (Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport) |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| À | 1005 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. O'Reilly |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. O'Reilly |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
| À | 1010 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
| À | 1015 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Harb |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mac Harb |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Harb |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1020 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
| À | 1025 |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Harb |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Harb |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Mac Harb |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
| À | 1030 |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Harb |
| À | 1035 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1040 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1045 |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Harb |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
| À | 1050 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ) |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| À | 1055 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Harb |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Pigeon |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
| Á | 1100 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
Mr. Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loubier |
| Á | 1105 |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont (General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance) |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Murphy |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Solberg |
| Á | 1110 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp) |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp) |
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp) |
|
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp) |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp) |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp) |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp) |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1200 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR) |
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kenney |
| Â | 1205 |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
| Â | 1210 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
| Â | 1215 |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
| Â | 1220 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Wilfert |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
| Â | 1225 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Murphy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
| Â | 1230 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1235 |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
| Â | 1240 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Â | 1245 |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Cullen |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Â | 1250 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Â | 1255 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Solberg |
|
Mr. Solberg |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
| · | 1300 |
|
Mr. Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
Mr. Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
| · | 1305 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mac Harb |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1310 |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare (Director, Sales Tax Division, Department of Finance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1315 |
|
Mr. Harb |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mac Harb |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
| · | 1320 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
| · | 1325 |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
| · | 1330 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
| · | 1335 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1340 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1345 |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1350 |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
Mr. Harb |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1355 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1540 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1545 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
| ¹ | 1550 |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Solberg |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Harb |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Tony Valeri |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Tony Valeri |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
| ¹ | 1555 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Valeri |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Tony Valeri |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1600 |
|
Mr. Moore |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
| º | 1605 |
|
Mr. Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Serge Dupont |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1610 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
| º | 1615 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Legare |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. William Elliott |
| º | 1620 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1625 |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
| º | 1630 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lorne Nystrom |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pankiw |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| º | 1635 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. Pankiw |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
Mr. Pankiw |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1640 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
| º | 1645 |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Voices |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Wilfert |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Ms. Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1710 |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Binet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Guarnieri |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Pankiw |
|
Mr. Jim Pankiw |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
Mr. Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loubier |
| » | 1715 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Epp |
| » | 1720 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gérald Lalonde (Senior Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance) |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gérald Lalonde |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
| » | 1725 |
|
Mr. Gérald Lalonde |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Gérald Lalonde |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Gérald Lalonde |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Gérald Lalonde |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1730 |
|
Mr. Penson |
|
Mr. Gérald Lalonde |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Penson |
|
Mr. Gérald Lalonde |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gérald Lalonde |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| » | 1735 |
|
Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Valeri |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peterson |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Davies (Senior Economist, International Financial Institutions, Department of Finance) |
|
Mr. Jim Peterson |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 1825 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Valeri |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
| ¼ | 1830 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Hilton (Senior Program Analyst, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 1835 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
| ¼ | 1840 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Hilton |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 1845 |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Robert Hilton |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 1850 |
|
Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Finance |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, February 26, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0945)
[English]
The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone.
Pursuant to the agreement we reached as a committee last week unanimously, we'll start clause-by-clause. Clause-by-clause consideration is pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). It's consideration of Bill C-49.
We have a number of amendments coming in. The clerk has put them all together. You should have received a package at your desk. The only addition to the stapled package that I'm aware of is another page, individual 61.1. So there should be that package. Does everybody have it? Okay.
Clause 1 is postponed.
(On clause 2)
The Chair: By your list you'll see we have a listing of proposed amendments here. The clerk has put them in order for us. Some of these may be consequential. I will have the clerk advise us when that occurs.
Welcome to our officials who are here, if we have need of them. They're all the same officials: Mr. McFee, Mr. Dupont, Mr. Elliott, Mr. Pigeon, and Madame Legare. Welcome, and thank you very much for joining us today.
The first amendment is NDP-1. Mr. Nystrom, do you wish to move it?
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP): Yes, I wish to move the amendment, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Okay. Do you wish to explain your amendment? Any debate?
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I shall attempt to do so.
First of all, the amendment reads:
| (5) When a contract between the Authority, |
--which is a new authority we're establishing here--
| an air carrier or an aerodrome operator and a screening contractor for the delivery of screening expires or is terminated, a sale of business within the meaning of subsection 44(2) of the Canada Labour Code shall be deemed to have taken place. |
This is the legal language for what Mr. Lawrence McBrearty of the steelworkers' union talked about on Thursday of last week, for “successor rights”. This, Mr. Valeri, is the “successor rights” clause.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the collective agreement between a union and a security agency would be protected by the Canada Labour Code.
When we have the new authority established, it would ensure there's a collective agreement in place. Not all the security people are under collective agreements. Some are. The steelworkers' union, for example, represents around 1,000 people at various airports across the country, including the city of Ottawa.
When this goes to the new authority, it would ensure that those workers have their rights, as guaranteed by the collective agreement already negotiated with the current security company they work for. They wouldn't lose their jobs; they'd be protected in terms of benefits, Madam Chair--protected in terms of their salaries and things of that sort.
It's like buying a small business. When you buy a small business, you don't, if you're wise, fire all the employees. You may change the manager--bring in a new manager or manage it yourself--but you keep the 20 or 30 employees you have in the small business. They know the business very well. It just makes very natural and common business sense.
The other benefit is, as I said, in addition to the stability of the system. Stability of the system means you keep those employees. They know the screening method; they know the airport; they know their work; they know some of the customers. So you have that stability, which is extremely important.
You also have the experienced workers, who are not wasted. These are workers who have been there in some cases for a long time. They know the business. They have experience. They're very valuable in terms of the efficiency of the service, and so on.
It also protects the workers from exploitation, in terms of lower wages or benefits they may not have. It protects the whole situation from not being very stable.
So I think it makes sense. It's just saying there's no problem with changing the authority, changing the company, or somebody else getting the contract, as long as the workers have their guarantees. As long as the collective bargaining agreement is honoured, then so be it.
Mr. McBrearty put it very well here on Thursday morning before the committee, in terms of successor rights, and there's some precedence for this. I think this is the one thing we can do that will guarantee jobs and benefits for the workers and their families, and stability and security for the public. It's not a radical idea; it's common sense and decency in how we treat people in this country and how we have an efficient system for the public. I think that's what we're all interested in.
So with that, Madam Chair, I refer you to the statement Mr. McBrearty made for any more details. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, please.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I would, however, point out that successor rights, as defined by the Canada Labour Code, do not apply to the transfer of responsibility for pre-board screening from airlines to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
Under the wording Mr. Nystrom has put forward, it would expand significantly the issue of successor rights. However, I would point out to you that in consultation with the unions, under proposed subsection 36(4) of the act, the transfer of responsibility from existing contracts under this section does not affect any rights, responsibilities, or obligations acquired under the Canada Labour Code by the contractors, their employees, or any trade union certified to represent those employees.
In other words, once the transition has been completed, the authority has the option obviously of exercising any existing termination clause in screening contracts. But this option is consistent with the rights provided presently under the Canada Labour Code.
Again, for clarification, once the authority has been put in place and there's a certification program--the contractor screening officers will need to be certified--they will all have to meet continuing obligations for employment. Therefore, under the wording Mr. Nystrom has put forth, it would greatly expand what is presently in the code itself.
¿ (0950)
The Chair: Mr. Nystrom.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would have any amendment to my amendment, or any suggestions, in terms of making it more acceptable. We can always go back at report stage to the House of Commons and try again to negotiate or find some kind of agreement that's acceptable to the trade union movement, the workers in security locations across the country, and the federal government. Would he be open to that?
I know off the top of his head he can't try to fine-tune the amendment I'm proposing today, but is he open to taking another look at it, in terms of perhaps a different wording?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I would again emphasize that in discussions with the trade unions, subclause 36 (4) does provide for the transfer of the authority with regard to the issues that were outlined.
As to whether or not there is a future for his amendment, I would suggest that at any time we might be open to review, but at this point the thrust of my colleague's amendment centres on the issue of the labour code, and from the position of the government, it would greatly expand the code as it presently exists. But we are certainly concerned about the rights and obligations, from the standpoint of both the employers and the employees.
So at this point we would not support the amendment as written. As you know, between now and when it goes to the House there may be review at report stage; I'm not sure yet. But certainly the thrust of the issue is the nature of the code itself.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Chair, I guess my other comment would be that I wonder whether or not the parliamentary secretary will put on the record that he would support at least the spirit of the amendment in terms of the stability this would bring to the security system and the airlines and the security it would provide to the workers and their families in terms of job protection and security benefits and so on. I want to know whether or not his heart is in the right place. Does he support at least the spirit of this amendment? I think that would go a long way toward assuring people who work in the industry.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Well, Madam Chair, my wife would certainly say my heart is always in the right place. I would say to my colleague that it's in the right place.
The issue here really is that at the end of the day, we want to make sure that whoever is doing the administration of security has standards that all the companies will have to live up to, because those standards are going to be enshrined to protect the travelling public. I think that is what is really the essence. I would think that all the companies will have to live up to that. If the existing companies do, there shouldn't be any difficulty.
Through you, Madam Chair, to our officials, I don't know if there's any other clarification they may want to provide.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I was going to ask the same question. I wonder if they can provide some comments on the amendment itself and also on the spirit of the amendment. What is their vision in terms of what protection there is for the workers who will be working in this industry after the transfer of authority?
The Chair: Is there a desire by one of the officials to make a comment at this time?
I have Mr. Cullen on my list.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll speak for myself. I think the spirit of what Lorne is proposing is well intended. What concerns me--and I raised this with the steelworkers when they were here--is that often when these authorities are created, there's a need to change work rules, to change profiling of jobs and job descriptions. The steelworkers said this is a management prerogative. That hasn't been my experience. I think in many of these cases these are negotiated solutions.
The other point that concerns me is that if there is high turnover, it's because perhaps there are low wages. If the benefits need to be increased again, that's a negotiated item, and that's something that I'm not sure should be enshrined additionally in this kind of legislation. I think it's a matter for the bargaining units and for that to be conducted in the course of normal labour negotiations.
So on this particular amendment, I understand where the member is coming from, but I think it creates some problems.
¿ (0955)
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Well, in order to get off on the right foot, I might suggest to my colleague that if the amendment were pulled at this point, I would give the assurance that we would continue to enter into discussions with regard to this matter. Then it will come back to the House, as you know. I think between now and then we might be able to at least explore this in a little more detail. Obviously I can't give you a definitive answer, but certainly I would be prepared to discuss it at more length.
The Chair: Shall I call the question right now? Are we ready?
Mr. Nystrom.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I have a question. When you say “pull the amendment”, do you mean table it for the time being?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Until we have an opportunity to--
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: To do more consultation and so on?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Yes.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'd certainly be willing to table this for the time being, if the chair is agreeable, until we can have further consultation.
The Chair: You need unanimous consent to withdraw it.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It's not to withdraw the amendment; it's just to defer it for a few minutes or a couple of hours, until we have a chance to confer.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: We may need more than a couple of hours.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, we may need more than that.
The Chair: Mr. Valeri, please.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): I think what Mr. Wilfert was suggesting, Lorne, was that you actually pull the amendment and give people an opportunity to discuss the issue and see whether there might be an opportunity to find our way to amending this in some fashion, or look at whether we could come to some resolution. I think that would be acceptable. I don't think Mr. Wilfert is suggesting that we table it for a couple of hours and then get back to you. I think there might be an opportunity for you to withdraw and then relook at this at report stage, and see if in the interim there might be a way to find a solution. There are no guarantees to this.
I think what is being said is that there are obviously members who are sympathetic to what you are saying, but it wouldn't be supportable as it is today. Going forward, we're not sure whether we could support it--at least, I'm not sure I could support it--but I would be at least very interested in pursuing some further discussion.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm certainly willing to do that. I just wanted to make sure of what Mr. Wilfert was suggesting. I think it's a reasonable suggestion. I will certainly withdraw it and see if we can come to some agreement and pursue this once again at report stage.
Madam Chair, the other question I asked on this particular clause, before we leave it, is whether or not the assistant deputy minister has something to say on it.
The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, we're either going to discuss and vote on your amendment or you're going to withdraw it. If you're going to withdraw it at this stage, then I need unanimous consent.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm going to withdraw it.
The Chair: Okay. Is there unanimous consent to withdraw at this stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Now we're on to CA-1 on page 2 of your book. As people turn to this, you'll notice that CA-2 is consequential to CA-1.
Is CA-1 being moved at this time?
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Madam Chair, on a point of order, as a point of procedure, are we going to be going through all the amendments first, rather than introducing them as we go per clause?
The Chair: As I mentioned at the beginning, we are going down through the clauses in the order in which the clerk has arranged them.
Mr. James Moore: Through the amendments, you mean?
The Chair: Through the amendments on the page as you have it, and then, when we get to the areas where there are no amendments, we'll deal with that as a group. We'll probably be able to group some of those amendments, with the consent of the committee, but right now we're going through on clause 2, and we have amendment CA-1.
Who's moving that? Mr. Epp?
À (1000)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Yes, and I want to talk.
The Chair: Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.
First of all, I have a question for the experts here today. It's my understanding that this bill provides for 11 directors, four of whom are specified in the act: two from aerodrome operators and two from the airline industry. Is that correct?
Also, how do you then define the people who are representative of the airline industry? Are they pilots? Are they representatives of the airline companies themselves and their management? How is that defined?
The Chair: Mr. Pigeon.
Mr. Jacques E. Pigeon (Senior General Counsel, Department of Transport): It is true that the act provides right now for a board of 11 members, including the chairperson and the four members who are referred to in proposed subsection 10(2).
Proposed subsection 10(2) provides that two of the directors must be nominees submitted by the representative of the airline industry and two of the directors must be nominees submitted by the representative of the aerodrome operators.
To answer your question about how they are selected, proposed section 11 provides that the minister may designate representatives or classes of representatives of the airline industry and of the aerodrome operators to propose nominees to the minister for appointment. So the minister will be determining the process under proposed section 11.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. So at this stage, we don't know whether they're going to call upon airline pilots, whether they're going to call upon a union that represents, say, the flight attendants, or whether they're going to look to management, whether they're going to look to the owners of the airlines. That's undefined, and it's left to the minister. Is that the intention of the legislation?
Mr. William J. S. Elliott (Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport): Perhaps I could address that, Madam Chair.
As far as the legislation is concerned, as my colleague has indicated, the minister is to designate representatives or classes of representatives. At the present time, consultations are still going on in this regard, but I think the most likely candidate for the minister on the airline side is the Air Transport Association of Canada, and on the airport side, it's the Canadian Airports Council.
Mr. Ken Epp: So, in other words, the employees themselves will not be represented here at all, right? Your answer would be no.
Mr. William Elliott: Well, as employee groups, I don't think that's currently contemplated.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you for that clarification.
I would now like to speak to the amendment, which is actually put forward by Mr. Williams of St. Albert, and I moved it on his behalf.
I'd like to just point out to the Liberal members, who have, I guess, a rather large amount of clout on the membership of this committee, that this is worth supporting, because what it says is that there are some notable players in this field who are not represented on this board who should be, and this amendment specifically says there should be two from the travel industry.
As we've heard from the witnesses, there's a huge impact on the travel industry, and if the minister is going to be able to call upon aerodrome operators and the airline industry.... The travel industry is actually the base or the foundation of probably 85% or 90% of what happens in air travel and with passengers. So it's very important that they be represented. That's why this motion is here, and I urge you to support this particular amendment.
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Just for clarification, the bill currently mentions, and I'll quote:
| persons who, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, have the experience and the capacity required for discharging their duties and functions. |
Therefore, Madam Chair, the Governor in Council isn't precluded from nominating someone from the labour movement, from the travel industry, whatever it happens to be. In fact, you can assure members that the interests of all Canadians will be represented on the board, and at the present time, it is contemplated that they're going to examine the skill sets to represent a broad spectrum across the board.
À (1005)
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, it doesn't preclude it, but it also doesn't specify it. We're asking that the legislation actually specify it, because it's such an important component. I rest my case.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Kenney, please.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Madam Chair, I would make the point, contrary to Mr. Wilfert, who's making the argument that the executive should have flexibility to appoint who it deems appropriate, that that's not what it does in the legislation. It actually specifies particular categories in the legislation.
They should remove specific reference to the representatives of the airline industry and aerodrome operators. By going down that road, by specifying particular industry groups who will have a right of nomination, it doesn't give itself a general right; it specifies industries from which nominees will come. We're simply suggesting that's prejudicial toward other players in this industry, and that the principle of specifying the right of nomination should be extended to other groups in this industry that will be directly affected.
We're simply asking the government to extend the very principle that it has already enshrined in this section.
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, please.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Without prolonging the discussion, I would just point out for clarification that the reason the airlines and the aerodrome operators have been given the right to nominate is that they will be the most significantly impacted by the authority.
A voice: That's arguable.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question. When you're voting on CA-1, be aware that CA-2 is consequential.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: Consequentially, CA-2 is defeated also.
Mr. Ken Epp: I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I challenge your ruling. There were seven hands, and there are eight on this side. So let's have a recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay. The clerk can record the vote.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton--Victoria--Brock, Lib.): There are nine people on this side. Why are we doing this? It was already voted.
The Chair: He has asked for a recorded vote. He's entitled to a recorded vote.
Mr. John O'Reilly: It's a wonderful democracy.
(Amendment negatived: yeas 8; nays 9)
The Chair: So that will remove CA-2 as well.
We are now on NDP-2, which is on page 3.
Mr. Nystrom, are you moving this one?
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
Do you wish to speak to it, Mr. Nystrom?
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, Madam Chair. The amendment I'm moving here is that in clause 2, lines 5 to 9 on page 6 be replaced by the following:
| -ment as directors, two must be nominees submitted by representatives of aerodrome operators designated under that section whom the Minister considers suitable for the appointment as directors, |
--and here's the relevant part of the amendment--
| and two must be nominees submitted by the bargaining agent that represents the greatest number of screening officers employed at aerodromes in Canada. |
I don't know whether it's a typo or not, Madam Speaker, but we have here “bargaining agent”. It should be “agents” in the plural, because there's more than one trade union that represents the people who work in the screening centres across the country.
But in essence this says that the workers should be represented, that the workers should have somebody on the board of directors. What I am suggesting here is that it be two people who represent the workers on the board.
Again, we've heard the arguments last Thursday. I think this makes for a more efficient security industry. The workers are the most important part of that because they're doing the screening. They know the business. They should have a voice on the board of directors. If they're not there, I think it makes the system less efficient. It's democratic; it's fair; it's just. I think it's a very reasonable amendment, and as I said before, it should not just be “the bargaining agent”, because there's more than one bargaining agent. The steelworkers' union is the biggest union involved here, but there are other unions as well, so it should be “bargaining agents”.
I'd like to suggest that we accept this as an amendment. I think it's perfectly reasonable and logical, and I would think Mr. Wilfert would be supporting this with great enthusiasm.
À (1010)
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, there are 13 screening companies at the present time. Six are represented by various unions. Again, I would emphasize that the minister has indicated he is supportive of making sure there's representation of all Canadians, and therefore--by deduction--obviously, I think, from the labour movement.
However, at this time, given that the authorities for that are not in place and we're not sure what's going to appear when the dust settles, if at this point we specifically designate in this case, then we should designate on the previous amendment, etc.
As I indicated, Madam Chair, the reason the airlines and the operators were designated specifically was simply because they are the most impacted by the authority. But this does not preclude--and again I give the member my assurance that my understanding from the minister is very clear--that participation, and I think he made it very clear, particularly to the United Steelworkers, that he is certainly open to representation, but not specifically to spell it out at this point, for those reasons. In fact, if we were to take every interested party and spell it out, we'd certainly have quite a huge board.
But at this point, certainly the assurance is that once these authorities are up and running, I think we would be amenable, but not to spell it out at this point.
The Chair: Mr. Cullen, please.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish Mr. Nystrom had put forward one director, but he put forward two. This is a situation where you have workers who are close to the action. I don't know if you've read about the concept called “management by wandering about” in a book called A Passion for Excellence. Some of the best suggestions come from people right on the shop floor. Here's a situation where I got caught the other day with a pair of tiny scissors, and yet you can get all kinds of other things through. I think these people running the front lines would have a real input into what's going on, and I think they should be represented on the board. I wish Mr. Nystrom had put one instead of two, but I'll be supporting the amendment.
The Chair: Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): I have just one observation. The amendment mentions that the representatives should come from the largest bargaining agent or agents. The only concern I have with that is I think we understood from the witnesses appearing for the United Steelworkers that it's questionable whether a majority of the employees are actually unionized. You could have representatives coming from a minority of the workers who were purporting to represent all the workers. I think it would be more acceptable if we simply stated that these representatives work on behalf of all the workers--or come from the larger pool, I should say, from all the workers--because rather obviously these workers would represent unionized labour as opposed to all the workers. I think the amendment presupposes that's the right approach, and that's something I don't necessarily accept. I simply want to note that and put it on the record.
À (1015)
The Chair: Mr. Harb.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Chair, like my colleagues, I am quite sympathetic to what has been said in the motion, but I would like to propose the same thing we did with the very first motion. The intent is excellent. I would also propose we postpone this one between now and the report stage, so my colleague, as well as the officials, will have a chance to examine it.
As a result of this, those of us who wanted to support it will at least have a chance to examine the implications of it. Then we can give it a fair shake prior to report stage. So if my colleague will agree to that, I think it might get a sympathetic ear from this side of the equation.
The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, we're going down this path with you again, it seems. Do you wish to withdraw your...?
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: No, but I just want to explain why we have two representatives instead of one. One can be very divisible because there is more than one bargaining agent. It is not just the steelworkers; we have other unions as well. So if you only have one nominee, it could be divisive amongst the workers themselves. If you have two nominees, you can have one from one union and one from another union. The reason for two is to create more security in the workforce, and more stability and better service for the Canadian people.
The Chair: Mr. Elliott, do you wish to say something?
Mr. Harb.
Mr. Mac Harb: Is my colleague open to designating one instead of two?
The Chair: It's two. Let's be clear here, Mr. Nystrom.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: That's what the amendment says. I have not moved to amend my own amendment.
The Chair: Okay. I will call NDP-2.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 8 )
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chair, I agree with that call.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: The next amendment is CA-3 on page 5.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, can I just ask you a point of clarification? How many voting members are on this committee?
The Chair: There are 18 and the chair votes in the case of a tie.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you.
À (1020)
The Chair: We're on page 5, CA-3.
Mr. Kenney, are you going to move this?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, I am.
Madam Chair, I'd like to make reference to proposed subsection 5(2), at page 3, under “Establishing and Mandate of the Authority”. This is actually a question for the officials, Madam Chair.
Proposed subsection 5(2) says:
| (2) The Authority is for all purposes an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada. |
Whereas proposed subsection 28(1) at page 9 says:
| (1) The Authority may enter into contracts, agreements or other arrangements with Her Majesty as if it were not an agent of Her Majesty. |
Could the officials clarify for us how the authority is an agency on behalf of Her Majesty in one respect but could act otherwise in another respect?
The Chair: Mr. Pigeon.
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: First of all, I would like to draw to the attention of the committee that, in my view, there is no inconsistency between proposed subsection 5(2) and subsection 28(1).
Proposed subsection 28(1) is building on the foundation that the authority is an agent of Her Majesty. Essentially, it is there to clarify, basically, that there can be contracts entered into between the principal and the agent. This is a clause that has been used before in other legislation where a corporation is an agent of Her Majesty, basically, because normally one does not contract with oneself. It was necessary to put subsection 28(1) in the legislation in the same way it exists in the case of many other crown corporations that are declared agents of Her Majesty.
From a technical point of view, I would simply say there is no inconsistency between the two clauses and in my view there is no need for an override. It is the approach we took when we drafted the bill.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Overrides such as that being proposed by the amendment, “Notwithstanding subsection 5(2), the Authority may enter into”?
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: That's correct.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Isn't it simply clearer? Shouldn't legislation be written so that laymen can comprehend it?
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: I would agree with the objective you are proposing, but the question is.... Normally, we use an override only when there is a direct inconsistency between two provisions. In fact, there is no inconsistency between the two. Proposed section 28 is perfectly consistent with proposed subsection 5(2). It's building on the foundation that it is an agent of Her Majesty. This is the explanation I would like to offer to you.
Mr. Jason Kenney: This is an amendment on our part, Madam Chair, simply to clarify this. We think it would be more clear to offer a notwithstanding clause at proposed section 28.
The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? All those opposed?
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: We are now moving to CA-4 on page 6 of your package.
Mr. Epp, you're going to move it? Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Ken Epp: I'm going to speak to it, if I may.
If you look at the present section on page 9, it indicates that the Auditor General is the auditor of the authority. It ends there.
We're concerned that the government may not be living up to its electoral commitment of openness and transparency by perhaps limiting the availability of the Auditor General. For greater clarity, this amendment states very simply that the Auditor General be given full authority under the Auditor General Act, as opposed to operating as an ordinary auditor. It's a matter of clarity and to ensure there will be openness.
À (1025)
I would suspect there might be some problem perceived here. The legislation says the minister has the right to refuse to give information to the auditor if security is at risk. We agree, if security is actually at risk. When it comes to the financial aspect, it would be a huge stretch to say disclosure of a financial component would put security at risk.
In other words, how much money is collected? How is it collected? How is it spent? We're concerned, looking ahead of the potential excess of amount collected versus the amount spent, that it should be subject to a full disclosure.
It's for greater clarity that the Auditor General Act specifically apply here so that the Auditor General can do her work.
The Chair: Mr. Harb.
Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Chair, with all due respect, frankly it's really disappointing to even see this motion before us. The colleague is an officer of the House. He knows full well that the Auditor General has access to all government books when it comes to finances.
Mr. Ken Epp: It's not true.
Mr. Mac Harb: Frankly, I feel a little disappointed with this motion even being before us. As it is now, he has full access to it. I will definitely be voting against it.
Mr. Ken Epp: I'm disappointed in this member's response.
The Chair: We'll call the question.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chair.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: How do I say this without breaking parliamentary rules? What the member said is in fact not accurate. We are aware of organizations like the Canadian Wheat Board, where the Auditor General does not have access. It's only one example of many.
This legislation says the Auditor General will be the auditor for the authority. We're simply saying the rules that apply for the Auditor General will be under the Auditor General Act.
What the member said (a) is irrelevant to this discussion and (b), frankly, it's not true.
Mr. Mac Harb: I stand to be corrected, Madam Chair. Our officials are here. They could testify as to whether the statement was accurate or not. I would defer to them.
The Chair: Mr. Pigeon.
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Auditor General Act will apply in this case whenever the Auditor General is performing a function as an auditor of the authority. I'm speaking from memory here. Under subsection 13(1) of the Auditor General Act, the Auditor General has access to the information that is in the crown corporation being audited. There is already a provision made to provide for access to information under the Auditor General Act.
The act will apply to the mandate to define the powers, duties, and functions of the Auditor General when it performs its mandate as auditor of the corporation here.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Madam Chair.
May I respond then? I can see absolutely no reason why any member of this committee would then vote against this. What he says is in place is actually what this statement clearly provides.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question.
All those in favour? All those opposed, please?
(Motion negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We go onto CA-5 on page 7 of your package.
Mr. Kenney, is that your voice I hear?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes.
Madam Chair, proposed subsection 32(2) grants the minister the power to keep confidential any information that “would be detrimental to air transport security or public security, including financial and other data that might reveal such information”.
While we do not object in principle to withholding important security-related information, we do believe, as currently worded, this section would grant discretionary powers that are far too broad for the minister to withhold information.
Would proposed subsection 32(2), as currently worded, allow such information to be withheld, notwithstanding the provisions of the Access to Information Act?
À (1030)
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Well, the Access to Information Act would apply if the corporation or this authority is listed in the schedule of that act. And there is provision under the Access to Information Act for the Governor in Council to add any crown corporation, including the authority, to the schedule of entities or corporations that are subject to the act.
Then, under the Access to Information Act, there is a provision that basically says--I think it's section 24--that if by statute something is confidential and is also listed under the Access to Information Act in the list of provisions where confidentiality is provided, there is the possibility for the corporation to withhold or not disclose the information.
In addition to that there is, under the Access to Information Act, provision made for security, where a corporation is allowed not to disclose security-sensitive information when it's in the public interest.
So there are a number of mechanisms that have the same objective as the objective that underlies proposed section 32.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Chair, to help clarify, is Mr. Pigeon saying that this provision of the bill, this kind of information, would fall under the Access to Information Act only if the minister added the agency to a schedule in the ATI bill?
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: My understanding of the Access to Information Act as well as the Privacy Act is that they apply to the corporation and to the bodies or government institutions that are listed in the schedule. Now there is a provision under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act where the Governor in Council has the power to add a new crown corporation to the schedule to make it subject to the act.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thanks, Mr. Pigeon.
Madam Chair, I would argue that the whole point of the Access to Information Act is to provide Parliament and the public, through Parliament, access to information that sometimes the executive branch of government would not like to have publicly released. I think it's rather like having the fox guard the henhouse to ask the Governor in Council whether it would like to have some of this information publicly accessible.
I would like to point out that our amendment adds an extra section that essentially says that any information the minister withholds from tabling under subsection (1) should be made accessible in accordance with the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.
In other words, if the government can make a compelling case under those statutes that it is of a security nature and can't be released, that would be legally binding. But it would not give the minister undue discretion, which currently exists the way the legislation is drafted.
So in the interest of public accountability and parliamentary scrutiny, we move this motion.
The Chair: Mr. Harb.
Mr. Mac Harb: I don't see any reason why we have to treat this corporation or agency any differently from any other agencies or corporations when it relates to those two acts. As a result, I feel this motion is unwarranted.
À (1035)
The Chair: Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I would just point out that there are many statutes that specifically invoke the Access to Information Act. It's not true that everything is left simply to regulation. It's clearly not the case.
The Chair: Okay. I'm going to call the question now. I don't have anybody else talking on this point.
(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Okay, we're on to amendment CA-6, page 8 of your package.
Mr. Solberg, please go ahead.
Mr. Monte Solberg: I'll move that, Madam Chair.
Amendment CA-6 effectively puts in place an annual review instead of the five-year review that is stipulated right now in the legislation. Our argument is that after five years, in that period of time, things can go woefully awry, and we think to give the public better accountability of the agency via Parliament, an annual review is warranted. That is really the essence of the amendment.
I should point out that over that five-year period this authority will have spent about $1 billion, and that's a tremendous amount of money. Because we're talking about a lot of money and an authority that will be at arm's length from government, we do need to have better accountability than is currently stipulated in the legislation.
The Chair: Mr. Elliott.
Mr. William Elliott: Thank you, Madam Chair.
If I could just clarify, my understanding, based on advice from the Department of Justice, is that under the applicable provisions of the Financial Administration Act, there would be the requirement for an annual tabling in Parliament of a summary report. I just want to make that clear.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Well, let me ask a question with respect to that. How is a summary report different from an annual review, then, or a five-year review?
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: My understanding is that the corporate plan is basically submitted every year by the corporation, and a summary of it is tabled in Parliament, whereas I think the five-year review that is contemplated by that section is a review of the provisions and the operation of this act. So that is the distinction.
Mr. Monte Solberg: In a way, I think that really makes the case that we need an annual review. If you're going to put in place legislation that is obviously brand new and you're waiting five years to review it, you're really setting the stage for allowing what undoubtedly will be flaws in the legislation to continue on for that five-year period.
Pretty obviously, if you're going to have a review, it should come much before five years, in order to deal with any problems with the legislation.
The Chair: Okay, Mr. Wilfert, and then we're going to call the question.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I don't presume there's anything that would preclude this committee from reviewing it on an annual basis.
Mr. Monte Solberg: If I could respond to that, there's nothing that precludes it except that, like every committee, there's all kinds of legislation that is to be reviewed and never gets reviewed, for whatever reason. Sometimes it's because committees are too busy with other business, and sometimes I suspect it's not in the government's interest to want to review it.
So I think the idea of having it stipulated in legislation will at least guarantee that there's a proper oversight of what's occurring. Again, when you have new legislation, to say you're going to wait five years and expend a billion dollars before you have a review is, to me, not prudent.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I stand by my comments.
The Chair: We're going to call the question.
(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Now we'll go to amendment G-1, on page 9, page 10 en français--and it's not consequential, right?
Go ahead, Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: We will support the amendment, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Are you moving the amendment? Okay.
Is there any discussion?
Yes, Mr. Epp.
À (1040)
Mr. Ken Epp: As the bill now says, the minister has the right to designate aerodromes, and now this says “for the purposes of this Act”. Is it the intent of this amendment to simply say that this is the minister's prerogative now, to determine where to access the fees?
The Chair: Mr. Pigeon.
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: In a number of provisions of the bill as it is written, there is a reference to aerodromes designated by regulation. So the contents of all these substantive provisions are somewhat governed by the designations that will occur under paragraph 34(a), the provision being amended by this motion.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify what the intent of that provision is, because if we read the provision as it currently stands, it could leave the impression, wrongly, that the purpose of the designation is in fact to create the requirement for screening, which is not the purpose.
Requirements for screening will be made under the Aeronautics Act and the regulations, and the measures that are taken under that act. So the purpose of this amendment is simply to clarify the language and make sure it is clear as to the purpose for which the designation is being made. In fact, it's only being made for the purposes of the other substantive provisions of this legislation.
Mr. Ken Epp: If I may interrupt, I'd like a straight answer to my question. Right now, before it's amended, it says:
| 34. The Governor in Council may make regulations |
| (a) designating aerodromes at which the Authority is responsible for screening; |
Now this says “designating aerodromes for the purposes of this Act”.
The question I have is, does this mean that this authority now, without the Governor in Council, will determine which airports have screening facility? You're taking the screening out; therefore it seems to me the purpose of this amendment is simply to say, we're not worried any more about where our screening takes place, but we want to collect the fees.
The Chair: Mr. Elliott.
Mr. William Elliott: Perhaps I could clarify that, Madam Chair. There is no intention as the honourable member has indicated.
As my colleague has indicated, the current requirements for screening at airports are provided for in the Aeronautics Act, and the intention is to continue to mandate the provision of screening in regulations and measures pursuant to that act.
It is not the intention, nor would this legislation allow for the authority to make decisions with respect to where security screening takes place.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question.
Is there something else, Mr. Epp, another point?
Mr. Ken Epp: Yes. It's a very important point, and that is, does the Aeronautics Act anticipate the changing of the process for screening as it's provided for under this act? There is now a new authority, and I don't think the Aeronautics Act would specify an authority that didn't exist at the time it was written.
Mr. William Elliott: It will be necessary, Madam Chair, to make amendments to the regulations and the security measures existing today under the Aeronautics Act to reflect the creation of the new authority and the transfer of responsibility from carriers to the authority. But, again, that will not be done in this act or in regulations pursuant to this act, but in regulations pursuant to the Aeronautics Act.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Ken Epp: Will there be a gap in transition?
Mr. William Elliott: No.
The Chair: Thank you.
On the question--this is amendment G-1 we're voting on.
(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We're on to G-2. Who's moving this? Mr. Wilfert, are you moving G-2? Okay.
Does anybody want discussion of G-2?
Mr. Cullen, did you need something?
À (1045)
Mr. Roy Cullen: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could spell out the gist of what G-2 does--or the officials, maybe.
The Chair: Mr. Pigeon, did you wish to...? Go ahead.
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The purpose of G-2 is to clarify the language of proposed section 38 and to emphasize the fact that there is a need for provision of a statutory authority that will give the authority the power to make contributions to the cost incurred by the airlines in screening during the transition period, before the authority is up and running. The purpose of this is only for the transition period, and it's to allow the authority to contribute to the cost incurred by airlines after April 1 and before the authority is up and running.
The Chair: Mr. Elliott.
Mr. William Elliott: I guess the other clarification I would make, Madam Chair, is that one of the concerns we have with respect to the current wording of proposed section 38 is that it suggests a carrier needs to agree to carry out screening. Just as the honourable member asked, we want to make sure there is a continuity of service. Until the authority is in a position to actually take over screening, we want to make it crystal clear that carriers continue to have the responsibility to do it, so that there is no gap.
The Chair: Thank you.
We're on G-2. I'm going to call the question.
(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We're on to amendment CA-7 on page 13 of your package.
Mr. Epp, you said you were moving that?
Mr. Ken Epp: I'm moving it and I'd like to speak to it.
The Chair: Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Ken Epp: Again my task is to persuade the Liberal members to vote in favour of this.
There's an overriding principle that the expenditure of taxpayers' money is primarily the responsibility of Parliament. On page 12 of the bill, if any of you want to look at it, it says there's an operating budget and a capital budget for the authority. It then says that once it is approved:
| the Authority may, despite sections 122 to 124...expend funds, with the approval of the Minister, that the board considers to be essential for the Authority to become fully operational in a timely manner. |
We would like to see this under the authority of Parliament itself. Therefore, this amendment simply requires that we add proposed subsectuib 39(3), which is:
| The Minister shall table in the House of Commons on the next sitting day of that House any plan or budget. |
In other words, let them make the plan, that's good, but let's also require that it be tabled in the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Chair, I respect the intent of it, but the problem is the operational aspect of it. The key word here is “may”. There are times when a corporation would have to make expenditures, and I think taking away that flexibility and tying it to the authority of the House will be highly unfair for an agency whose main purpose is to serve the public and to ensure safety and security.
At the same time, my colleague knows that there is a period of time when the House doesn't sit.
Mr. Ken Epp: You can always table it.
The Chair: I'll call the question.
Mr. Ken Epp: It says “table...on the next sitting day”. It says that Parliament is responsible. I would plead with you to vote for it.
The Chair: Mr. Cullen, please.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I'm wondering, Madam Chair, if the officials could comment on why this amendment would not work.
An hon. member: That's a rather leading question. Good one, Roy.
Mr. William Elliott: Madam Chair, the purpose of the current provision is to recognize the reality that the day after the legislation and the authority come into existence, it will need to expend some funds. There are current contracts we would envisage the authority taking over; for example, the maintenance of equipment. The corporation will be required to draft the corporate plan and to seek the regular approvals from the Treasury Board. This is an interim provision to allow for the immediate expenditure of funds as will be required in order to ensure there's no gap in the provision of security services.
À (1050)
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ): In that case, what is the problem with tabling this plan, or the amounts spent and the set priorities, in the House of Commons? What problem is there, apart from adding a little bit of democracy and transparency to the decisions?
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: You must remember that this entity is one of those that will be subjected to Part X of the Financial Administration Act and that the general framework provided for in this act requires no such tabling. There are all sorts of other tabling requirements provided for in Part X of the Financial Administration Act, and that will apply to this entity, but this provision solely targets the first part, in other words before the plan and budgets have been approved for the first time. The purpose here is to allow the administration to reach that stage, but all of the protection measures—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Let me repeat my question, Mr. Pigeon. In this transition, in this interim period, why would it be out of place to inform parliamentarians of this entity's actions and transition plan? What would bother you in that?
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: As Mr. Elliott stated earlier, it is simply to reconcile the various needs. Certain decisions will have to be made rather quickly and the process as set out in these clauses was simply that provisions be made for doing this—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, but the proposed amendment, Mr. Pigeon, does not aim to write this plan into the legislative process. The idea is simply to ensure that it is tabled quickly. It could be tabled very quickly. The tabling of a document requires but ten seconds. Thus, parliamentarians would be kept abreast of the actions of this entity. I fail to see what harm that could do, one way or the other. It would slow down absolutely nothing. The point here is to keep parliamentarians informed. I do not believe that you see any problem with that.
[English]
Mr. William Elliott: If I may, Madam Chair, it seems to me that there are two potential difficulties. One is a matter of practicality. I think it will be difficult and burdensome for the authority if, for each expenditure of funds, it's required to table a report. Certainly, there's no reluctance at all to recognize the importance of the authority reporting to--
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Monsieur Elliott, please--
The Chair: Let Mr. Elliott finish, and then we'll go on to....
Mr. William Elliott: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was saying that there's no question that the authority needs to and is provided to report to Parliament through the Minister of Transport. I think there are issues with respect to at what period of time it's appropriate for that report to be tabled.
There are expenditures that are going to have to be met by this authority on day one before it develops any kind of a budget in the normal sense.
The last thing I would mention is if there are specifics required for each expenditure...there may be expenditures incurred by the authority, the details of which could compromise security. If, for example, an expenditure was incurred for a specific security measure, if it was required to table the detailed information with respect to that, that might be a practical disadvantage to the authority as well.
The Chair: Mr. Loubier, go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, I do not understand what we are trying to make this amendment say, but we are making it say things that it does not say at all. This amendment is asking that a final plan relating to the budget or to the priorities established for the transition period be tabled. We are not asking that every expenditure made during the course of operations be tabled for approval with Parliament. We are not asking for secret information that might compromise security. We are asking for a plan in order to be aware of what is going on, of the way in which the transition is going and of what the new entity is doing. That is how I understand this. When we go off looking for extraordinary explanations by doing somersaults on a thin wire that does not exist, there is a problem.
À (1055)
[English]
The Chair: Okay. Mr. Harb.
Mr. Mac Harb: I hope we don't spend a lot of time on it. We have heard from the officials. We have already seen the motion.
Basically, if this is to go through, we are crippling the corporation. It will not be able to carry out its duty in a timely fashion whereby it guarantees meeting the objectives as set out by the legislation. Frankly, this is getting around something that's already been redundant, because on an annual basis this corporation is going to submit its report to the House of Commons. At any given point in time, any member of Parliament who may need information can seek information, whether through the committee or directly through the corporation itself.
Frankly, Madam Chair, I think this is a very inappropriate motion to be before us.
The Chair: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I'd like an answer from the officials. I'd like to be crystal clear on this. The way I read the amendment is that the authority may be in business, they're going to have to get on with things, but the moment they present a plan or a budget to the minister, then at the same time, following that, they would table that document in the House of Commons. It would be a plan or a budget.
Until such time as they have a plan or a budget that they submit to the minister, there'd be no obligation to do that. In life we have to deal with reality. Once the minister has a plan or a budget, shortly thereafter the same document is tabled in Parliament. Are you trying to tell me that this is going to somehow delay things, obfuscate the performance or the delivery of services by the authority? I don't understand.
The Chair: We'll hear from Mr. Pigeon, and then I'd like to call the question, because there is a vote being called in the House and all of us have to be there for it.
I'd like to get down as far as clause 4 before that.
So go ahead, Mr. Pigeon.
Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Under part 10 of the Financial Administration Act, section 125 is the section that normally applies to corporate plans and to budgets.
The plan itself is not tabled. What is required is that a summary of the plan and budgets are prepared and submitted to the minister, who basically tables the summary, not the plans, in the House. That is section 125 of the Financial Administration Act as it currently reads.
The Chair: I'll call the question. We're on amendment CA-7.
(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to on division)
(On clause 5)
The Chair: We have a number of amendments, and we'll start with Canadian Alliance amendment 8.
Mr. James Moore: Before I move the amendment, Madam Chair, can you give the members of the committee a sense of when we're supposed to be in the House for the vote?
The Chair: My understanding is that it was the 30-minute bell. At 11:20 we're supposed to be in the House. I'll just sort of keep going, and then we'll make sure there's enough time. Then we'll be coming right back and starting into this again, because as per the agreement, this is what we're doing this morning.
Is anybody moving amendment CA-8?
Mr. James Moore: I am.
The Chair: Mr. Moore, go ahead, please.
Mr. James Moore: Thank you. Just so the members of the committee are aware, CA-8 also affects CA-11, CA-14, CA-17, CA-20, CA-23, and CA-24.
What CA-8 does is to change the rate of the air tax from $12 per one-way trip or $24 for a round-trip fare to $2.50 per sector, up to a maximum of $5. This does two things, and I've made this motion for two reasons. One is that in the United States, which is our primary competitor in the air industry, passengers do not pay 100% of the cost of improved aviation security. Canada should not impose a higher burden on travellers.
As the only permanent member of the Standing Committee on Transport here, I have to say that the transport committee did a tremendous amount of work on airport and aviation security post-September 11. We flew to Washington, D.C.; we flew all across Canada; we had hours and hours of witnesses coming before committee. Just before this budget was tabled--I believe it was December 11--the transport committee tabled a list of recommendations, and I have it here. It's a report entitled Building a Transportation Security Culture: Aviation as the Starting Point.
The list of recommendations in here was supported unanimously by every single member of the committee, including every single Liberal, including the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport.
Recommendation 14 states:
| All stakeholders—including airports, air carriers, airline passengers and/or residents of Canada—contribute to the cost of improved aviation security. In particular, the amounts currently spent by airports and air carriers should be continued, with appropriate adjustments for inflation. A ticket surtax could also be implemented, and any funding shortfalls could be financed out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. |
The Minister of Transport stated on October 1, 2001, at a take-note debate on terrorism, that Canada was ahead of the United States vis-à-vis aviation security. There's a simple principle here, in the sense that it was the United States that was attacked; it was American planes that were hijacked from American airports. The United States is implementing improved aviation security in a situation where the transport minister himself has said that Canada's aviation security standards, prior to September 11, were further ahead, more firm, more rigid, and better than those of the United States.
If the United States can improve their aviation security for $2.50 per segment, $5 for a round-trip ticket, there is no reason in the world that Canada can't do it for the same amount of money, let alone $12 and $24, with that money going into general revenue.
What this amendment does is it brings it back into proportion, brings it back into scale. It respects the recommendations of the transport committee, which were recommended by the parliamentary secretary to the transport minister himself. I encourage members of this committee to support it.
Á (1100)
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I will not support the amendment on the basis that we're comparing apples and oranges. In the United States, the fee is not designed to fully cover the cost of airport security. It has been stated by the Americans that in fact it will fall far short. Therefore, the slack will be picked up by the air carriers, and I think it's fairly safe to say that the air carriers will presumably pass it on to the travelling public.
Mr. James Moore: That's not necessarily true, Madam Chair.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'm not debating it; I'm just making a statement.
The Chair: Mr. Loubier, and then I have Mr. Murphy.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, along with my colleague, I am going to speak against this motion because it is to my mind not rational enough. We are at this stage still asking ourselves who was so unintelligent as to propose $12 and $24 taxes, but intelligent enough to convince the minister that such a tax would have no impact, whereas everyone knows that this will be devastating for air transportation, especially in the regions.
I am still wondering why we are imposing a surtax. I agree with you that the level is extraordinarily high, but given that it is a matter of general and national security, we could have used the government surplus to put these security measures in place without killing air transportation in the regions.
Madam Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the officials if they do any impact studies when they make this kind of decision or if they simply are acting on a whim, without any impact analysis, despite the fact that they are the only ones saying that this tax will not create any problems. I am asking the question because this ties in with the amendment.
Do you have any impact studies that prove without a shadow of a doubt that there will be no economic problems that would lead John McCallum, who was a very serious economist in a previous life, to state that a new tax will create no problem whatsoever in a sector that is still struggling, more so than ever since September 11? Do you rely on impact assessments when you impose major measures such as that envisaged here? Mr. Dupont could perhaps answer this question since he is the director responsible for taxation.
Á (1105)
Mr. Serge Dupont (General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance): Madam Chair, I believe I answered this question the last time we appeared before the committee. I of course explained that we took into account various measures that are available and are published, for example the elasticity of demand—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: And what did your elasticity of demand say with regard to the price of air transportation? Just give me some general idea.
Mr. Serge Dupont: There are elasticities in the order of 0.8 to 1.5%, in other words 1%—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Which means that it could be positive or negative.
Mr. Serge Dupont: I explained the last time, and I believe you will agree, that elasticities are normally measured in a context where all other things are considered equal. That is the approach economists usually follow—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: As a matter of fact, I have very specialized training in economics. I have no problem with that. I would like to know if you have done a comprehensive impact assessment of this measure that will go and get $2.5 million in the air transportation sector. If you have done such a study, I would like it to be tabled, Madam Chair, because we are a little sick of being used to rubberstamp this kind of measure without officials having to account for major decisions of this nature. Would you agree, Madam Chair, that in the future, when fiscal measures such as these are presented to us, we should also be supplied with the various studies in order to be able to see and judge for ourselves, instead of simply being told about hypotheses of 0.8% and 1.5% regarding the elasticity of prices in air transportation? What the official has just stated could mean just about anything. This could have a negative, neutral or positive impact.
I would therefore appreciate having all of the studies with the committee, Madam Chair. That would allow us to do an informed study of the bills put before us.
[English]
The Chair: I think we've gone over this in our prior meetings.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, I am asking a question. I have asked that the impact studies relating to this new tax be tabled here with us. If you do not agree, that means that you do not want to have this information. You do not want to understand what you are voting on. That is your problem. For my part, I am officially asking that the impact study on this new tax be tabled with us and I believe I will have the support of my colleagues. This is the only way to go.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Dupont.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Dupont: Madam Chair, I believe I explained the last time that we took into account the information that was available, the information that we were able to consult at the time. We also took into account the fact that the situation last fall, a situation that will last for some time yet, was without precedent, given that there was not only the issue of the impact that such a charge might have on consumer demand for air transportation, but also a situation without precedent with regard to the safety concerns of citizens and travellers. It is based upon this concern in particular that the government chose to invest the monies set out in the budget for air transport safety and decided, in this context, taking into account its budgetary priorities and its flexibility, to finance the cost through this charge.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, do the members of the committee accept my request that be tabled here all of the studies the witness has just mentioned, namely all of the studies relating to elasticity and any impact studies pertaining to this new air tax? I am mostly thinking about the regional impact, because there are regions that risk floundering because of this tax. Everyone agrees with this analysis except Mr. McCallum and Mr. Martin.
[English]
The Chair: We have one motion on the floor right now that we're trying to deal with. Mr. Murphy is next on the list, then Mr. Moore. Then we'd better get to that vote and get back here after the vote.
There is one motion on the floor right now. We're dealing with that.
Go ahead, Mr. Murphy, and then Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Like everyone on this committee, I'm not in favour of this $24 fee at all. I agree with some of the comments Mr. Moore made, although I do not support the $2.50.
I invited the Department of Finance on two occasions to come forward with a detailed analysis justifying the $24 fee, and on both occasions they haven't done so.
The information you've given us, you're estimating 10%, you're estimating interchange, you're not taking into consideration anything to do with cargo.
The fee, Madam Chairman, is going to be very detrimental to small airports; it's going to be very detrimental to small airlines. If Mr. Moore would move an amendment to reduce the six and twelve, I would support it.
The Chair: Mr. Solberg is next.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Chairman, I just want to say that it's impossible to overstate the detrimental effect this is going to have. In Ontario you look at some of the small airports--Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay, Thunder Bay, London--and it's going to have a huge impact. In my riding, in Medicine Hat, where a lot of people right now use the air services to fly to Calgary, they will now seriously reconsider that and will look at driving the three hours instead, which means that we will lose our air service from Medicine Hat.
It's almost impossible to overstate how important this is when it comes to ensuring the viability of smaller centres and ensuring that they have an airport that allows easy access, which is important to attracting industry and that sort of thing. So I simply want to speak in favour of my colleague's motion, being mindful of what Mr. Murphy has suggested, and simply urge committee members to consider the impact this will have in their communities.
The government has moved much too quickly in setting these fees. They have not done it with consultation, as far as we know; I've not been able to identify it. We certainly know that WestJet didn't get the consultation they were promised, for instance.
For those reasons, I think we should seriously consider my colleague's proposal, again being mindful of what Mr. Murphy has suggested.
Á (1110)
The Chair: I'm going to adjourn to the call of the chair. We've got votes in the House right now, so we'll adjourn to the call of the chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, might we vote on this motion now before leaving?
[English]
The Chair: No. We're going to go to the call of the chair, to the vote in the House right now. Then come back, please, as fast as you can.
Á (1112)
Á (1155)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): I call this meeting to order.
An hon. member: Mr. Chair, I think there was a vote on the floor on motion CA-8. I call the question.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): Okay.
An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe you have a quorum.
An hon. member: Who are you?
An hon. member: Fred Lipshitz.
I don't believe we have a quorum.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): You don't believe I have a quorum? I have ten members at the table. I believe I have quorum.
The question has been called. All those in favour? Opposed? Okay, that's carried.
Where are we here? Let's go on.
Mr. Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion to table and it reads as follows:
| That be tabled with the Standing Committee on Finance all of the impact studies relating to the introduction of this new air transportation charge, including the assessments of the effects in the different regions of Canada. |
I move the motion and am seconded by my colleague Pauline Picard of Drummond.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): Okay. That's moved and seconded. Any debate?
All those in favour of this motion, please so indicate. Opposed?
An hon. member: Unanimous.
(Laughter)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): I declare that motion passed unanimously. Thank you.
Mr. James Moore: How many whips does it take to whip eight Liberals?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): Okay, CA-9.
My clerk tells me this is out of order. On what grounds, please?
The Clerk of the Committee: There's no quorum.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): There isn't quorum? How many do we need for quorum?
The Clerk: Ten.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): Ten
An hon. member: There was quorum.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): There was quorum when we started.
Mr. Jason Kenney: There were certainly government members of the committee here.
An hon. member: Mr. Dromisky was sitting here.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): You mean he was sitting here without being properly signed in?
An hon. member: Mr. Mahoney was at the table. Mr. Cullen was here.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): The whip of the government.... How come they have people sitting at the table who aren't signed in? That seems very irregular.
An hon. member: Mr. Chair, may I move any motion?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ken Epp): The chairman's here, imagine that. In the presence of the chairman, I would now turn the meeting back over to the chair.
The Chair: You can't go to the washroom around here?
An hon. member: Madam Chair, where are the Liberal members of the committee? Are they en route?
The Chair: I don't answer for the members of the committee; I just answer for myself.
 (1200)
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chair, I have a motion.
The Chair: We're not in session yet.
Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, I called it to session and it hasn't been closed, so I have a motion.
The Chair: There's no quorum at the moment.
An hon. member: Point of order.
An hon. member: Can I ask the chair of the committee which bathroom she was in? Perhaps we can go get quorum.
The Chair: Is it lunch break?
 (1200)
 (1202)
The Chair: I'm going to recall the committee right now to order. We are on--
Mr. Jason Kenney: Point of order.
The Chair: Point of order, Mr. Kenney, please.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to put on the record how disgusted we are with the way this committee is being managed. This is the finance committee of the House of Commons. This is one of the principal bodies—
I know you're not interested at all in what I'm saying, Madam Chair--
The Chair: I am, Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: --since you're not accountable to the members, but only to the whip.
This committee is one of the principal vehicles--
The Chair: You're out of order.
Mr. Jason Kenney: --of accountability for the people of Canada in Parliament, and the way this committee's been manipulated by the whip's office is a disgrace.
Madam Chair, at least on behalf of the official opposition members of this committee, I want to put the chair on notice that our cooperativeness in this committee is going to be proportionate to the professionalism and independence with which this committee is run, as it was run in the past.
The Chair: Mr. Kenney, that's not a point of order, but you've put your voice on the record.
We had an agreement the other day. We will go forward with clause-by-clause. I will go through. We just had a vote. We're returning from the vote. We will start this committee again.
We were, as we left, on CA-8. Before we vote and I call the question on that, I want to make sure that I confirm with the Canadian Alliance... They have said that this vote applies to CA-11, CA-14, CA-17, CA-20, CA-23, and CA-24. Those are consequential. So when we're voting for CA-8, we will also be voting for those Canadian Alliance motions; they would be consequential to that.
Mr. James Moore: Point of order, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Go ahead. Point of order from Mr. Moore. What is your point of order, please?
Mr. James Moore: Prior to us adjourning for the vote, I believe you had a speakers list you said you were going to return to. I believe Mr. Murphy was on that speakers list.
The Chair: Mr. Murphy has already spoken.
Mr. James Moore: Then I'm also on the speaking list.
An hon. member: I had raised my hand prior to adjournment.
The Chair: Mr. Murphy has been substituted by Mr. McGuire.
Mr. James Moore: Big surprise--big surprise.
The Chair: So I do not--
Mr. James Moore: Is Mr. Murphy ill suddenly, Madam Chair?
The Chair: I don't speak for the members. I'm trying to chair this committee. We're moving forward on clause-by clause.
I'm calling the question--
An hon. member: Madam Chair, I raised my hand for recognition prior to--
An hon. member: As had I. I'm on your speakers list
An hon. member: At least try to keep up appearances.
The Chair: I would like to--
An hon. member: Point of order.
The Chair: Point of order?
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR): I would like to move that the committee send a get-well card to Mr. Murphy.
(Laughter)
The Chair: That's not a point of order. If you're on the speakers list....
Mr. Jason Kenney: Well, first of all, you have to recognize points of order.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I'm once again trying to assert my right to speak on this motion.
The Chair: Okay, please go ahead and speak on CA-8, before the vote. Go ahead.
Mr. Loubier will be after.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Notwithstanding the manner in which the government is attempting to jam this bill through, we did have an opportunity to hear from a limited number of witnesses. Some others managed to submit written submissions because with limited time they weren't able to actually appear before us.
We heard, among others, from the Canadian Airports Council, the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, the Air Transport Association of Canada, and WestJet, Canada's only principal profitable airline. I believe also the Canadian Taxpayers Federation attempted to appear before this committee, wasn't permitted to, and has made a written submission
Mr. Ken Epp: But we haven't received it.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Chair, every single one of these witnesses--that is to say, all of them without exception--opposed the provision of the bill that this motion seeks to amend. They did so on the grounds that this will be extremely damaging to the Canadian airline industry.
I'd like to make some brief reference to testimony received by this committee. Insofar as maybe only two of the nine government members here were present during testimony, I'm sure they could benefit from this.
For instance, the Canadian Airports Council said in their submission: “...the Council believes that the current fee structure will create disproportionate price increases on short-haul and regional flights--unfairly penalizing smaller carriers who provide these services.” They also said it will likely penalize the small entrepreneurial air carriers who provide services on these routes and that considerable evidence indicates the $24 round-trip fee will discourage air travel at a time when the industry is particularly vulnerable.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in their written submission to this committee made a similar point when they said the one-way cost of the air traveller security charge of $12 represents almost 6% of the average price of a one-way domestic ticket sold in Canada.
 (1205)
If a 1% increase in ticket prices represents a 1% decrease, then the air travellers security charge of 6%, which this motion seeks to amend, will have a significant negative effect in terms of the number of air passengers.
They further said: “...it is apparent that no analysis has been undertaken on how the Air Travellers Security Charge will affect the long-term viability of the entire domestic airline industry”. I want to say parenthetically that this lack of analysis has been confirmed by the Department of Finance officials before us. “The security funded by passengers through this new charge is not related to the level of service provided”, they went on to say.
Finally, I'd like to quote from the submission to us by the Air Line Pilots Association, wherein they said that they object “in the strongest possible terms to the assessment of what can only be characterized, in the present economic climate, as a punitive levy on the Canadian domestic airline industry” and that “The imposition of a $24 surcharge on domestic flying will at this time only serve to further erase the operating margins that remain in the Canadian industry; it will be particularly crippling to short-haul domestic carriers such as Air Canada Regional and WestJet.” They say they find it ironic, to say the least, “that legislation intending to improve security of air travel in Canada could assist its very demise”.
Of course, WestJet, Madam Chair, who is the only profitable airline operating in the country today, appeared to us through their vice-president, Mark Hill. They testified that this would have an extremely negative effect on their company. They have intimated that they will have to shut down a number of their routes. And a number of witnesses have suggested that WestJet's very financial viability may be jeopardized by the imposition of this prejudicial fee on short-haul carriers.
Madam Chair, if this motion is defeated and if the bill is passed in its current order, all of the testimony that we have heard from every single witness, with the exception of that of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, indicates that the result could be a crippling blow to the airline industry and its competitiveness and particularly to the one principal competitive airline in the country.
I would appeal to the government members opposite, in the spirit of what constitutes good and prudent and sound public policy, to have the courage to do what's in the best interests of the Canadian economy, as their colleague Mr. Murphy was prepared to do, and support this motion. If it does not pass, this bill will have extremely negative consequences. Thousands of people are likely to lose their jobs and we could end up losing the only small piece of competition we have in the airline industry today.
So I strongly encourage the members to put aside pressure and to vote the way that every single witness has encouraged us to do.
The Chair: Mr. Loubier, then Mr. Moore, Mr. Epp, Mr. Wilfert, and then we'll go to question it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, what Mr. Kenney has just said is perfectly correct. Not a single witness that appeared before us, before the Finance Committee, since we began our hearings, had a good word to say about this new tax imposed upon the air transportation industry. Everyone is even talking about catastrophic effects.
When you consider, for example, the representations made yesterday by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, these are not small numbers. When there is talk about the possibility of a 16% drop in the number of passengers who will fly over the next few years, that is very steep. It can make all of the difference between the profitability of air transportation, which is at the present time already threatened because of the very high costs and of the low density of the population of Canada, and the failure of those carriers.
The situation at present, Madam Chair, is already very serious. In certain remote regions such as the Magdalen Islands, the Gaspé region or Abitibi-Temiscamingue, for example, and even out West, in areas such as that of my colleague, namely Medicine Hat, services have been cut over the last few years.
With all of this, we will be killing air transportation in remote regions. This means, Madam Chair, that we will depriving of an essential service citizens of this country who are entitled to quality service of this kind.
You are aware that in Quebec as in Canada, there are regions that, without air transport, will not even be in a position to prepare regional development plans. Their regional economic development will fall to the wayside because there will not be frequent enough flights to attract tourists from majour centres or from foreign countries. Despite all of the advantages that these regions may have thanks to nature, for example, or historic sites, they will not be able to draw upon these assets because they will have no transportation services.
When I asked the officials to table impact studies, it was not a stalling tactic. I did not want to play politics, but rather to obtain information. We cannot decide to impose a $12 to $24 charge to be added to regular fees that have already been sizeably increased over the course of the last few years, whereas in the United States, the price of a plane ticket has gone down 43% on average over the last 10 years.
Some say that this $12 to $24 charge will have no impact whatsoever. Madam Chair, I am convinced that if they have done serious work in this area, as they say they have, they should table all of their impact studies relating to the imposition of this new charge, including the assessments of its impact on the various regions of Canada.
Madam Chair, I would repeat that we could have used the surplusses that are overflowing from the Department of Finance to reinforce security. That is the responsibility of the federal government. We are all for security. The Alliance is in favour of security. The Conservatives and the NDP are in favour of improving security. This is necessary, especially since September 11, but we must not by the same token kill off regional carriers and threaten the development of certain regions of Quebec and of Canada. That makes no sense.
Madam Chair, following this vote, I will once again move my motion concerning the tabling of the impact studies and regional analyses. I hope that my colleagues will look upon it favourably, because we cannot allow ourselves to impose an additional burden of $2.5 billion on an industry that is already threatened and that has been so since September 11, without knowing what impact it might have. This is ridiculous. This is no way to manage a country. As managers of public funds, we ask companies that request subsidies from the government to table a business plan and credible projections, but we do not ask the public administration, which uses public funds and the decisions of which risk having devastating effects on various regions and on air transportation, to table credible plans, with credible projections and impact studies. This is ludicrous, Madam Chair. We cannot demand of others what we refuse to do ourselves.
The motion I will be moving shortly applies to this bill but also to all of the other decisions that are imposed upon us here without an impact study, without an analysis of the regional effects or of the sectoral effects. If we want to do our job seriously, it is our responsibility to obtain all of the information that will shed light on our choices.
 (1210)
[English]
The Chair: Yes. I'll repeat, Mr. Loubier, that we have one motion on the floor right now, and we'll continue on that.
I have Mr. Moore, Mr. Epp, Mr. Wilfert, and Mr. Brison, then we're going to the vote.
Mr. James Moore: I just wanted to reiterate that it's astonishing to me, as a new member of this House, what has happened at this committee. You have a government, after a year and a half, implementing a budget in which there are enough flaws that the government itself has to table something in the neighbourhood of 24 amendments.
On this airport and airline security tax, frankly, the member from Prince Edward Island, Shawn Murphy, was right. This airport tax is going to devastate air service to Prince Edward Island. I find it astonishing that the Liberal member comes before the committee this morning and says that he would vote for my motion, which would in essence cut this tax on travelling by 50%, lower the rates from $12 and $24 respectively down to $6 and $12. Then we go to a vote, and the government apparently has taken Mr. Murphy off this committee and substituted him with someone else.
 (1215)
It's amazing to me when you consider that this airport tax, based on the government's own documents, as I have mentioned in the House of Commons, brings in a surplus of $90 million in year one. In year four it brings in a surplus of $139 million. All of that money is going to general revenue. None of that money is dedicated directly to the authority itself, the new air security authority.
So you have one Liberal member who comes before the committee and expresses doubts and concerns about that, and then we were going to have a vote. And it's amazing to me that the government is so explicit that this government's thirst for revenues is bigger than their appetite for democracy. I think it's a disgrace.
I would encourage all members of this committee to vote for this motion and frankly to bring back some fiscal sanity to this government in the sense that there's no point in overtaxing air in this country, where people like Shawn Murphy will have to try to explain to their constituents why P.E.I. has had their air service cut back. And people are going to start wondering what this government's priorities are. Is it more money to general revenue, or is it encouraging and expanding air service in this country?
Shawn Murphy was right. I would encourage the members of this committee to join him and support this motion.
The Chair: Mr. Epp, your turn.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate that you're giving us the time to debate, that having become a necessit, since the people who are going to vote on this and make the decision were, for the most part, not present to hear the witnesses,and for the most part they weren't here during the debate, which took place before we broke to go down to the House. So I appreciate the opportunity to emphasize what has been said here, and to underline for all of the members present what the purpose of this committee is.
The purpose of this committee, like all committees, I think is to serve, first and foremost, the people of the country, and secondly to serve the government, including the finance minister, with the best possible information that we can give him. And based on what we have heard, what we have analysed ourselves, there is no doubt whatsoever that the fee of $12 and $24 is excessively high. The percentage by which it increases the airfare in some of these smaller flights will in essence become a 100% charge, because those particular services will in fact cease to exist.
We have heard witnesses, as my colleagues have indicated. I won't repeat them, but we have heard these witnesses. They came to us and they basically pleaded with us to re-examine this.
The airline industry is in a state of turmoil right now. They are struggling to recover from what was already, prior to September 11, a downturn in the economy. And they will not be able to survive if this government, by putting this excessively high fee to those lower-priced fares, basically will kill the airlines services to some places.
I don't think that the members opposite, notwithstanding why they were subbed into this committee, would like to be on record as having been the ones who engineered the demise of any meaningful competition and of service to many small communities in this country. If you vote against this amendment, that will be the result. So I urge you to support the amendment, as would have Shawn Murphy, had he stayed here. And he also indicated a proviso.
We need to make sure that this is revisited. As a committee I think it would be highly appropriate for us to report this bill back to the House with the revised fees and let the government then, as they did in a previous bill this week, put in a neutralizing amendment alongside to put it back. Let them do that in report stage. Let us debate it. Let's debate it with Canadian people and then make the best decision on behalf of Canadians, our economy, our travellers, all of our citizens. That's my plea to the members.
 (1220)
The Chair: Thank you.
We're going to the speaking order. From Mr. Epp, I have Mr. Wilfert, and then I have Mr. Brison, and then I have Mr. Nystrom.
An hon. member: Where is Shawn?
The Chair: Please. Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: First of all, I presume everyone around the table supports the notion that we need to enhance security at airports. Having said that, you worry about your side, we'll worry about our side.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Those are fighting words.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: There are a lot of editorialists on the other side, Madam Chair. We listened to them, and I'd like them to listen to us.
Clearly, the situation is that the data since September 11 are not necessarily the most reliable, given the fact that there has been a drop in airline passenger volume.
The minister has clearly indicated--and again I'll say this slowly so that everybody understands--that he is committed to review and indeed reduce in the fall, depending, obviously, on the new figures that come in, and this is not a science. If we had a low-ball figure and it turned out that was not sufficient and we had to in fact raise the fee, I'm sure my colleagues on the other side would be the first to complain about us raising it. Through a regulatory process it can be, and indeed will be, lowered based on the data that come in. There are no scientific data at the present time to base it on, other than the fact that we need to provide an enhanced level of security. With that, presumably more people will fly.
We have to buy the equipment. Through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Moore, it may be an academic argument, which we could debate between now and next week. The point is that with the model the transport department has used for years, which was accepted by the industry, the situation is such that the figures since September 11 are not necessarily the ones we can base it on.
But we have committed to the fact that come the fall, it will be reviewed, and the minister has given his word that it may be reduced based on the new figures. It's much easier, I would suggest, Madam Chair, to lower the fee than to raise it.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chair, I have a point of order. This is a very important point to me. I know that you don't control the members of the committee, but how can we possibly engage in meaningful debate when there is a musical chair thing going on there?
The Chair: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Ken Epp: It is. We now need to repeat the argument, as we now have another member whose potential vote could cause this amendment to fail.
The Chair: As you know, if people have a substitute because they have other meetings to go to, there are colleagues beside them who can fill them in. That is normal and it has been the case ever since I've been here.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Where is Shawn Murphy?
The Chair: We are moving forward. People listened to you, Mr. Epp. I would appreciate your listening to the other members.
Mr. Wilfert, please continue.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, what I'm saying is obviously falling on deaf ears. I think I put my points across, and it will be up to the members of the committee to decide.
The Chair: Our next speaker on the list is Mr. Brison.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Chairman, the parliamentary secretary just stated that the minister can change this fee in the fall. The fact is, the minister can't change this fee without Parliament. The minister does not have the power to change this fee without Parliament. I would hope the parliamentary secretary will reconsider that assertion.
One of the areas that has not been discussed is the impact on regional airports. I was glad to see Mr. Murphy return to the room, because the case he made earlier today of the impact of these fees on some of the struggling airports in Canada--like Charlottetown, like Moncton, like Sydney, in fact across Canada--would be significant. We could in fact be driving a lot of these currently unprofitable airports out of business completely.
We also need to consider the disproportionate impact on not just current competition to Air Canada, in terms of WestJet and some other fledgling competition, but also some of the competition that is trying to get in place currently. We have several companies--Royal, Canada 3000, other companies--that are trying to put in place financing now to compete with Air Canada. Clearly, at a time when there's very little meaningful competition to Air Canada, we ought not to be proceeding with a tax that disproportionately punishes both current competition to Air Canada and any potential future competition because of the fee structure being a flat poll-tax type of fee that would hurt lower-priced airlines, the very kind of competition that Canadian passengers and consumers need right now.
I would strongly support this, and would hope that other members of the committee can support this as well.
 (1225)
The Chair: Mr. Nystrom.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I just wanted to indicate my support for the amendment before the committee as well, Madam Chair.
Coming from Regina, and understanding some of the smaller communities, I think this is a very discriminatory tax against small communities. Two weeks ago, for example, I was in Thunder Bay. I was really quite struck by the opposition to this tax in Thunder Bay, of $12 for one flight and $24 for a round trip. I think the government should have brought in a more progressive tax, if they wanted to bring in a tax at all, which would be a percentage of the ticket fare, the ticket price. Therefore, it wouldn't be so discriminatory against short haul, or short-haul flights.
You also have a place like Thunder Bay, where people fly more often than they do in bigger centres because you have to fly to so many places to get out of Thunder Bay, unless you want to go for a really long drive. I agree with Mr. Murphy that this is very discriminatory against small communities. I think we should be supporting this. The finance committee should be exercising a bit more independence.
In that regard, Madam Chair, we shouldn't have musical chairs so much; we should have committee members who are permanent. I see people across the way I haven't seen for a long time; they were never on the finance committe. That really slows down the work for this committee.
Thank you.
The Chair: On my list I have Mr. Murphy and Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore, you were first, and then Mr. Murphy. Then I propose to call the question. I'm going to call the question after Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I need to clarify Mr. Brison's point with regard to my comments.
The Chair: Excuse me. I need to go on the order that I say.
Mr. James Moore: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
On CA-8, I move the following changes to my amendment--an amendment to my amendment, which is entirely in order. I move that wherever the number $2.33 is, it be changed to $5.60; wherever the number $4.67 is, it be moved to $11.21; wherever the number $2.50 is, it be moved to $6; wherever the number $5 is, it be moved up to $12.
In essence, what this does, as the majority of the committee I think expressed prior to us breaking for the vote, is it lowers the top fee in the current Bill C-49 from $24 for a round-trip air tax down to $12, and the minimum threshold it lowers from $12 for a one-way air tax down to $6.
I move that, and I trust that I have the support of the majority of the members of this committee.
The Chair: I'm just going to clarify with the clerk on this to make sure that we're clear here. What you're talking about would actually change some of the consequential amendments. There really is no change on CA-8. Those would be changes in your consequentials?
Mr. James Moore: Right, yes. Exactly. The language doesn't change. All I'm doing is replacing the numbers and scaling them.
The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Murphy and then I'm going to call the question on CA-8.
Mr. Murphy, go ahead, please.
Mr. Shawn Murphy: Madam Chairman, it's clear to everyone on this committee that I support the concept of user fees. I support the security fee. There is no question I am totally dissatisfied with some of the information that's come from the Department of Finance. I don't know if I'm right or if they're right. I have received assurances in the last half hour that the first review will take place this fall and the fee will be dropped if I'm right and they're wrong.
So having heard that, having got those commitments, I'm going to now—
An hon. member: Oh...!
The Chair: Thank you. I'm going to call the question.
Mr. Epp, you're going to go again?
Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, I'd like to.
The Chair: Okay. Please go ahead on this thing. All right, go ahead.
Mr. Ken Epp: This is not a bathroom break, then.
The Chair: I think we can be a little more respectful.
Mr. Ken Epp: I have a serious problem with that, because the parliamentary secretary sitting on this committee has said basically that they would revise it downward. However, the reality of it, dear committee members, could very well be that with the expiry of a number of small airlines, hence contributors, the money raised will be not enough. In other words, the fee at this level would still not be enough.
What we need is to send a very strong message that security is a public benefit, not just for air carriers. I've said many times, and I repeat it again because my audience is new, on September 11 most of the people who died were not on airplanes. If you want to base it on a user's fee, you should now have a user fee at the doorway entrance of every tall building, because those are the people who benefit from aircraft security.
So what we're basically looking at is that this fee not be increased, even if the revenue is not sufficient, because of the fact that it totally inhibits the resurgence of a healthy airline in this country, which is severely being challenged by this bill. So I have a problem with it and I am responding basically to what Mr. Wilfert said earlier.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
 (1230)
The Chair: Thank you.
We could go on forever. Before we call the question here, I understand that we're going to have to deal with the subamendments first before we can go to the main. So I want people to be clear--
Mr. James Moore: The amendments to six and twelve?
The Chair: Yes.
So the first subamendment is on what?
Mr. James Moore: The first thing we're going to be voting on is to lower the air tax from $24 to $12--
The Chair: Which clause, Mr. Moore, first?
Mr. James Moore: It's CA-8, is that what you're referring to?
A voice: It's clause 5.
The Chair: With the legislative clerk here, could you verify exactly how you're putting this on the table, because this is too important to have incorrectly, and we're going to make sure we've got it.
Mr. Wilfert, if I open up, we're going to be into a big Mr. Loubier and Mr. Wilfert again.
Mr. Loubier, go ahead for a minute while Mr. Moore checks the amendment number.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I want to clarify, because there was an incorrect comment made by Mr. Brison as to my statement.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Wilfert, I really would like to have Mr. Loubier go for a minute, and then I'll give you a second while Mr. Moore makes sure that his amendments and subamendments are working.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, I find that Mr. Murphy contents himself with very few arguments to be convinced that the government is on the right track.
I would remind him that his response was much clearer earlier on. He stated with much conviction that he was opposed to the levying of such a charge because in his region this might have a grave negative impact on air transportation and on service to citizens. It seems he did quite a rapid turnabout on the basis of a certain promise. I would remind him that when a charge, a tax is imposed, it is rarely eliminated or reduced down the line. I would give as an example federal income tax, which was supposed to be a temporary measure at the beginning of the war and which is still in place today. The GST was to be abolished as early as 1993, the day after the election. The GST is however still in place.
Mr. Murphy, you content yourself with very little to serve your fellow citizens and to ensure that the air transportation services that your region presently enjoys are still there next year, when the review is undertaken.
[English]
The Chair: Now, I do have the clarification. Mr. Wilfert, did you want...?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I want to clarify that under proposed subsection 12(3) it talks about the fact that the fees can be lowered through regulation, and my comment was that the Minister of Finance would recommend to the Governor in Council--which it would go through--to have the fee reduced. I just wanted to clarify that.
In any event, call the question if....
The Chair: Thank you.
We're going to be calling the question here, and our legislative counsel's here with the amendment. The question is on the subamendment by Mr. Moore.
For clarity I want you to read, Mr. Moore, your subamendment again--just the figures that you're changing.
 (1235)
Mr. James Moore: Certainly. In CA-8, CA-11, CA-14, CA-17, CA-20, CA-23, CA-24--which are all the consequential amendments--the number $2.33 is replaced by $5.60; the number $4.67 is replaced by $11.21; the number $2.50 is replaced by $6; the number $5 is replaced by $12. In impact, what it does, as I said, is lower the top rate currently in the legislation for the air tax from $24 down to $12 and lowers the bottom rate from $12 down to $6, as requested by Mr. Murphy.
An hon. member: Call it the Murphy amendment.
Mr. James Moore: The Murphy amendment, yes.
The Chair: I'm calling the question on that subamendment right now. All those in favour of the subamendment as explained by Mr.--
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: A recorded vote, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: By roll call? Okay, thank you very much.
(Subamendment negatived: yeas 9; nays 8)
The Chair: We will now go to the amendment, CA-8--
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, before we went to the House for the vote, I had obtained your agreement that following the vote I would be able to table a motion dealing with what I asked of the officials who are here. I will read the motion and ask that it be voted upon.
[English]
The Chair: We'll come to that after the vote; we're still on CA-8. We're going to CA-8 right now, and it will be consequential to all of those amendments--CA-11, CA-14, CA-17, CA-20, CA-23, and CA-24. Are we clear what we're voting on here? It's CA-8.
Okay. All those in favour of CA-8? All those opposed?
It is defeated.
An hon. member: No, I'd like a roll-call vote, Madam Chair.
The Chair:: If you want roll-call votes, I would suggest people ask for them at the beginning of the vote, not after we've taken the vote.
To be clear, you are entitled to a roll-call vote, so we will do a roll-call vote. But please ask me if you wish this before we start the vote counts.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 8)
The Chair: Mr. Loubier, you wanted to put a motion on the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I was saying, before the vote, I questioned the officials on the existence of impact studies or assessments of the sectoral or regional effects of this decision to impose such a hefty surtax, estimated at $2.5 billion. I was told of the existence of certain analyses. I do hope, Madam Chair, that such analyses exist, because one does not suggest the imposition of such a tax to the minister of Finance and to the government without relying on impact studies.
My motion reads as follows, and I will explain it afterwards, Madam Chair:
| That be tabled with the Standing Committee on Finance all of the impact studies relating to the introduction of this new air transportation charge, including the assessments of the effects in the various regions of Canada. |
I move this motion with the support of my colleague, Pauline Picard, from Drummond.
Madam Chair, it is important to recognize the effects of such a measure. All of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, with the exception of John McCallum and the officials, all of the witnesses who deal daily with the transportation, tourism or regional development sectors, came to tell us that this new charge would have a devastating effect on the development of the tourism industry and on air transportation proper, as well as on the level of regional development.
We were told that there would be a marked drop in the number of passengers who would fly. The Canadian tourism industry even mentioned a 16% reduction in the number of passengers. Billions of dollars are at play here, but the issue is also and especially that of the service offered to the people.
I do not know if you have taken the plane recently, outside of the main routes such as Ottawa-Toronto or Toronto-Vancouver. Today, Madam Chairman, when you take a plane in the regions of Quebec and of Canada, it is a real joke. Either there is no longer a link between the different regions because it did not pay enough, because of the low density of the population, or the services are reduced to one flight a day or even one a week.
We met with people in all of the regions of Quebec and of Canada who told us that the development of their region was compromised because of the absence of adequate air transportation services, the only mode that ensures an efficient link between remote regions and the major centres and that allows foreign tourists to make their way there in order to take advantage of the natural assets and tourist attractions they have to offer.
Madam Chair, it would be abnormal if there did not exist, within the Department of Finance, sectoral and regional impact studies relating to a measure considered devastating by the witnesses who have appeared before us. I would like us to set a precedent. This is why I am asking that all of the studies and all of the analyses relating to this new charge be tabled.
I was listening to the Secretary of State when he said that the data since September 11 are not reliable. Madam Chair, in such cases, do you know what is done in the field of economic analysis? A more reliable year is taken. On September 11, 2000, we had no inkling, any more than previously, of the events of September 11, 2001. We had no idea of these events for the 10 preceding years. We have an accumulation of economic and trade data that could be used to analyze the impact of such a charge.
The gentleman told me earlier that the price elasticity of the air transportation service had been analyzed. I would like him to table these analyses, because elasticity is precisely the reaction of demand, in this case in the air transportation field, to an increase in price of, say, 1%. I would like to see these impact analyses. I would also like the gentleman to tell me if there exists an analysis of all the net effects of this tax. It is all fine and dandy to go after $2.5 billion, but if there are no taxpayers left to pay this charge because there is no longer any air service in their regions, what will the net result of that be? I would very much like to see this net result. Are we going to reap $2.5 billion or are we rather going to reap additional costs attributable to the increased number of unemployed who will ask for unemployment insurance, to the compensation measures for underdevelopment that the regions will ask for, to the special aid the air transportation industry will ask of the government because of its inability to survive in such a context?
 (1240)
I would very much like to see the final impact of all of this. Between the desire to rake in $2.5 billion and reality, there must certainly be quite a difference, Madam Chair. I believe that all of us would gain in having more information, more analyses of this project, but also of others.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Loubier, it would be very helpful to the clerks if you had your notice of motion in writing so they can look at it before we go further.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I am providing it, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I will have a speakers list, as long as I am told this is in order. It's Mr. Wilfert and Mr. Kenney at this point.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I agree with Mr. Loubier. The events of September 11 were unheard of, of course, and therefore for the issues you raise we will be able to provide, hopefully, whatever relevant material will be useful to the committee.
 (1245)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: You are therefore voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: You can take that as a yes. Generally, what we would support is provided.... If you want to read out the motion, we will--
The Chair: I am just trying to get the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, I wish to be very clear. I do not want to be given all of the documents pertaining to this bill. I want the impact studies. The motion is quite clear: I want us to have the impact studies on the new charge and its effects on the regions. I know that they are capable of swamping us with everything except the real issues.
[English]
The Chair: Is this motion in order?
The clerk tells me that the motion is in order. Are you ready for the question, or did...? I had Mr. Kenney on my list.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Would the clerk like me to read it again?
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: I have a question, which I'll ask at the next clause.
The Chair: That's fine.
Would you read this so we are clear on what we are voting for?
[Translation]
The Clerk: Mr. Loubier's motion would read as follows:
| That be tabled with the Standing Committee on Finance all of the impact studies relating to the introduction of this new air transportation charge imposed, including the assessment of its effects in the various regions of Canada. |
[English]
The Chair: Do we have any more discussion on this before I call the question? No further discussion is seen then.
Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen: To the parliamentary secretary, I'm wondering if what is being requested is available. Are we dealing with reality here, or something that--
Mr. Yvan Loubier: If it is not available we have a serious problem.
The Chair: Mr. Cullen, is this a question to the--
Mr. Roy Cullen: It's through you, Madam Chair, and maybe the parliamentary secretary could expand and the officials could respond. To ask for this information if it's not available seems counterproductive.
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, or Mr. Dupont. I'm in your hands.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I had indicated, Madam Chair, that whatever relevant document we could provide, we would. However, just so there will be no question, through you to Mr. Dupont, can you outline the nature of the types of documents we would be able to provide to the committee?
The Chair: Mr. Dupont.
Mr. Serge Dupont: Madam Chair, I would like basically to provide an element of background as to the situation we faced in the Department of Finance in the context of the preparation of the budget. We were dealing with the overall security situation as emerged from the September 11 events, understanding and observing very sharp declines in activity in the kinds of sectors the honourable member is referring to, in which there were very dramatic impacts because of the preoccupation over security.There was a necessity to address those impacts through a security effort, including an air security effort, and having established that, a decision had to be made by the government as to the funding of that effort. In the case of air security, it was to be funded through an air charge.
If the honourable member is asking for extensive studies, I will be honest with this committee, those studies have not been done, for the simple reason that we are in a position where the events were unprecedented, the situation was unprecedented, and the government moved to address a situation. We will be able to provide, and I think we have been trying to provide, the committee with the rationale for the security charge, for the security effort, and we will support that with whatever elements of information we have with regard to the economic effects.
The Chair: Mr. Loubier had the floor first.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, what we just heard is extremely serious. Mr. Dupont just told us that the government made blindly the decision to impose an extraordinary charge that will dramatically impact the airline sector, a charge that experts who have been working in this area for years, who deal day to day with air transportation, tourism and regional development, have described as exorbitant, and we just heard from the other side of the table that there has been no analysis made of the impact of this charge, no impact study on the imposition of such a tax. This means that, because of the preoccupation with security, the decision was made blindly to impose whatever level of charge, without any thought.
Do you know what this means, Madam Chair? It means that these are decisions made in a panic. It means that it is not a considered decision, a rational decision. If the government manages all its business in this way, Madam Chair, it is horrifying. It is truly scandalous.
This cannot continue and no one can claim that a charge worth 2.5 billion dollars on air transportation will have no impact. No one can say that this charge will have no effect on small communities when there is a danger to devastate whole regions. Madam Chair, people who are supposed to be professionals candidly confess that there have been no impact studies done, no analysis of the consequences of such a tax.
This is shameful, Madam Chair, and you can be sure we will denounce it.
 (1250)
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Loubier is followed by Mr. Wilfert, and then Mr. Moore and Mr. Kenney.
I remind this committee that we have a number of clauses to get through. We agreed the other day how we would do this, and we are going to go through this.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Again I indicate, Madam Chair, relevant documents will in fact be presented to the committee. Now, if, in fact—
Mr. Monte Solberg: Which one?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Why don't you wait until....
Well, it's not a debatable point. It's very clear. We will bring the relevant documents. It will be up to the committee to decide, I presume, whether or not you think they are sufficient. But the fact is we will undertake to provide whatever information and documentation the committee needs. If you're asking for things that don't exist, obviously you're not going to get them.
The Chair: Mr. Dupont, did you have something you wanted to add there?
Mr. Serge Dupont: I want to make clear, Madam Chair, that I did not say there was no analysis. This is what I said, I believe, and if not, I stand to be corrected for the record.
[Translation]
What I said, Mr. Loubier, with all due respect, is that if people expect studies of 20, 30 or 40 pages on the sectoral or regional effects, they cannot be made available to the committee because...
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, I have a sub-question. How can you assert, to the face of members of Parliament and the public, that imposing a 2.5 billion dollars burden will have no impact if you have not done any serious studies in this respect?
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Dupont, you have the floor. Please go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Dupont: Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe neither the Secretary of State nor myself have stated before this committee that a price increase linked to the air security charge will have no impact. I confessed earlier, Sir, that elasticity estimates are available.
What I mentioned, and what the Secretary of State also mentioned, I believe, was that with respect to the global impact on demand, one needs to take into account not only the effect of the charge itself, but also the effect of those security measures put into place in order to reassure travellers about the security of air travel in Canada.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: But you just told me that you have not done these analyses, despite all the wonderful techniques you brag about. You seem to master economic analysis, but you confess candidly that you have not done any, even though you could have. Mr. McCallum said before this committee that our questions are not relevant and that the impact is quite insignificant. His answer was that the economic impact would be insignificant, although he did not have any study on which to base this assertion. He presented this as being such a certainty, Madam Chair, that we believed there were a ton of studies done, lots of impact analyses, but you just told me that they do not exist. I am flabbergasted.
I worked in the public service years ago. When the government wanted to change its grain transportation policy out West and when the Crow's Nest Agreement was signed, we had 4000 pages of studies on the effect of the changes. Here, we are dealing with a major change in the availability of services in various regions of Canada and we do not have a single line of impact study of this measure that everyone views as devastating.
 (1255)
[English]
The Chair: Okay, Mr. Moore.
Mr. James Moore: I just want to understand clearly, because it seems to me that a couple of moments ago you said something that contradicted what you said a couple of seconds ago. So I'm going to ask you a very clear question. You said, in response to a question from Mr. Loubier, that those studies have not been done. The Minister of Finance came up with a number of $24 as a maximum for round-trip air security fee. After the number $24 was proposed, was an impact study done on what the $24 would do to the industry? Yes or no?
Mr. Serge Dupont: There has been analysis. There has been consideration of facts. What I am trying to say is that if one asks for a study--a 20 to 30 page document that lays out impacts across different regions, across sectors, and so forth--
Mr. James Moore: That's not what I asked. What I asked, Mr. Dupont, was, on the $24 figure, was an impact study done? Yes or no? Any impact study of any kind.
Mr. Serge Dupont: I'm saying it was considered in regard to the facts that were available to us--
Mr. James Moore: Is that a yes or a no? It's a yes or no question.
The Chair: Let Mr. Dupont answer the question please.
Mr. James Moore: He can say yes or no and then expand, but it's a yes or no question--either it was done or it wasn't.
The Chair: Mr. Moore, please let the witness answer.
Mr. Serge Dupont: Was there some analysis done? There was certainly consideration of the facts at our disposal in arriving at the fee of $24.
The Chair: Mr. Solberg, I understand you need to intervene here, and Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Obviously the issue here isn't whether or not security should have been increased. The issue is whether or not providing security as a core service of government should be funded out of the general revenues.
When the government made the decision to go with $12 and $24, I find it unbelievable that the department wouldn't at least use modelling premised on conditions before September 11 to get a rough idea at least of the impact this would have on the airline industry, for instance. Was there never any consideration given to using the pre-September 11 conditions to model the effects of this tax? Perhaps it would give you at least a worst-case scenario of the impact.
Mr. Serge Dupont: Thank you, Madam Chair.
What I'm saying is that consideration had to be given not only to the impact of the charge, but also to the impact of the added security benefit. The charge is there to be the equivalent of a cost that is going to be incurred by the Government of Canada in providing the necessary security to operate the air transportation system in Canada. It is a real cost of doing business. That cost was then brought to a number of chargeable emplanements to come to a charge of $12. This therefore again is akin to the real cost for the travelling public and would be a general proposition that users should bear the cost of a service when they are using that service. The market should essentially reflect demand and supply on the basis of actual costs.
Mr. Monte Solberg: So you're making an argument for user fees for security services.
Mr. Serge Dupont: Correct.
Mr. Monte Solberg: So by extension, are you arguing that this should apply to all security services in the country?
Mr. Serge Dupont: I'm saying that in the context of the $7.7 billion security package set out in the budget, the portion most readily identifiable to a particular public, a particular segment of the population, was the air travellers security package, and that is what is funded by security charges in the budget.
· (1300)
Mr. Monte Solberg: Well, I just want to be clear. You're not analysing policy. You seem to be making an argument for the concept of a user fee for security services. In other words, you've taken a philosophical point of view on this.
The Chair: Can I just intervene here? We're getting very close to the line where we have civil servants before us and there are policy decisions here. I think our civil servants have answered this question a number times now over the last couple of days.
Mr. Solberg, did you want anything further before I go on to Mr. Kenney?
Mr. Monte Solberg: I'll defer.
The Chair: Okay. Mr. Kenney and then Mr. Wilfert, and then I'd like to call the question.
I'm conscious that most of us would like to go to question period in an hour and we're still trying to get to the vote for Mr. Loubier's motion.
Mr. Kenney, do you have something different to add to this conversation?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, I do have a number of different questions, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, my motion...
[English]
The Chair: We're still on your motion, Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I'm on the speaking list for your motion, Yvan. I have a number of questions different from those that have been asked.
Perhaps part of the problem we're having here getting clarity is that these questions have all been directed to the officials here from the Department of Finance. Mr. Elliott and Mr. Pigeon are here from the Department of Transport, which is responsible for airline policy. I don't think anyone on the committee has asked the.... I requested that we have the Minister of Transport come before us, and for whatever reason it didn't occur. So perhaps Mr. Elliott and Mr. Pigeon could tell me whether or not the Department of Transport has completed any analyses or studies estimating the potential impact of the proposed security charge on airline passenger loads or the airline industry in Canada.
Mr. William Elliott: Madam Chair, perhaps before I answer the question I might clarify that Mr. Pigeon is from the Department of Justice. He is counsel to the department.
The answer to the honorable member's question is that no such studies were conducted by Transport Canada, to my knowledge.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I apologize. Mr. Pigeon was listed as a Department of Transport official here on the—
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, please go ahead.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: The point of order is that the appropriate officials were before this committee and everyone on the committee had an opportunity to ask them relevant questions.
The opposition seems to be prejudging what documentation is going to be presented, which is the undertaking I have given before the committee. Why don't you, with all due respect, wait until you see the documentation that arrives? If in fact you are unhappy with what arrives, that's fine.
With all due respect, Madam Chair, the officials have been before us; there was an opportunity for questioning. This is not clarification; this is now reviewing and going over again, and I would suggest to you that we call the question. I have indicated that we will provide the documentation.
The Chair: I agree that we're going to call the question. Before I start--
Mr. Jason Kenney: I think I still have the floor, Madam Chair.
The Chair: You have another question, because we--
Mr. Jason Kenney: I said I had a couple of questions. One of them was for Mr. Wilfert, relative to the point he just made.
The Chair: Excuse me for a second. As chair, I insist that we are not going to question other members across from us.
We have some witnesses here, and we may ask whatever questions we have of them. But we have a motion before us that we would like to either vote on, or if there are other issues.... But you're not questioning across the aisle.
Mr. Jason Kenney: All right, that's fine. There has been a precedent for that. I'll respect your ruling, and I'll just ask a rhetorical question, which someone across may choose to respond to on debate.
This is the question. When would the government anticipate tabling such data? Could it not be tabled at the House so that it could be included for consideration in debate at report stage rather than tabling it at this committee after the bill has been discharged from the House, which wouldn't be very useful?
I'll leave that comment for potential response from the floor and just turn back to the officials for one other technical question. This question arises from testimony provided to us by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce at page 2 of their submission, in which they say: “A one percent increase in the overall price of an airline ticket represents a one percent decrease in number of passengers flying”. They footnote this estimate; they attribute it to the Air Transport Association of Canada.
The Chamber goes on to say, “In 1999, the average domestic one-way ticket price before taxes was $209”. They draw this number from Statistics Canada. “The one-way cost of the Air Travellers Security Charge of $12 represents almost six percent of the average price of a one-way domestic ticket sold in Canada in 1999. If a one percent increase in ticket prices represents a one percent decrease in passenger travel, then an average Air Travellers Security Charge of six percent will have a significant negative effect in terms of the number of air passengers.
My question, based on this, is to either finance or transport officials. We've been talking here about elasticities and estimates related thereto. Do the officials here believe this estimate offered by the Canadian Chamber and the Air Transport Association of Canada, that a one percent increase in the cost of a ticket results in a one percent decrease in passenger loads? Does the evidence they have, and which they may table here or in the House through their minister, corroborate these estimates?
· (1305)
The Chair: Mr. Dupont, and then we're going to move to the question, because we have one motion on the floor right now, not an amended motion. Let's go.
Mr. Serge Dupont: I mentioned, I believe it was Friday, in an answer to a similar question, that the range of estimates for what is called elasticities of demand are consistent with the types of ranges provided by the Chamber of Commerce. I also indicated that these elasticities of demand are calculated taking everything else equally. That is what an elasticity is.
In other words, if the government had done nothing else but to impose an additional charge on the industry, then those kinds of elasticities could be a guide to what would happen. But the government did two things: it provided the enhanced security benefit--$2.2 billion going into the industry--and a charge of $2.2 billion to be paid by travellers of that industry. The elasticity would not be a guide to what would be the net impact on demand in those circumstances.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We are going to go to the question right now. The question is on the motion on the floor, which is Mr. Loubier's motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Just a small point of clarification, Madam Chair. I do not mind calling the question on my motion, I am willing to vote as well as my colleagues, but we were just told there is no impact study. I am going to vote to see what will be tabled. It will be irrefutable proof of the fact that a major decision such as this was made without any analyses. Therefore, let us vote, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Is everybody clear on the motion?
(Motion negatived)
Mr. Mac Harb: For a silly motion, we say no.
The Chair: You have a point of order, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: I would like the clerk to simply confirm that the members of the Liberal Party who voted on this motion are all properly signed in.
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.
The Chair: We are moving to G-3 now. It is on pages 15 to 18 of your package.
May I have a mover for G-3, please? Mr. Wilfert, thank you very much.
On G-3, Mr. Epp, please.
Mr. Ken Epp: Again, Madam Chair, the members of the committee sitting here to some extent have not had the benefit of listening to the different witnesses. I guess I would like to know the full impact of this particular amendment and why it is here. Perhaps the officials could start. Then I have a question, after what I think I'm going to hear.
The Chair: Certainly.
Could I have an official respond?
Marlene Legare, please.
· (1310)
Ms. Marlene Legare (Director, Sales Tax Division, Department of Finance): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd be happy to explain this particular motion.
I'll begin by clarifying that motions G-3 through G-7 represent technical clarifications to the wording of the legislation. They do not reflect changes in the policy objective underlying the provisions.
Motion G-3 amends the definition of chargeable emplanement, which is contained within the Air Travellers Security Charge Act. The charge is imposed in respect of an air transportation service that includes at least one chargeable emplanement. That's the relevance of the definition.
There are two clarifications of wording that this motion seeks to achieve. In the first instance, in general, connecting flights are excluded from the definition of a chargeable emplanement. However, there is no need to exclude connecting flights in the case of travel that is acquired outside of Canada, because in that circumstance the only chargeable emplanements that are subject to the charge are those departing Canada. So the exclusion for connecting flights is not relevant in that particular case, and that is why the first wording change is to specify that this exclusion is in the case of air transportation service acquired in Canada.
The second clarification in paragraph 5(c) ensures that if there are consecutive connecting flights, all of them are excluded in the circumstances where connecting flights are excluded, and not just the first of those. So if you go from point A and connect through points B and C to point D, both the B and C connecting flights are not included as chargeable emplanements.
The Chair: Mr. Epp or Mr. Solberg, do you have further questions?
Mr. Ken Epp: The question I had was actually emphasized by the answer given. That is, what does this do to a foreign traveller, say an American, who buys a ticket in the U.S. to come here and then returns to the U.S. on just a straight one-way flight? Does the agent in the United States who sells the ticket have to collect the $12 fee that is remitted to Canada? Is that the intent of this particular change?
Ms. Marlene Legare: The motion before you does not change the substance of the way the charge applies, in that circumstance.
Mr. Ken Epp: Did I describe it correctly?
Ms. Marlene Legare: The charge does apply to service acquired outside of Canada on flights that depart from Canada. I think in your example you used a flight to the United States. So the charge would apply in respect of the flight where the emplanement was in Canada, and on the return flight.
But the amendments in front of you are not aimed at changing the imposition of the charge, insofar as that example is concerned. It has to do with a technical clarification relating to where connecting flights are involved.
The Chair: Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Monte Solberg: That's fine. I'll withdraw.
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert--or I can call the question.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Call the question. Then I have a question for you.
(Amendment G-3 agreed to)
The Chair: We're now on amendment G-4.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, can I ask for a point of clarification?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'm a bit disappointed in my colleague across the way suggesting that somehow members didn't read the transcripts. I'm not pointing fingers to say that not everyone on that side of the aisle showed up for the witnesses yesterday. With all due respect, we are supposed to be asking for clarification from the witnesses, not re-questioning them. The questioning was at the time witnesses were before us.
There is a clear difference between questioning and clarification on these amendments. But to suggest somehow--which I am not doing--that because certain members were not here they're not up to speed on the information is a disservice to your colleagues on your side.
The Chair: I would like to move to amendment G-4.
Mr. Harb, please.
· (1315)
Mr. Mac Harb: May I make a suggestion to the committee? Perhaps as a courtesy to my colleagues on the opposition side we could postpone all the government motions and deal immediately with CA-9, CA-10, and CA-11 at this point so at least there will be a chance for us to have a meaningful debate. And then we can deal with the government motions at the end of the meeting.
I will put a motion to that effect. Is that okay?
The Chair: You would need unanimous consent.
Mr. Mac Harb: Do we have unanimous consent to deal with the opposition motions ahead of the government motions?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Mac Harb: Okay.
Move on, Madam Chair.
The Chair: On amendment G-4, please, it is being moved by Mr. Wilfert. It's on page 19. Does anybody wish an explanation here?
Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: The question is just to explain what this does.
Ms. Marlene Legare: This is another clarification to the wording that is found within the definition of “chargeable emplanement”. In there is a reference to “destination”. And the purpose of this amendment, again, is not to change the results that are obtained or the definition, in substance, but rather to clarify that the reference to “destination” is a reference to the destination of the particular traveller who has received the air transportation service in question, as opposed to the termination point of any given flight.
And there is a potential for confusion there, because if a flight, let's say, is going from point A to point B to point C and the traveller's air transportation service in question is terminating at point B, that's the destination referred to here, as opposed to the termination of the entire flight. There may be other passengers who continue on that flight.
Mr. Ken Epp: So for clarity then, if a passenger were to embark, say, from Ottawa or Toronto to a small airport on an executive jet, which comes into the classification airplane-wise, would they be exempt from the security fee leaving the large airport?
Ms. Marlene Legare: By a small airport, if you mean it's an unlisted airport, the way the charge is imposed it is true that direct flights from a listed airport to an unlisted airport are not subject to the charge.
We can use that example to show what the effect of the amendment is. Suppose that this flight, Flight 101, for instance, carries on and terminates at another listed airport. That traveller's flight is directly from a listed airport to the unlisted, so that traveller would not be subject to the charge on their particular air transportation service.
Mr. Ken Epp: Very curious.
The Chair: Thank you.
I'll call the question.
Mr. Ken Epp: The logic of that, by the way, does escape me.
The Chair: Perhaps I could call the question on this, please.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: We are on amendment CA-9. Do I have a mover for amendment CA-9?
Mr. James Moore: I move it, Madam Chair.
· (1320)
The Chair: Mr. Moore moves it. That is on page 23.
Mr. James Moore: Amendment CA-9 impacts also on amendments CA-13, CA-16, CA-18, CA-21, and CA-26.
This amendment scales the $12 and $24 air tax, makes it a percentage of the fare paid by the consumer. It's the most progressive form of doing it, and it's an alternative to the current scheme of $12 and $24. And as I mentioned earlier, Madam Chair, as the only member here of the Standing Committee on Transport, I went to every single transport committee meeting where we dealt with airport and airline security. We met three times a week. We travelled all across Canada. We travelled in the United States. There was not one single witness who I can recall or who my staff have researched who said that the entire burden of this should be based on a flat-rate user fee. Not one person supported this.
So what I have attempted to do here at this committee with my previous amendment and with this amendment is offer another alternative to the members of this committee, who, if they read the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Transport, if they listened to the industry officials who have briefly come before this committee, would know that the current regime of $12 and $24 as a flat rate will devastate the air industry.
This alternative has four virtues. Number one, it's easy to calculate and it's transparent. Number two, it avoids refund problems when several tickets are combined for an itinerary. Number three, it does not discriminate between airlines or routes. And number four, it has a similar impact on fares across routes and services of class levels. It's a progressive tax.
For those who raised the concerns on my previous amendment about the revenue neutrality of it, we have run the numbers. Contrary to this government, we have actually done an impact assessment on the revenue. What this amendment proposes is a 2% security fee on the cost of a ticket, and that brings the revenue in to be revenue neutral with the government's current projections.
As the official opposition, we've sweetened the pot, in a sense, for government members to try to consider doing something alternative that will protect smaller airlines, smaller communities. WestJet themselves have said that their profit margin per flight is four passengers. Think of smaller communities, places like Thompson, places in the north, places like Medicine Hat, Grande Prairie, Fort St. John, and the impact of losing four passengers because you're charging a family of four $100 in airport security fees. What this tries to do is scale it, make it more reasonable, and offer a clear alternative that will not have the devastating impact on the air industry that the current program of the government will have.
The Chair: Okay, I have called the question.
Mr. Jason Kenney: No, I had my hand up to speak.
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to endorse my colleague's motion, partly for reasons that I've already discussed with respect to the fact that all of the testimony--not some of it, not most of it, not all of it with exceptions, but all of the testimony--from all of the witnesses we heard here, with the exception of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, was vehemently opposed to the fee as currently structured in the legislation, which this motion would change. A number of the witnesses specifically spoke in favour of this motion. In fact, this motion has been in part drafted upon the suggestion of witnesses such as the Air Transport Association and WestJet.
My colleagues made some interesting points, but there's one I'd really like to emphasize. Perhaps members of the committee who don't live in far-flung regions of the country may not fully appreciate how sensitive to price some of the smaller airport services are. In particular, what we heard from witness after witness--I think we should go back and look at the testimony of Mr. Hill from WestJet--is that virtually the only proven model for profitability in the airline industry is short-haul, low-cost air travel. That's the principal reason WestJet is the only profitable airline in Canada.
WestJet, for instance, has made it very plain that this is a discriminatory and prejudicial tax on short-haul, low-cost operators, because their passengers are very marginal. If there is a 20% increase in the ticket price, which will be inevitable on some of their routes with this $24 tax, people will opt to drive or not go at all, as opposed to taking their airline. If they, as the Chamber of Commerce suggests, lose 6% of their business with a 6% increase in the ticket price, our only profitable airline will, before we know it, become unprofitable, and before we know it, go out of business.
You know, it's very instructive that Air Canada has been quite mute on this. I think it finally sent in a submission that said this should be paid out of general revenues. But by and large, Air Canada seems to be, shall we say, far less vigorous in its opposition to this than the smaller, more low-cost airlines. We can draw a very clear inference from this.
What we are doing is loading the decks against the only emerging successful competitive airline in the country. Perhaps the members of the committee don't understand the impact of this. If you were to buy a business class ticket from Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland, the fare is probably--I don't know--$4,500, on which there will be a round-trip security charge of $24. But if you buy a WestJet ticket to go from Kelowna to Vancouver, or Grande Prairie to Edmonton, or Vancouver to Victoria, you're looking at a charge of $24 on a $100 ticket.
I thought members opposite were in favour of the idea of progressivity. The idea that you have imposed the same tax burden on someone who can afford a $4,500 ticket and someone who can afford a $100 ticket is so out of proportion that, quite frankly, it's bizarre.
Again, this is not offered as a partisan motion, although my party feels strongly about it. It's been suggested by virtually all of the witnesses who have appeared before us. So I ask the members opposite to listen to the testimony, to consider the impact, and to ask themselves whether they really want this country to have one unprofitable monopoly airline, which is where we're headed in terms of this bill if this motion fails.
The government says it may consider this six months down the road, and this was apparently the.... You know, I have to say to Mr. Murphy, that was hardly securing a commitment on his part, because it was already a commitment that had been made.
I want to quote from ATAC's submission to this committee:
“The problem with this model is how will you ever know what the real cost for this agency needs to be? If you ask the officials who--”
· (1325)
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, this is a point of order. This is debate, not clarification. We've been down this road.
Mr. Jason Kenney: This is debate on a motion. It's debate on motion.
Madam Chair, maybe the parliamentary secretary is not familiar with how committees operate. This is debate on a motion, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Excuse me, order.
The chair understands this is a debate on motion and there is a motion on the floor. I do recall our conversation last Thursday of how we would deal with this bill, and I am hopeful that we keep it in mind. But at the same time, we are moving quite rapidly towards the question period hour. You can finish off your comments on this motion and then we can go to the call of this question.
Thank you.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I was about to wrap up. I was just quoting testimony.
In terms of last week, the understanding was that the opposition would be as cooperative as the government is in allowing this committee to function properly. We certainly did not see evidence of this earlier today.
What we're trying to do here is a thorough review of this legislation. That's what we're interested in. If people opposite want to see a filibuster, we can offer one. This is not a filibuster.
But to finish my quote from the official at ATAC, Mr. Clifford Mackay said:
“The problem with the model we have is how will you ever know what the real cost for this agency needs to be? If you ask the officials who are going to run the agency, it's unlikely--and I spent 20 years as a senior government official--that you will get the response, ‘No, reduce our revenues because we don't need any more money’. I'm not saying this to be derogatory to federal public servants. Frankly, they try to do their job. But it's not a normal occurrence around this town.”
What he is saying, a 20-year senior official, I think at Transport Canada, is that a six-month review to lower a tax.... Give me a break, Madam Chair--it's not going to happen. Mr. Murphy knows this as well as anyone, as well as Mr. Mackay does. The expenditures will expand to fit the revenue allowed for them and then some.
Madam Chair, in the interest of airline competition and economic growth--in effect, one of the witnesses estimated that there would be a decline in tax revenues--as a result of the negative economic consequences of this, I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this motion.
The Chair: Thank you.
I will call the question unless.... Okay, Mr. Nystrom.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'll be very brief.
I just want to say I support the motion. The amendment before the committee is a very progressive one. In my own province, in places like Prince Albert or La Ronge, those small airports and the small airlines, with tickets of under $100 apiece, this is very big tax on those folks. They'll go by bus or by car, or they may not go at all.
Mr. Ken Epp: That's right.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It's going to kill those airlines, and it's going to discriminate against those towns and against those smaller cities. I hope the people across the way would realize that.
I have to point out, also, the irony, Madam Chair--and I say this in a very non-partisan way--that we have a government across the way that, in the election campaign of 2000, argued against the flat tax that was proposed by a certain party, and now they are for a flat tax and against progressivity. My good friends to my right, who were, one could say, arguing at that time for a flat tax, are now arguing for a progressive tax, and I'm very glad to support them in their argument for this progressive tax.
An hon. member: A single-rate tax.
· (1330)
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Nystrom.
I'm going to call the question.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair?
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, we'll never get through this if.... Okay.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'm sure Mr. Kenney did not mean to impugn either my reputation or that of the minister in suggesting that we would review it within the timeframe prescribed and that reducing the fee would in fact be optional.
Mr. Ken Epp: Would you put your job on it?
The Chair: Let us move on. I'm calling the question on amendment CA-9.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: That subsequently defeats the other ones.
We're now on amendment CA-10. Do I have a mover for that amendment, please?
Mr. James Moore: I move amendment CA-10, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Okay, thank you, Mr. Moore.
Mr. James Moore: Again, this is the official opposition trying to take another run at bringing some sanity back into tax policy.
For your information, amendment CA-10 impacts amendments CA-12, CA-15, CA-19, CA-22, and CA-25. It now scales the $24 and $12 tax and bases it on the distance, rather than a set rate. So now it's scaled, based on distance.
Essentially, this is another attempt to put on the table an alternative to the tax that nobody, not one single witness to the transportation committee, supported. Not one person from industry who came before either the finance or the transportation committee is saying they believe in a flat rate, certainly not even at this rate.
When you consider, frankly, some of the comments my colleague Mr. Kenney mentioned, as I said before, the elasticity of prices here and the impact on small carriers is astonishing. There's a reason the three dominant profit-making air carriers in the world are WestJet, Southwest, and Ryan Air from Ireland. It's because they have understood the proper business model.
The private sector is evolving to the market. Low-cost carriers are providing, with very slim margins of profit, a product that people like. And here we have the situation in Canada where the government is going to step in with a tax that will kill Canada's capacity to evolve in the air industry and have air carriers evolve in the way they have in Southwest and Ryan Air internationally. For the government to put this forward and just stonewall, as they are, amendments that would try to bring some more fiscal sense so that the government can work....
The government always talks about working in partnership with the private sector to move things forward. This tax puts a stone wall in front of the private sector and the air industry's capacity to compete and evolve in the way that other air carriers have in other jurisdictions.
I want to give an example. We ran some numbers here, some real numbers. The Edmonton-Calgary airfare is $73, and $56.48 in fees. You add the $24 security charge, and the fees and charges combined are now $80.84, bringing a $73 ticket to $153.48. The total percentage of the fare that is taxation is 52.4%. In the province of Ontario, taxes and fees on cigarettes are 56.7% of the price of a pack; because of this government, after this bill, taxes on flying would be 52.4% on that Edmonton-Calgary run.
If you had said a year ago that WestJet may drop their Edmonton-Calgary run.... I believe right now, today, daily, there are 14 flights Edmonton-Calgary. You implement this tax, and Edmonton-Calgary flights will disappear from WestJet's schedule.
An hon. member: Who said so?
Mr. James Moore: They have said so publicly, that WestJet's Edmonton-Calgary services will disappear. That was the original run on which WestJet based its business and launched into the future, and now the government is stonewalling on any kind of sane amendment. So I would encourage again....
We have offered two other alternatives--lower the fee, scale it to the United States. We've offered to make it a percentage of the fare; now we're saying base it on distance. Let's get some progressivity that the government always talks about, and let's get out of the way of the air industry and let them build and grow.
The Chair: Mr. Solberg, followed briefly by Mr. Epp.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Well, I simply want to point out that the country is in a period of economic malaise. This cannot have any other impact than to contribute to that. We just heard about Edmonton to Calgary. We're talking about tens of thousands of people over the course of the year who've been moving back and forth via WestJet. Now they'll have to either consider driving or take a more expensive flight, which will encourage a lot of them to not go at all, which slows down the pace of commerce.
It is absolutely insane to be pushing ahead with this, knowing all of these facts, knowing we're in a time of economic downturn, without any study, any sort of modelling at all to determine what the impact will be on the economy in general, and more particularly on the airline industry, and in the face of evidence from the people at WestJet that they're prepared to cancel outright certain services.
To me, it's ridiculous. I can't believe that members across the way are blind to this or at least are unwilling to listen to their own conscience on this, which I'm sure is telling them they should not be supporting it.
I'll simply make one final plea on behalf of the constituency I represent. In Medicine Hat, Alberta, this will have a hugely damaging effect on the ability of people to afford to fly from Medicine Hat, which is quite a remote community, three hours by car from Calgary, the closest centre. It will have a very damaging effect on the ability of people in Medicine Hat to travel easily outside of Medicine Hat to Calgary, or for people to come in, and that will have a big impact over the long run on the economy of that city.
· (1335)
The Chair: Mr. Epp, please.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.
I would like to point out to the members of the committee that my colleague Mr. Moore has greatly understated the case because of wrong math. I hesitate to do that to my colleague, but he has given the percentages of the fees as a percentage of the total cost of the ticket, including the taxes. And that is not how you compute a percentage.
I'm a math teacher, and I taught percentages, among other things, way back, but also went beyond that.
Normally, for example, if you buy something for $1 in a store and there's a 7% GST on it, you compute the 7% on the dollar, the value of the product, bringing the price up to $1.07. So it's 7% of the base price.
Now, he has used as his base not only the base price of the ticket but the total cost, including all of the other taxes--the GST, the $24 fee, and the transportation tax. So his math is wrong. Really, if you look at these lower-price figures, the total tax is in excess of 100% of the base price.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, I'm just speaking off the top of my head here, but if you take a number like $89 and add all of these taxes and the ticket comes up to $189, you have a tax of 120% of the base price of the ticket.
To me that is a very excessive tax on the airline industry, which is right now struggling for its very existence--and that's all of our airlines in this country. So I would like to urge the members opposite to have a press release from the Liberals today that says that the Liberals finally--in committee--voted in favour of keeping the airline industry alive in Canada by defying the orders they presumably have to reject every motion that comes from the opposition.
That's a wrong-headed reason for voting against this. The reason you should make--if I may humbly suggest--is that the amendment we're proposing is one to save the airlines, to save the industry, to save many communities, and to inject some fairness into the whole tax regime.
I've taken quite a bit of time, Madam Chairman. I thank you for that.
Please, members, think about that.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I'm going to call the question on CA-10. Be aware that this has implications on CA-12, CA-15, CA-19, CA-22, and CA-25.
(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 7).
The Chair: We're going back to clause 5. Remember it has been amended by G-3 and G-4.
On page 41 of the package on clause 5 is amendment CA-26.1. Do I have a mover?
Mr. Epp, could you please explain it?
· (1340)
Mr. Ken Epp: I'm madly searching here. This is James' motion. I'm sorry, I spoke out of order. I'll still move it, but he should speak to it.
Mr. James Moore: This amendment ensures that the amount of money collected from passengers at a single airport shall not exceed 50% of the operating budget of that airport.
We have a situation at Saskatoon's airport where the airport authority has projected, based on 2001 numbers, that the revenue from the $24 air security tax will exceed the operating budget of the entire airport for 2002. Members of the committee should know that 2001 had the worst air passenger participation rate since the commercial air industry has been keeping track of this.
To the average citizen, this is nonsensical. This is an effort to give some carrots to the government, to bring you somewhere to the middle, and give you an opportunity to put in practice the progressiveness the government likes to express, by not taxing and hammering small regional rural airports in this country, where the revenue of this tax will far exceed the benefits of it, so let's scale it.
To have the revenue from this exceed the operating budget, as in Saskatoon, is frankly not defensible. You have small airports in smaller cities that are trying to grow. They want to have more air service coming in, more people visiting them in peak times of the year for the travel industry. And this government is going to tax them.
Again, just to summarize, this amendment makes it so the tax collected shall not exceed 50% of the airport's operating budget.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, before you do that, can we deal with government amendments 5, 6, and 7, in order to close this off? They're technical.
The Chair: We have motion CA-26.1 on the floor right now, and the government amendments are--
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'm saying before you go back to clause 5--just so you know.
Okay, we'll vote on this. I just wanted to alert you.
The Chair: Yes, I realize there are more amendments on the next page. I'm sorry.
We are calling the vote on CA-26.1.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: yeas 7; nays 9--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We now go to G-5, which you'll find on page 42. Do you have a mover, please?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I move it.
The Chair: There are some explanatory notes. They're on page 44 and 45 of your package. I'll give you a quick minute to look at that.
· (1345)
Ms. Marlene Legare: Madam Chair.
The Chair: Yes, Ms. Legare, would you like to go over those, please?
Ms. Marlene Legare: I could. I also want to point out that motions G-5 and G-7 are related.
The Chair: Motions G-5 and G-7.
Ms. Marlene Legare: Yes. They are consequential, related motions, and if you wish, I could explain them both at the same time.
The Chair: Go ahead, you have the floor right now.
Ms. Marlene Legare: These amendments deal with administrative provisions of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, in particular those that ensure there is interest charged on overdue or late payments owing under the act. These provisions have been structured to parallel those that already exist for purposes of the GST under the Excise Tax Act. The intention was to put in a similar structure for ease of administration.
The clarifications are to ensure that these provisions operate properly. The interest structure is such that it has two components. One component is a prescribed rate that is the average of treasury bill rates, and the second component is a fixed 6% per annum. They are provided for under different sections of the legislation. They are intended to operate side by side. This motion ensures that we don't have a double counting, essentially, of the compounding under one of those components of the other provision.
The Chair: Mr. Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, we have about eight minutes left before question period. It is getting tight.
[English]
Is there no question period this afternoon? We have eight minutes to go to the House of Commons.
The Chair: Yes, I have all of the committee here. I propose that we finish this clause and then move on. I think we have enough time. I know it's getting close, but people wish to speak and I have allowed them to speak. But you have to have in mind what the rest of the scheduled days are. We're going to continue today and get through this bill. We have the room for the rest of the day.
So I'll call the question.
Mr. Epp, do you want to talk?
Mr. Ken Epp: The question of debate.
The Chair: Debate is yours, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you. I appreciate again the opportunity.
I want to put this on the record, Madam Chair. I'm becoming very disillusioned with this committee having rejected every opportunity to try to save the local airlines in this country. Now this government has come up with a proposal that says if they're down, kick them to make sure they die. And that's what this does.
This amendment ensures that compound interest daily is going to be charged against the airlines, which are required to collect this tax, and which, because of a cash crunch that will be brought on by this government, will be unable to pay. Now you're going to make sure that they pay interest compounded daily. You might as well be a credit card company, if this is the way you're going to do it.
I have this on record, Madam Chair. I am very distressed that at every stage we're having these things.
I know this amendment will pass because it says G on it; therefore it will pass. The only thing that passes here is the stuff that's negative for the airline industry. All of the motions we've had that would help the airline industry at a time when they're desperately struggling, every one of those has been defeated.
Thank you.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question on amendment G-5. Be aware that amendment G-7 is consequential, so if you pass amendment G-5, amendment G-7 will pass also.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: We now go to amendment G-6. I am proposing that we finish here at 1:55 and then return after question period. That only gives us another five minutes, so govern yourselves accordingly.
Do I have a mover for amendment G-6? Yes. Go ahead, please. Amendment G-6 is on pages 46 and 47 and there's an explanation on pages 48 and 49.
Ms. Legare, did you want to address this?
· (1350)
Ms. Marlene Legare: I could do that, Madam Chair.
This deals with a provision in the legislation that ensures that if a passenger has paid the charge in error or has overpaid the charge, an air carrier can refund the amount. Provided the air carrier issues the appropriate documentation and evidence that the credit has been given to the passenger, they in turn would be entitled to deduct that from the amount they would have to remit to the government in their collections.
This ensures that the information that is asked to be provided on that documentation is such that it could be prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue in his administration of the act, which is consistent with the general provisions that require information to be provided on forms. It is customary for that to be prescribed by the minister.
The Chair: Mr. Nystrom.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: We've heard the technical explanation of this government amendment. I wonder if Mr. Harb can give me the layman's explanation as to why I should support this.
Mr. Mac Harb: That is a most inappropriate question, Madam Chair.
You presume I'm the expert in the field.
The Chair: We're not questioning members across the floor. Did you need some further explanation?
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Only if Mr. Harb is prepared to do it—
The Chair: Okay, fine. I will call the question.
Mr. Epp, go ahead.
Mr. Ken Epp: I need further clarification from the witnesses here. Right now it states that if a carrier refunds money--and they shall do that within two years after the day it was collected--it must issue to the person a document containing prescribed information. Why would that not be done at the time the refund was given? It says within two days...the amount was collected...shall issue a document. Do those not tie together, and should they not be tied together in the legislation?
Ms. Marlene Legare: Mr. Epp, ordinarily I would imagine that the carrier would issue that documentation, as you say, immediately upon granting the credit to the customer. The provision is there to provide for the possibility that they have within two years of the transaction taking place to do that. So it's a period during which if it is not known until such later time that there was this error made, they have the opportunity within that period of time to make the adjustment.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, so we're talking about air travellers who have paid an excessive fee for what reason? Why would they do that?
Ms. Marlene Legare: There may have been an error in having been charged the fee in the first place, for example. Suppose they had purchased it through a travel agent who had made an error and charged the fee when for example it was not chargeable because the flight was to an unlisted airport. So that type of error could give rise to this sort of refund situation.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I'd like to finish at five to two, so did you have a further quick question?
· (1355)
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, I'm beat into submission.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Epp. I'll call the question on amendment G-6.
(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: There are six amendments left, two of which are consequential, before we can go further. Actually, we have done a lot more today than it appears, because of the consequential amendments.
We'll return here at 3:30 to continue this meeting. Thank you very much.
We'll adjourn so we can go to question period.
· (1356)
¹ (1537)
The Chair: We resume where we left off. I believe we are at CA-27. This is on page 50 of your materials. Are you moving it, Mr. Epp?
Mr. Ken Epp: I did. I put my hand up for that, yes.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Ken Epp: You called the amendment--
The Chair: We can hold on for a second, Mr. Epp.
¹ (1540)
Mr. Ken Epp: My mother taught me not to talk with my mouth full.
The Chair: I'll wait a second, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: I would again like to begin by urging the committee members to support this amendment, which has sort of become a joke in this committee. But I shall do my thing anyway and let the members decide, and I know they will.
This motion, not beginning with a G, is not supportable; I know you are aware of that. But I would like to suggest that since the Liberal Party ran on a platform of, among other things, transparency and accountability, I would like to urge you very seriously to consider this, because in this particular amendment what we're asking is that notices of objection that have been filed should actually be published in the Canada Gazette in order to inform the people, inform the citizens.
I would like to urge you to support this motion. I know you won't, but I'm going to urge you to anyway.
The Chair: I call the question on CA-27.
Mr. Ken Epp: Is this a voice vote?
The Chair: Unless you are calling.... Yes.
Mr. Ken Epp: A voice vote.
The Chair: Yes.
(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: G-7 has already been taken care of as consequential to an earlier vote. We are now at CA-28 on page 55. I believe there's a consequential to CA-31.
Mr. Epp, if you're moving this, if you'll just confirm that—
Mr. Ken Epp: I will confirm that I am moving this amendment.
When my colleagues were here we did a tag team on these and it was a little easier to organize. Here, we are suggesting that on page 70, line 7 should be deleted. The reason for that is the deletion of an airport that is smaller than other airports that are on the list. It is line 7 on page 70, so it's—
The Chair: Perhaps I can assist you, because my notes actually show there is no consequential on this one. CA-28 is a stand-alone.
Mr. Ken Epp: It is a stand-alone, yes.
The Chair: So there's no consequential here.
Mr. Ken Epp: I need some help here. What is the scoop on this one? On page 70, line 7, the airport at Kuujjuaq.... If you can pronounce that, you go ahead; I have read it into the record one letter at a time. As I explained, it removes from this list of airports that are in the list...it removes one that is actually smaller than other airports that are not on the list.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Ken Epp: So this would be to delete the little airport. You can support this one. There's no great political ramification in this, other than to make one little community happy. You've given up on the big picture, but let's do this one community.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question on amendment CA-28. We'll do it by a show of hands.
(Amendment negatived)
Mr. Ken Epp: That was close.
The Chair: We'll move to amendment CA-29, on page 56 of your package.
Mr. Epp, are you moving this motion?
Mr. Ken Epp: I move this motion. It deletes line 12. Lourdes-de Blanc-Sablon is the name of the airport that is to be deleted for the same reason. It is a smaller airport than other airports that are not on the list.
It doesn't make sense, ladies and gentlemen, to have airports on the list that are large, and then have a gap of some that aren't on the list. If you listed them all from large to small, and then to have a gap with some not on the list, and then take the smaller one and once again put it on the list.... So, again, I'm speaking in defence of a small community and asking that this airport be deleted from the list.
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: For this particular one and others to follow, maybe I could give some rationale. Essentially, pre-board screening practices are currently employed at airports that Mr. Epp is going to be listing, and without pre-board screening at those airports, I'm sure we could all understand that a passenger who's getting a connecting flight would then have to deplane, claim his or her luggage, and go through the process.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chair, I want to respond to that.
This is a very important point, folks. This list is not the list of airports that have security; this is a list of airports to which the fees apply and which airports are at risk with these proportionately huge airport fees. It doesn't say that the security will cease to exist here; it simply says the airport won't cease to exist because you're going to kill it with this tax.
The Chair: I'll call the question on amendment CA-29.
Mr. Ken Epp: That carried, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Order, please.
Okay, it's carried. Thank you.
We'll move to amendment CA-30.
Oh, sorry, did I misspeak? Amendment CA-29 was defeated.
(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)
¹ (1545)
Mr. Ken Epp: Well, I counted the hands, Madam Chair. We're going through this again. I think there were four Liberals who sleepily put up their hands on the other side, and we have, on this side, four members who voted against it.
The Chair: Mr. Epp, I simply misspoke. It was defeated.
Mr. Ken Epp: So you misspoke when you said it was carried?
The Chair: Yes, I did.
Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, you see, the reason I didn't object is because you correctly called it, and now I'm objecting because you're changing your mind after the vote has been taken and declared.
The Chair: No, I just misspoke, Mr. Epp, and I think you know that.
Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, boy, you're pushing it, Sue.
The Chair: It's not me. I think our clerk can verify the vote.
Mr. Ken Epp: Well, I wouldn't put him into that embarrassing situation.
The Chair: On amendment CA-30—
Mr. Ken Epp: I move that.
The Chair: Okay, shall I call--
Mr. Ken Epp: Just a minute. There's problem here. We're deleting line 27, which is Miramichi. I wonder whether anybody from Atlantic Canada might want to speak in favour of delisting the airport at Miramichi and thereby try to save it from going down the tube.
Mr. Scott Brison: If I may, Madam Chair....
The Chair: Yes, certainly, Mr. Brison. Go ahead.
Mr. Scott Brison: The fact is, I would be strongly supportive of taking Miramichi off this list, as I would of any of these smaller community airports that are now in such dire straits. I don't know whether all members of this committee, particularly the freshly minted members of this committee, are aware of the number of airports in Canada that are actually losing money now and are fighting for survival. The Miramichi airport in Mr. LeBlanc's riding would be one of those airports.
In his absence, I would strongly suggest to all committee members that they ought to defend the interest of.... To my Liberal colleagues, I suggest that they ought to consider very strongly the constituency interests of Mr. LeBlanc in this case and strongly support this amendment to protect this weak and struggling airport.
The Chair: Mr. Kenney, go ahead, please.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you. By deleting line 27 on page 70, this amendment seeks to exempt an airport that's no longer receiving scheduled flights. I can't imagine why any airport that does not receive scheduled flights would not be exempted, but that is a possibility under the bill, as currently drafted.
It seems to me a prima facie sensible motion, unless the government would like to tax people for flying to airports that don't have regularly scheduled flights. I think this is probably a legislative oversight, in terms of drafting.
The Chair: Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Chair, forgive me, but maybe the officials have addressed this.
Could they provide the rationale for having an airport, like Miramichi, on the list of airports through which fees will have to be paid?
The Chair: Mr. Dupont or Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Serge Dupont: I wish to add that the rationale is a very simple one. If the airport is one where there is security screening provided at the moment, the new authority will be taking over responsibility for security functions, and if there are security enhancements planned, that all goes together. If the authority is established, takes over the responsibility for that airport, and security enhancements are provided, then that airport is on the list.
If those functions are not occurring or will not occur in the future, the airport would be taken off the list.
¹ (1550)
Mr. Monte Solberg: I'm sorry, I just need to clarify that. So there are no regularly scheduled commercial flights, but there are security services at the airport. Is that correct?
Mr. William Elliott: Perhaps I might clarify that.
On page 70 of the bill is a list of those airports where screening took place in calendar year 2001. As the honourable member has pointed out, at the moment there are no scheduled services to the Miramichi airport, so screening is not being carried out at that airport at this time.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Screening is not being carried out, but fees will be charged through that airport. Is that correct?
The Chair: Mr. Dupont.
Mr. Serge Dupont: The principle I explained to you, Mr. Solberg, is a simple one. To the extent Transport is conveying to us that there are no security services provided at that airport today, it would be consistent with the intent and spirit of this legislation that the airport be removed from the list.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Hear, hear. That's good.
Mr. Serge Dupont: That would be the only instance out of the 90 we have before us today.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Now that the officials are saying it should be removed from the list, hopefully my friends across the way will not object to the amendment we've proposed.
Mr. Ken Epp: If it is defeated, let's hope the chair actually calls the motion carried.
The Chair: Mr. Harb, please.
Mr. Mac Harb: I'd like to hear from our officials. Is it their opinion that this motion should carry and would not contravene the act? It's a very legitimate question and I'm interested in hearing their answer.
The Chair: Before you answer that, I'll go to Mr. Valeri, please.
Mr. Tony Valeri: I'm not so much interested in the opinion of the officials as to whether the amendment should carry or not as I am in the factual information.
Are you suggesting, as Mr. Solberg said, that because this particular airport does not receive scheduled flights and does not provide security services, it's meaningless to put them on this list? Yes or no.
Mr. Serge Dupont: That's what I'm saying, sir.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Thank you.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I have a question.
The Chair: Okay, Mr. Kenney, go ahead please.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you.
Yesterday at committee, Madam Chair, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association testified--and unfortunately we don't have blues for this yet, so I'm speaking from memory--that the 25 busiest airports in Canada account for I think it was 97%--
Mr. Ken Epp: It was very high.
Mr. Jason Kenney: --of passenger traffic and that the other 65-some airports listed here account for 3% of passenger traffic.
I'm wondering if Mr. Elliott, from Transport, could confirm or otherwise the veracity of that claim.
Mr. William Elliott: I can't confirm specific numbers, but certainly the vast majority of passenger traffic goes through the largest airports. The ballpark figure that the honourable member is referring to sounds as though it's correct.
The Chair: Are we ready for Mr. Wilfert?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'd like a clarification from the Transport officials. There was an oversight made here and in fact it should be removed from the list.
Mr. William Elliott: Madam Chair, the intent was to list the airport where passenger screening was being carried out. The starting point is the suggestion that it would be appropriate for the new authority to continue passenger screening where passenger screening currently takes place and that they not reduce the number of passengers or the locations in which passenger screening took place.
That was the intent when the list was assembled. As the honourable member has pointed out, in fact during the year 2001, scheduled passenger service, and therefore the screening of passengers, at Miramichi ceased.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I have a question.
The other two amendments in question, are they correct?
Mr. William Elliott: Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, Dawson Creek, and Churchill Falls all currently have passenger screening.
¹ (1555)
The Chair: Just for my information, is it likely that continuing into the future there will be no need for this airport?
Mr. William Elliott: I certainly wouldn't suggest, Madam Chair, that there was no need for the airport, but I'm not aware of any immediate or pending proposals by carriers to start or resume scheduled service at Miramichi.
I would say that over time we would expect that there will likely be changes in the patterns of scheduled service, and certainly the authority will be looking at enhancing the level of screening and the number of passengers screened in future.
The Chair: Mr. Valeri, did you have a question?
Mr. Tony Valeri: I wanted to make sure that if we take this off the list today, for reasons that I think are quite valid obviously, in future the authority has the ability to put this airport back on the list.
Mr. William Elliott: If I could clarify, Madam Chair, as I responded earlier today in a response to a question by Mr. Epp, it will be through regulation and security measures pursuant to the Aeronautics Act that screening is required.
So if passenger scheduled service were to start at Miramichi, for example, there would likely be measures put in place pursuant to the Aeronautics Act to require screening, and then it would be up to the...I'm not sure, perhaps our friend from Finance can help us. The process then, I suppose, would be to add Miramichi to the list of airports.
The Chair: Mr. Dupont, would you like to respond.
Mr. Serge Dupont: That's correct. The intention is to have the same airports where there is screening, where the authority is taking over responsibility for the screening, be on the same list that applies in the case of the charge at all times.
Ms. Marlene Legare: Madam Chair, I could clarify as well....
The Chair: Yes, Ms. Legare.
Ms. Marlene Legare: In anticipation that this was a list that could change over time, we have provided that additions to the list can be made by regulation.
The Chair: Mr. Valeri, you had a further question?
Mr. Tony Valeri: When you said additions, did you also mean deletions?
Ms. Marlene Legare: Sorry. Anything that is added by regulation can be deleted by regulation.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Thank you.
Mr. Ken Epp: Well, how about all of these that are not done by regulation then? They're in the bill.
Ms. Marlene Legare: With the airports that are listed in the schedule now...to remove an item from the schedule would require an amendment to the schedule.
Mr. Monte Solberg: If I can just follow up on that.... Sorry to belabour this, but it's important.
The Chair: I think people need to understand what we're doing here.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes. It just occurs to me that as a result of the tax, there might be a number of these that would lose service. If in fact that occurs, that would mean that at least part of the bill would have to come back for amendments in order to de-list them, or to take them off the list. Is that correct, or would it simply be a case of the government saying they're not going to enforce it?
Ms. Marlene Legare: I was referring to how technically the schedule itself would be amended. There is a provision that by regulation provides for the charge not to apply in prescribed circumstances, and that would be a way that this could be done by regulation.
The Chair: We'll call the question. Shall amendment CA-30 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: We move to amendment CA-31, on page 58.
Go ahead, Mr. Moore.
Mr. James Moore: I move amendment CA-31. It doesn't have any consequential amendments to affect any of the other CA motions. But with the momentum of that big win behind us now, Madam Chair--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: And the spirit it brings to the committee, I'm sure.
Mr. James Moore: Precisely.
This amendment deletes Dawson Creek from the list of airports that are required to have this charge implemented. I lived in Prince George for two and a half years, and I know the City of Dawson Creek very well, which is actually just a couple of hours up the road.
British Columbia is hurting badly financially. Dawson Creek is a part of the province that is trying to grow on the back of the tourist economy. Because of the softwood lumber dispute, the problems of British Columbia's economy over the past number of years, the problems of the mountain pine beetle, and all those sorts of things, Dawson Creek and northern and central British Columbia are hurting badly. The idea of putting a tax on flying to get more people into Dawson Creek, frankly, is just to pour salt on a wound of a part of British Columbia that is hurting very badly.
Based on all the arguments that were presented to the prior motion and the fact that it does qualify under the finance minister's own principle of allowing smaller airports not to have to pay this tax, I would encourage members of this committee, especially Liberal members, to allow smaller communities to grow. Don't be regressive and punish them by nailing them with taxes that will just prevent smaller communities from having the sorts of opportunities that those of us who don't come from smaller communities enjoy.
Thank you.
An hon. member: What would Andy Mitchell say about this?
The Chair: I'll call the question. Shall amendment CA-31 carry?
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: We have amendment CA-32, and that's the last one in this clause. Who is moving CA-32?
Mr. Moore.
º (1600)
Mr. James Moore: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment CA-32.
Amendment CA-32 removes Churchill Falls from the list. We had a bit of a rocky start, but we had some momentum, Madam Chair. I would encourage the members to consider the movement we had behind the Miramichi vote and for the same reasons spring Churchill Falls.
Churchill Falls has a population of 717 people. The idea of charging people who live in a village of 717 people a $24 tax because they are a major focus of terrorists.... Again, this is a small community trying to grow. Why would this government take it out on smaller communities like that with a $24 tax that is exorbitantly high? Churchill Falls does not have daily jet service. These are small planes, about the same size as my van. These are the sorts of planes that take people from Churchill Falls to bigger hubs where they can get out and visit the rest of the country.
I would encourage members of this committee to show.... As I say, Churchill Falls has 717 people. It's a small community, and the idea of hitting it with a $24 tax just seems to me to be more than excessive.
The Chair: Okay, I'm going to call the question for amendment CA-32.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: We are on clause 5.
Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: Before we leave this section, I wonder whether the government members here would be at all amenable to some motion in this committee that says that this whole list needs to be revisited, especially in light of the fact that 97% of the revenue from this tax is going to come from those large airports, and these smaller airports, many of which are on the list, should just not be here.
I would propose a motion that says before we finalize this and report it, we cut this list in half, taking the top half, in terms of size of the airport or number of passengers.
Can I do that? I can make a motion like that, can't I?
The Chair: That's a very vague motion, and we have just heard that there was a process in the testimony and the responses for adding and deleting.
So I'm proposing to go to clause 5, as amended.
Mr. Ken Epp: Are you ruling my motion out of order, Madam Chair?
The Chair: I haven't even seen it, nor has the clerk. We've just heard some vague--
Mr. Ken Epp: Well, here, the government has a tendency to write things on napkins.
º (1605)
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair?
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, please.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: The rationale that I used earlier with regard to pre-screening still stands. If there is new evidence to be submitted at some point, then I'm sure we would look at it. But at the present time we've dealt with those amendments. The rationale was given. I suggest we move on to the next issue.
The Chair: Mr. Kenney, did you have something?
Mr. Jason Kenney: I was just trying to get a practical sense of this. Are any airports that do not have security pre-clearance subject to the security charge on outbound flights, like Vancouver South Terminal, for example?
Mr. Ken Epp: Edmonton Municipal isn't on the list and it has.
Mr. Jason Kenney: For instance, if you're flying from Vancouver to Saltspring Island, you board a float plane at a sort of secondary terminal of Vancouver. There's no screening. You get on a plane that has four seats. You buy a $50 ticket, and it's a 10-minute flight. Now, in such a situation where there is no security, does the charge still apply?
Mr. Serge Dupont: The charge applies at the 90 airports. Again, for travel to other listed airports among the 90, there is no distinction made between terminals or gates or others within the 90.
Mr. Jason Kenney: So just to be clear, and this is important, where it says Vancouver International is on the list, for instance, that would include 747 flights to Hong Kong and domestic flights to Toronto and various points in the country. Under the administration of Vancouver International, there's a sub-terminal. It's just a little dock that float planes come up to, but it's under the administration of the Vancouver Regional Airport Authority. There's no security there. Maybe they look at your bag now, but in the past there's been no equipment, no security personnel. And I can't imagine we'd be putting air marshalls on a four-person float plane.
Are you saying because that sub-terminal falls under the operation of the Vancouver Regional Airport Authority, flights from that sub-terminal to, say, Saltspring Island would be assessed the fee?
Mr. Serge Dupont: That is correct. The charge is there to fund security enhancements at the 90 airports. Those security enhancements will take place over time. It will be the Department of Transport that will determine where and to what extent those enhancements will be deployed. The charge applies to flights connecting these 90 airports. So if a flight is leaving from Vancouver International to another listed airport on the list of 90, the charge will apply.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I'd just like to point out to my colleagues that we will be imposing a tax on those people who.... There are a lot of commuters, for instance, out of Vancouver--this is one case I know of; there are probably others in the country--who fly on a weekly or bi-weekly basis out of the little sub-airport that will be hit with this. I have a pretty good hunch there won't be any new security measures on those tiny little float plane flights. I can tell you there's nobody connecting off flights in Salt Spring Island or Gabriola Island in the Gulf Islands in British Columbia. I just hope people take note of this.
The Chair: I'm going to clause....
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chair, I am now ready to make my motion.
I move that the list of airports be cut in half, with the smaller airports on the list being deleted. I would venture an argument in favour of that motion. The revenue is actually going to increase, because the government is already collecting taxes from these airports, and by deleting these small airports, which are going to suffer or even die under this legislation, you're going to actually be able to keep on collecting the other federal tax. If you impose this tax on those little airports, those services in those areas will be gone and you will collect no tax at all.
The Chair: The chair is going to rule on this because I have it in writing before me. It is moved that the list of airports be cut in half, with the smaller airports in the listing deleted. It's just too vague. It's not in its proper format, as advised to me by the clerk.
So we will go to clause 5 as amended.
º (1610)
Mr. Ken Epp: What's so vague about that?
The Chair: Because it is not in the way.... We don't even know what list you're referring to here at this point.
Mr. Ken Epp: There's a list of airports in the bill on page 69.
The Chair: It's not in your motion, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, I'll add it.
The Chair: Mr. Epp, I have ruled.
Mr. Ken Epp: On page 69.
The Chair: The chair has ruled. If you want to challenge the chair....
Mr. Ken Epp: I challenge the chair.
The Chair: That is a non-debatable motion, and we will call the question right now. I will then have to remove myself, if I'm not....
Mr. Ken Epp: No, you can stay.
The Chair: I can stay. The clerk carries that vote.
Okay, challenge the chair and go ahead.
What you are voting on is whether or not the chair's decision is sustained--kept in place. All those in favour of sustaining my ruling just now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. We've moved forward. The decision is sustained and we will go to clause 5.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
The Chair: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: What a way of operating is this? You are looking for a vote on a ruling you made? Where did you get that idea? We have never done this before.
[English]
The Chair: That is the procedure of Parliament, and I am bound by that procedure.
We are going to clause 5 now.
Shall clause 5 as amended carry?
Oui?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, I call for a recorded vote, please.
[English]
The Chair: A recorded vote. We are on the whole clause now, clause 5, as amended.
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 8)
The Chair: Now we're going on to clause 6, and I see there are no amendments between clause 6 and clause 11.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I move them all, Madam Chair.
Mr. Ken Epp: I would like to ask for an explanation of each one. For instance, on clause 6, what does it do and why should I be persuaded to vote for it?
The Chair: First of all, I want to make sure we have a mover. You've moved from clause 6 to clause 11.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I move them all. I'm sure Mr. Epp was here when we discussed them before.
The Chair: I need unanimous consent to group all of these together. Do I have it?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Monte Solberg: We don't agree here.
The Chair: We don't have unanimous....
Mr. Monte Solberg: We could group them, but we'll want an individual explanation.
º (1615)
The Chair: All right. So before the vote on all of them, can I please have an official go through an explanation of clauses 6 to 11?
Madame Legare, go ahead, please.
Ms. Marlene Legare: These clauses make consequential amendments to the Tax Court of Canada Act, which is to ensure that the provisions of the Air Travellers Security Charge Act that relate to procedures involving appeals of the carriers of their assessments of the charge follow the same procedures we have in place under the tax laws. It is necessary to consequentially amend the Tax Court of Canada Act to achieve that.
The Chair: Okay, let's go to clause 7.
Ms. Marlene Legare: Sorry, Madam Chair, I will clarify further. I think I mentioned that clauses 6, 7, 8, and 9 deal with that same issue that I just mentioned. They amend different sections of the Tax Court of Canada Act. It all has to do with the same--
The Chair: Thank you. How about an explanation for clauses 10 and 11?
Ms. Marlene Legare: Clause 10 provides for what is called a coordinating amendment, which is necessary in the event that there are two bills before Parliament amending the same provision at the same time. It refers to the Excise Act 2001, which is before Parliament and has received first reading. This bill also amends the Tax Court of Canada Act. It is necessary to have this amendment in the same provision that would be amended under this bill. So this ensures that it coordinates those two amendments, depending upon which one is passed first.
The Chair: And clause 11...for Mr. Epp.
Ms. Marlene Legare: Clause 11 provides that the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, which is enacted under part 2, in fact, all of part 2, shall come into force on April 1, 2002.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ken Epp: I would like to debate.
The Chair: You are going to debate? There are no amendments proposed by--
Mr. Ken Epp: No, but I can debate whether the wisdom of passing the clause....
The Chair: Okay, Mr. Epp, go ahead.
Mr. Ken Epp: On the very last one, on the coming into force on April 1 of this year, it appears to me that what's going to come into force is the collection of the tax, hence hastening the demise of the little air operators, whereas the actual security measures are not going to come into effect until late fall at the earliest, or next year. I think that we as a committee should probably send a message to the Minister of Finance that says the tax should not be collected until the service is provided. So I would like to speak against clause 10 and clause 11 and the date on which this is to come into effect.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, just for clarification, it's coming in on April 1 because of existing and enhanced security measures. One presumes that you have to collect the money first before you can spend it.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Elliott, please.
Mr. William Elliott: On a point of clarification, expenditures by the Air Transport Security Authority are envisaged to begin on April 1. At the current time, air carriers are responsible for the costs of pre-board screening. As soon as the authority comes into existence, financial responsibility for those costs will be borne by the authority.
The government has also already invested in enhancements that will continue into the future, past April 1. So although there will be a gearing up of security and security services, significant services and the costs for significant services will be effective April 1 to the account of the authority.
º (1620)
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Loubier, you have a comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to suggest to the minister of Finance, in terms of these sections, to suspend the introduction of any new tax, including this one, until such time as we have proper scientific impact studies.
I cannot believe, Madam Chair, that with a surplus that will border on 10 billion dollars at year end--these people know this--they could not find a couple hundred million dollars to enhance airport security immediately, even if some measures take more time. This is simply outrageous. I find it absurd to introduce a charge such as this and to say that money is needed quickly in order to implement measures, without any evaluation of the impact of this charge. It is patently absurd.
So I call for a moratorium on this new charge until such time as studies are done and we can be certain there will no impact. In the meanwhile, the federal government can start investing in security. They have money coming out their ears, Madam Chair. This is incredible.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: My question has just been answered.
The Chair: Okay, I will call the vote, having no other comments on my list here.
(Clauses 6 to 11 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: We are now at page 60, CA-33, which is a new clause put forward by.... Who's moving this? Mr. Solberg is moving CA-33. Go ahead, Mr. Solberg, if you'd like to explain.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Right, I would like to explain.
Effectively, this is the sunset clause on the tax, and the idea, of course, is to ensure that the tax does not outlive its usefulness. It forces Parliament to reconsider the wisdom of this. I think, given the fact that the government has said it's open to reviewing it in the fall, it's clear to me at least that the government isn't sure what the impacts will be of the tax. But I think it's wise to consider this even beyond that review that the government has promised will take place in the fall. Therefore, we're proposing this with the idea that if at some point the government feels it's better to address it because of the economic impact, it's better to take the funds from general revenues, which people already pay very high taxes into for the provision of their security anyway, then this will give us an opportunity to do that. Something would be actually set on a schedule somewhere.
So, really, that's the rationale for it. I'll leave it at that.
The Chair: Okay, I shall call the question then.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 7)
º (1625)
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, maybe I could be helpful, if I were to move clause 12, and then I want to talk about the others afterwards.
The Chair: There is an amendment to clause 12 on page 61. I believe this has been put forward by Mr. Nystrom.
First of all, Mr. Nystrom, my clerks and legislative assistants have had a look at this. Are you trying to place this before the committee?
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Do you want to read it out first? I may have to rule on this one because I'm concerned that it has some money implications.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Okay.
I move that Bill C-49, in clause 12, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 77 the following:
| Death of a child. |
| (12.1) If the child or children referred to in subsection 23(1) die during the period referred to in subsection 23(2), the benefit period terminates two weeks after the last death. |
The Chair: The clerk has taken a look at this and so have I earlier today. The proposed amendment in the event of the death of a child would extend by two weeks the benefit period during which a claimant could receive parental benefits.
Am I understanding your amendment clearly? Okay.
By extending the period, the amendment becomes inadmissible. Marleau and Montpetit state on page 655 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice that:
| An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation. |
I must therefore regretfully rule your amendment out of order because you need the royal prerogative.
Thank you very much Mr. Nystrom. It is an out of order--oui, Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It is too bad, Madam Chair, because my colleague's motion would provide for a far better use of public funds than what the liberal government usually does. I wanted to say this for the record.
[English]
The Chair: Unfortunately, it doesn't comply with the rules.
We are on to clause 12 now.
Shall clause 12--Mr. Nystrom, sorry. Is it on clause 12?
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, if I may make just a short comment. Perhaps Mr. Peterson or someone across the way might want to look at the idea we've just discussed and ruled out of order, so it can come in as a government amendment.
If I can just take one minute, the idea came from a caller on an open-line show. She called in to say that her child had died and she'd been cut off maternity benefits as soon as the child had died--the date the child had actually died.
You've properly ruled it out of order because it does call for the expenditure of more money, but what this amendment would have done is to extend maternity benefits for a two-week period after the death of a child so the mother has a chance to readjust a bit. When you're on maternity benefits under EI, as outlined in this bill, the moment your child dies you're cut off like that. I didn't know this until this woman called in on an open-line show.
This might be an idea for the government to pick up since the government can introduce an amendment that expends more money. This would extend the cut-off for two weeks after the death of a child. It just seems to me to be common sense.
The Library of Parliament has done the costing on it. The maximum would be $600,000 a year. It affects about 1,000 births in one year, Madam Chair. About 1,000 children die whose mother is on maternity benefits. The maximum benefits per week, according to the Library of Parliament, are $298.11. So it's $300 a week. The maximum would be about $600,000 a year.
I wanted to make this comment while we're on clause 12. The government may want to meditate on this. It would be appropriate at report stage or some stage in the bill to, if it agrees, move the appropriate amendment. It's simply a compassionate thing to do, that's all.
º (1630)
The Chair: If I can be helpful, Mr. Nystrom, there is nothing to prevent you from moving that, if you can get a royal recommendation at report stage, because it was not defeated here in the committee. I ruled it out of order for very good procedural reasons that I hope all of you understand. You actually do have a chair who knows the rules. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I appreciate that, and I don't disagree with your ruling. You've ruled properly. It's just an idea that came from the public, and if we can figure a way around it, we should do it.
The Chair: I'm going to call the vote on clause 12 to carry.
(Clause 12 agreed to on division)
The Chair: We have progress. We are now moving on division.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, may I suggest, without including any questions or any clarifications from any colleagues, that I move clauses 13 to 45, because there are no amendments proposed in that section. If there are any questions, that's obviously in order.
The Chair: Excuse me, if you could just bear with me a second, I have been advised that we have an amendment coming at clause 22 that you do not have at this point. Oh, yes, you do. It's page 61.1. You got it earlier today. It's a separate sheet of paper but it was handed out this morning. Before I get to that, I will take the clauses. If you would move clauses 13 to 21, that would be in order.
Mr. Ken Epp: I have a point of order.
The Chair: You have a point of order, Mr. Epp, sorry.
Mr. Ken Epp: I almost hesitate to say this after you declared that you knew the rules, but it seems to me that it is not necessary for a member of the committee to move these individual clauses since you are asking, “Shall the clause carry”.
The Chair: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, so really what Mr. Wilfert would like to do is ask you whether you would have unanimous consent to group them.
The Chair: If people would wait for me, I could facilitate these things for them, please.
What we really have is clauses 13 to 21. I need unanimous agreement to group these and vote. Do I have unanimous agreement on these non-amended clauses to group and vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
(Clauses 13 to 21 agreed to on division)
(On clause 22)
The Chair: Now we go to PC/DR-1, which is a separate sheet in your package--61.1.
I believe, Mr. Pankiw, you are now signed into the committee, so you would like to move.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon--Humboldt, PC/DR): Thank you, Madam Chair, and yes, I'd like to move on behalf of my colleague, Mr. Brison, member of Parliament for Kings--Hants, the following amendment, that Bill C-49 in clause 22 be amended by replacing line 11 on page 85 with the following: “property is 1/10,000 of the taxpayer's capital gain.”
The government's reduction of the capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities has successfully increased charitable donations. This amendment would effectively eliminate the capital gains tax on gifts of publicly listed securities and equalize Canada's tax treatment of charitable contributions of securities with that of the United States and the United Kingdom. This would help Canadian charities, hospital foundations, and university endowments. It is good social policy and it is good tax policy.
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, please.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: While I appreciate my colleague's comments, I would like to point out Madam Chair that the reduction inclusion rate on capital gains for eligible donations already provides for very generous tax assistance to donors--about 55¢ on the dollar.
Notwithstanding that, however, at the same time, it's up to donors when they give, where they give, and in what amount. Therefore, Madam Chair, although the U.S. does--and my colleague is correct--exempt capital gains, I think what matters for donors and charities is the total level of tax assistance. If we take into account the donation credit and other relevant factors, Canadian and U.S. regimes are roughly comparable, as a point of clarification for the members.
º (1635)
The Chair: I have a speaking list right now. Mr. Solberg and Mr. Cullen are on it.
Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, at the risk of contradicting my friend who just spoke, I think the report in the paper today was that there's a big difference in the tax as a percent of GDP between Canada and the United States, 40.1% versus about 30%. So there's still a big difference between Canada and the U.S. when it comes to overall taxation.
But really the point is that as the government has withdrawn, for instance, from health care services to a large degree, anything that can be done to encourage charitable giving to charities like hospitals, hospital foundations, and that sort of thing needs to be encouraged.
The beauty of this proposal is that on the one hand there's a minimal cost to the treasury, probably I'd guess, based on what I recall from previous discussions about this, somewhere around $35 million a year. The impact for the charitable sector would be absolutely fantastic.
Many people have drawn comparisons between the amount of charitable giving in the U.S. and Canada as a result of the different tax treatment of securities. The difference is stunning, and you can see that in the size of the endowments for universities like Harvard versus universities like the University of Toronto; it's not even close. Harvard, for instance, has endowments I think approaching $1 billion, and that's as a result of how they treat not just securities but other things as well.
So there's a lot to commend this idea, and I think if we want to send the proper message about how we value the charitable sector in Canada, the best way to do it is to vote yes for this amendment.
The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Cullen, I want to point out to the committee that last Friday the clerk circulated to all the members a note indicating that there was a typo on this particular clause 22, and it's in the English version only. The text should read “property is one quarter of the taxpayer's capital gain”. The French version is accurate. It's just a typographical error that was picked up by the general legislative counsel. So if you're looking at your bill, you'll know that it's there.
Mr. Cullen, please.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair. That may answer my question. I understand what Scott Brison is proposing and how you've explained it, Jim, but this part about property is one-ten-thousandth of the taxpayer's capital gain. Are you saying this is the part that's in error?
The Chair: Let me explain it to you again.
The Clerk: We're on clause 22, line 11, page 85. This is a mistake in the English version only, and the text of line 11 on page 85 should read as follows: “property is one quarter of the taxpayer's capital gain”. I believe Mr. Pankiw's amendment proposes a different fraction from one quarter.
The Chair: But what is in the text is some sort of bracket--
Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, I see.
The Chair: There's a bracket, and where that bracket is it really should be reading “one quarter”.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I see.
The Chair: That's just a typo only.
Mr. Roy Cullen: That's in the actual bill.
The Chair: In the text of the bill.
Mr. Roy Cullen: It has nothing to do with the amendment.
The Chair: No, it's just if you're looking at this, you need to know it.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I understand. My question, though, is to go to property as one-ten-thousandth, is that a mechanical way of getting it to zero or close to zero? Is that the only way to do this?
Mr. Jim Pankiw: I think so. It's certainly the method Mr. Brison has chosen.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, I don't know how you actually enact that. If someone was filling in their tax return...one-ten-thousandth; it just seems a bit clumsy, that's all.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Not as clumsy as one quarter.
The Chair: You weren't on my list, but go ahead, Mr. Kenney.
Sorry, Mr. Epp. You have Mr. Kenney's sign in front of you. Go ahead, please.
º (1640)
Mr. Ken Epp: I appreciate this amendment and its intent; however, I seriously question even the amount one-ten-thousandth. It's possible that some magnanimous benefactor could give to a university or some other organization a gift worth millions, or even tens of millions. So this number would reduce the tax a great deal. On $1 million, one-ten-thousandth is $100 tax, which is no big deal. But I wonder why we wouldn't simply say it's tax-exempt.
Voices: For technical reasons.
The Chair: Thank you.
I'm going to call the question, since I have no other person on my list.
Mr. Ken Epp: Could I have a recorded vote, please?
The Chair: Certainly we can have a recorded vote on this one.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 6)
Mr. Jason Kenney: A point of order. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to follow.
So we did pass, on division, clause 21?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Okay.
Notwithstanding the fact that that has carried, may I ask one question of the witnesses? I had the wrong clause. I was waiting for this to come up. I have one question on clause 21.
º (1645)
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, we had at least seven who were against.
Voices: No, no.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Do the math. We cannot play with democracy like that.
The Chair: Whether it's seven or six, it's not really--
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: It should be accurate, whatever it is.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: You are tricksters, scam artists. This is incredible!
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): But it was a good try.
[English]
The Chair: The clerk heard it, unless somebody made an error in their vote or something like that. I couldn't hear it, but—
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Madam Chair, we may not know if someone made an error.
The Chair: No, it's up to them.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, when a member votes, he or she should know on what. It is their responsibility.
[English]
The Chair: We are moving over to clause 22. We've already voted on that clause.
Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: So we can retroactively do votes, but we can't move back to questions on...?
The Chair: We didn't retroactively do anything, Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Oh, I see. We can't move back to ask the question. I understand.
The Chair: I'm sure you could have your question as soon as you have the floor the next time.
We're going on to clause 22. We just carried PC/RD-1.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I would again move 22 to 45 with any comments.
The Chair: Excuse me, we just passed an amendment to clause 22. Now we have to vote on clause 22, as amended.
If people need a second, because they don't understand this, you've done an amendment. Now you are passing clause 22 as amended. Is everybody clear?
Shall clause 22 carry as amended?
Mr. Ken Epp: Let's have a recorded vote. This is going to be a problem if we don't.
The Chair: It is going to be a problem, because....
Mr. Ken Epp: So here's a recorded vote, and everybody make sure you say yes or no clearly, so the clerk can hear--so we all can.
The Clerk: The vote is eight to eight--a tie vote.
The Chair: This is an unusual situation. I'm just going to take a break to the call of the chair for five minutes, and then we'll do my vote.
I think that's fair. I'm trying to be fair to everybody else.
º (1650)
» (1709)
The Chair: Okay, we're back in session. I know it's been a long day for everybody, and if at all possible, I don't want to be breaking tie votes if the votes are clear.
I recognize Mr. Cullen.
» (1710)
Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.
On that very first vote, I know there was some confusion. I've talked to a colleague. I was somewhat confused, and I wonder if we could have a recorded vote on the original amendment.
The Chair: Mr. Cullen, I need to know whether you intended to vote for the amendment or against it, because it's very important to me. It gets to the point. If you've done your vote and that was the vote you intended and you're sticking with it, that's fine. That's very clear. If it was a mistake, that's a different matter.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I have to apologize, Madam Chair. I must have been asleep at the switch. I meant to vote against the amendment and I inadvertently--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Please, let's hear. This is difficult for people. We've had a long day in here. As we go through these votes.... I had problems, and I said it right off the bat, on hearing one other vote there. So please use “yes” or “no”.
Mr. Cullen, you voted.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I voted incorrectly. I thought I was voting against the amendment, and instead I supported it. I made a mistake.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Binet.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic, Lib.): I have done the same thing.
[English]
The Chair: Now, this is a situation that is very difficult for a chair. I have tried to bend over backwards. I don't mind breaking a tie vote when people legitimately know what they're voting for and they vote honestly for one position or another, but if they have made a mistake, I don't want to.... This is serious business here. We are talking about the budget.
Yes, Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, the vote was eight to eight. You have a responsibility to break the tie. I would suggest that you simply--
The Chair: Well, I am looking at the repercussions. We have a situation here where if I break the tie vote, there is going to be one of two outcomes. Either we lose all of clause 22 or we lose the amended clause 22, both of which are very serious. I don't mind having to do that if in fact that was the true intention of the committee.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I--
The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, I am trying to deal with a very difficult situation that has huge financial repercussions.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri: That's right; it does.
The Chair: The votes were recorded. This is a budget bill. There is nothing more serious than a budget bill.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Exercise your responsibility.
The Chair: I'm going to exercise the discretion of the chair.
The other day, when you people were not clear on your votes, you had me go and do another vote. I'm not going to go and move forward with such drastic situations unless I am absolutely clear on this vote. I have put up with a lot in this committee, and it's going to stop. What's going to happen is we're going to do a recorded vote so I understand where--
Some hon. members: Point of order! Point of order!
Mr. Jim Pankiw: We already have a vote, and you have a responsibility as the chair to break the tie. That was a recorded thing. If you can't take the heat, then maybe you should let Mr. Cullen be the chair!
An hon. member: We're not having another bloody vote.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: No. You're making a farce out of this and a joke of your own chairmanship.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, he does not have a monopoly here. I have had my hand up for 10 minutes. I made a point of order and I would like the floor, Madam Chair.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, with all due respect, I would suggest that--
The Chair: I cannot listen to two people at one time.
Mr. Loubier and then Mr. Wilfert.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I have lots of respect for you and the institution. I also have lots of respect for the rules.
[English]
The Chair: I know that, Mr. Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It is very clear that if such a situation had happened in the House of Commons, the vote would not have been taken again.
If you are an elected member of the Finance Committee, accountable to the people, Madam Chair, when you vote, you should know on what you are voting. It was very clear, especially since you repeated three of four times that you were calling the vote on the PC/DR amendment. These people cast their vote being fully aware. If they are not able to maintain their attention span until the end of a very serious process, as you mentioned, well, that is their problem.
It does not take away the fact that the amendment was carried by a majority and that the result is we had a tied vote on clause 22 as amended. The clerk did a very good job. It was a very proper recorded vote, with a fragmented outcome.
So we are now in a situation where we need to break the tie: either clause 22 as amended disappears, or you cast your vote on an issue of such great importance as this is. It is your responsibility.
Madam Chair, I respect you and I would like you to continue the good work you have been doing since the start.
» (1715)
[English]
The Chair: Yes. I have no problem breaking tie votes when I'm convinced people know what they're doing. But I've had two indications here from two people that they thought they were voting one way and they voted another way. Now that's very serious.
In the House, when people stand up and do similar things, they say that. And we've seen this happen in the House where people have said they meant to vote the other way. They have done that. It's happened more than once in the House.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I have a point of order.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, with all due respect, I understand that people can make an honest mistake, and that's fine. But I would not want to set a precedent by then deciding from time to time that we want to revisit a vote. So my view is that it is an eight to eight vote at the present time, and the chair can cast her vote, whatever way. But I would suggest, with great respect, that we cast it and move on to the next clause.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I have a point of order.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I concur with Mr. Wilfert. On occasion in the House, when people stand up and correct a vote they've made, it's prior to the clerk reporting the vote. Here the clerk reported the passage of the amendment. It carried. We are now on the vote on the clause. That is the matter on the table, Madam Chair. You must dispose of it and then we carry on. That's the only procedural option open to you.
The Chair: That's fine. What I will do is think about this for a little while. In the meantime, till the end of this thing, I'm going to move on to clause 23.
Some hon. members: No, we have a motion on the table.
Mr. Monte Solberg: There's a motion on the floor.
Mr. Jason Kenney: We can't.
The Chair: I'm going to confer with the clerk again.
I'm going to state for the record that I am reluctantly casting my vote here. In so doing, I am concerned that the original vote had confusion in it. I am put in the position by this committee of having to cast this vote, and I will continue to carry out my job as chair. I will be voting with the government on this.
Mr. Ken Epp: The government is split, so what does that mean?
» (1720)
The Chair: I will vote no. The clause will not carry.
(Clause 22 negatived)
The Chair: We have defeated clause 22. I presume it will be dealt with in another matter later on. Clauses 23 through 44 have no amendments.
Do you have a point of order, Mr. Kenney?
Mr. Jason Kenney: No, I have a question with respect to clause 24.
The Chair: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Chair, clause 24, along with other clauses, such as clause 21, deals with tax provisions for apprentice tools. I'd like to ask any representatives here from the Department of Finance, on what principle of tax policy has the government chosen to provide a deduction for the cost of the acquisition of tools for apprentices, and does not the same principle apply to the acquisition of tools for non-apprentice mechanics, i.e., fully accredited mechanics? In other words, if the principle of tax policy here is that the acquisition of tools necessary to the performance of a trade ought to be deductible from taxation, then why has the government chosen in this bill to limit that deduction to apprentices and not make it general in its application?
Mr. Gérald Lalonde (Senior Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance): Madam Chair, in response to the question, this is a measure that has two bases in policy underlying it.
First, if one will notice in the budget papers, this is under the general auspices of education, and the measure is directed not so much to those who are already qualified as vehicle mechanics but rather those who are in their apprenticeship program, so they're in the education stage.
The second part of this is that the measure is to deal with the extraordinary costs of tools as related to the income of these particular apprentice mechanics, these students. In this case, the cost of tools can be very large in proportion to the actual income from the apprenticeship program, in some cases actually exceeding the amount of the apprenticeship income in any given year.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I'll have to clarify. I'm not entirely clear on this.
You seem to be suggesting the deduction is being limited to apprentices ostensibly because they have less income than other mechanics. Where do you draw the line, and if the principle is the same, i.e., that the acquisition of these tools is a necessary part of the trade and therefore should be deductible, why wouldn't it apply to a mechanic who's earning only $10,000 or $20,000 a year, as opposed to an apprentice who might be making $30,000 or $40,000? Shouldn't it be sensitive to income as opposed to their status?
Mr. Gérald Lalonde: It goes to the point that I made at the beginning, that this is directed in part toward the education aspect of this. You'll recall there are at least three measures in this budget that deal with access to education at the post-secondary level generally, and this is one of them.
The Chair: Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
On the same point, the legislation provides that the first 5% of a person's income not be included--there's a basic deduction. I'm sure you're familiar with what I'm saying. If an apprentice makes less than $20,000, there is nothing in this for him. If he or she makes over $20,000, then still, the first 5% of their income is a ceiling over which they have to pass in their expenditures on tools.
Now, I'm wondering whether you did any study at all. I rather doubt it, but I need to ask the question. Did you do any study on exactly how many apprentices are actually going to be able to benefit from this?
» (1725)
Mr. Gérald Lalonde: First I should probably explain the policy behind it, just to clarify some of your statements.
The deduction is available with respect to the cost of tools in excess of the greater of 5% of your income for the year and $1,000. The purpose behind this is to ensure that normal expenses in relation to an apprentice's position do not qualify for deduction, in the same way you buy your suits to come here and you're not entitled to a deduction for the cost of your suits.
There are, as I mentioned, two aspects to this one: the education aspect, and the extraordinary cost as compared to the income of these types of individuals.
The floor, if you will--you referred to it as the ceiling; we refer to as the floor--is designed to ensure just that, that only the extraordinary costs are recognized for the purposes of this.
In terms of statistics as to how many individuals in particular are going to be affected by this, I'm not sure we have those stats available to us. There was no deduction before for apprentice mechanics' tools, so there's no data in the tax system right now to pick that up. But in the budget papers it was expressed that.... Bear with me for a second. I'll just refer to some of the information that was here.
The Chair: Are we finished?
Mr. Ken Epp: No, he's looking something up, Madam Chair.
Mr. Gérald Lalonde: If you look in the budget papers, you'll see that it's estimated that the cost for this measure in 2002-03 will be $5 million and it will increase to a steady state in 2003-04 to $10 million per fiscal year for the government. How many individuals that is I can't extrapolate from the information in the budget papers, but you'll see from that figure there's a goodly number.
Mr. Ken Epp: Then the question is this--and I used the word “ceiling” because that's what I thought it was; perhaps I'm wrong. You can answer that by telling me the answer to this numerical question. An apprentice makes $30,000. Let's say he has $2,000 of expenses on tools. By how much is his income reduced in terms of taxable income?
Mr. Gérald Lalonde: Well, 5% of $30,000 would be $1,500, so the deduction would be $500.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, so what's the difference between that? If he or she makes less than $20,000 or spends less than $1,000, they get nothing. Is that right?
Mr. Gérald Lalonde: Say, for example, you earned $5,000. So 5% of that would be $250. And in your case he spent $1,500, so it's the greater of $250...and $1,000 is your cutoff, so he would have a $1,000 deduction.
In your circumstance he's only earned $20,000...whether he has $1,000 of taxed income....
Mr. Ken Epp: That's the reverse of what I thought. Thank you. I think that answers it.
The Chair: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Penson.
» (1730)
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): I would like to follow up with Mr. Lalonde.
You made the comment that this is really because they're still in their educational program. The apprentice is the basic reason why you're doing this. I would ask you, though, with respect to automotive mechanics, for example, it's a life-long--
Mr. Gérald Lalonde: Sorry, I couldn't hear you, sir.
The Chair: Order, please. We'll have people listen to the questions and answers and then perhaps we could get through this.
Mr. Penson, go ahead.
Mr. Charlie Penson: I was going to make the point that as a mechanic...it's a very fast-moving, technical area. Education has to be continually upgraded all the time to deal with the different product they're working on. If you're going to use the education aspect for deciding if they can deduct their tools, wouldn't you also respect the fact that they have to continue to update constantly in their career, and therefore tools for licensed mechanics should be recognized as an expense as well?
Mr. Gérald Lalonde: It goes to the basic issue on this file, which is that we do see this as a measure that's in many ways similar to our basic policy on post-secondary education. When you get into the workforce, there are a number of trades, a number of professions, that require continuing education, and everybody has to keep up with their own work. In most cases that's covered off by the employer, but regardless of whether it's employer-provided or employee-provided, the focus of this particular measure is with the government's post-secondary education policy, and that policy doesn't generally extend to workplace education.
The Chair: May I have unanimous consent to group these votes from clause 23 through to clause 44?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: No, Mr. Kenney?
Mr. Jason Kenney: No.
The Chair: Okay, then we will go through each one.
(Clauses 23 to 34 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 35)
Mr. Jason Kenney: I have a question on clause 35, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you. I'm seeking clarification from the officials about the effect of this clause.
The Chair: We do have a 15-minute bell going, so we'll be breaking for a vote and then returning. We will finish this tonight. Go ahead.
Mr. Gérald Lalonde: You're asking me to be contrary to my normal modus operandi, to be short-winded.
This measure deals with an issue that arose several years ago in which non-residents who hired Canadian service providers to provide services in respect of certain investment portfolios were concerned that, simply by hiring the Canadian service provider, they would be considered to be carrying on business in Canada and therefore taxable in Canada.
It is unlikely that that would be the case, unless the government instituted or implemented a measure to ensure that such was the case in subsection 115(2) of the act.
A concern arose and it was asked: what would happen if the same thing took place, but it was a partnership that made the investment and you had a non-resident investor in the partnership? What this provision does is ensure that the non-resident partner of the partnership isn't considered to be carrying on business in Canada simply because a partnership, of which that person is a member, engaged a Canadian service provider.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Did you have another question?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, would it be possible to dispatch the remaining clauses and amendments tomorrow afternoon, before consideration of bill C-209? We had not anticipated to spend part of the evening here and we have other commitments. I do, as well as my colleague and Mr. Nystrom. This causes a problem. There is not too much left and we made appointments and other commitments. If we could delay this until tomorrow, at the beginning of our afternoon meeting, just before consideration of Bill C-209, it would be excellent.
» (1735)
[English]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri: We finish tonight.
The Chair: Mr. Valeri.
Mr. Tony Valeri: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Loubier, because I think we all have engagements this evening. Unfortunately, I'm sure you can understand the importance of ensuring that this bill gets to the House. In fact, I believe we agreed at a prior meeting that we would ensure that the bill would get through on Tuesday. If you check the record, I think I said regardless of what time on Tuesday evening...it might require our stay, and I'm sure all committee members are committed to that.
Therefore, I would respectfully reject your suggestion and suggest that we continue before the vote and come back and complete this bill this evening.
The Chair: That is what we had agreed earlier. We had an agreement last week. We have delayed this twice. We had the agreement to come back and do this in an expeditious fashion, as I recall. But the situation now is that we'll continue tonight and finish this bill so it can be reported to the House tomorrow.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): We could pass it all right now, on division, if members didn't want to come back tonight. Why don't we do that?
Mr. Ken Epp: Have we had any positive responses at all to our very, very important amendments from the government?
A voice: There were a couple of amendments.
Mr. Ken Epp: Well, we got a couple of them, the non-issuance ones, but the really important ones we did not get. I feel that--
The Chair: We've got eight minutes to the vote.
We will adjourn until 15 minutes after the vote. So 15 minutes after the vote ends we will be back here to continue.
» (1737)
¼ (1820)
The Chair: Okay, we'll resume. We left off at clause 35 before we went to the House for the vote. Is there any further discussion on clause 35?
Some hon. members: No.
(Clauses 35 to 44 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 45)
The Chair: We're now at clause 45, and there are two Canadian Alliance amendments.
Mr. Jim Peterson: We'll repeat them on division.
The Chair: Who is going to move them? Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have amendment CA-34 to clause 45, which essentially makes explicit that the Canada Fund for Africa Act would fall under the provisions of the Access to Information Act.
The access to information commissioner and many members of Parliament, particularly some on the government side, have been quite outspoken about the tendency of the government to exclude legislation from the provisions of the Access to Information Act. The Auditor General has also raised concerns about this. The ATI Act is one of the principal tools that we as parliamentarians have to ensure that agencies such as this fund are operating in an appropriate way. Quite honestly, I can't imagine why we would not want to ensure that the Africa fund complies with the terms of the Access to Information Act.
I would point out that the Auditor General has isolated funds of this nature as having a high tendency toward a lack of fiscal transparency. I think it's very important that we include this for purposes of transparency so that we as parliamentarians can find out exactly how these hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent and whether they're being spent with maximum value to the Canadian taxpayer.
The Chair: If there is no further discussion on this point, I will call the vote on Canadian Alliance amendment 34.
An hon. member: Carried on division.
A voice: The secretary isn't here.
The Chair: Oh, sorry.
Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, with all due respect, I believe amendments 34 and 35 are redundant because we're creating a government program, not an agency.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: You might like to ask the officials to clarify. My understanding is that we're creating a government program and not an arm's-length agency.
Mr. Ken Epp: Are we? I want some clarification.
Mr. Jason Kenney: “Establishment of program” is proposed section 3 under clause 45, on page 109 of the bill.
The Chair: John Davies. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. John Davies (Senior Economist, International Financial Institutions, Department of Finance): I'm John Davies from the Department of Finance.
Proposed subsection 3(1) under clause 45 clarifies this. We're creating a government program, not an arm's-length institution. Therefore, by definition, the information would be available according to the Privacy Act and according to the Access to Information Act, and the Auditor General would be the auditor for the program.
Mr. Jim Peterson: The CA can apply its usual diligence to look into these matters.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Epp.
¼ (1825)
Mr. Ken Epp: I would make this statement, which will also apply to the next motion, which is CA-35. This is a program that obviously, according to the answers we have received, is subject to the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, and it is accessible by the Auditor General, according to what we have heard here.
So do we now not include these amendments and just let it be because it's said to be redundant, or do we put it into the bill as a statement for greater clarity so that there is no doubt? I think they're almost equivalent, and I would personally like to urge the members of the committee to support this motion so that there is in fact greater clarity, no doubt. If it doesn't reverse what is now in place in any case, I can't see why the government should vote against it.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Valeri, please.
Mr. Tony Valeri: This is in response to Mr. Epp. I would move that we not support the amendments, because they're redundant...since you asked the question.
The Chair: I am calling the question on Canadian Alliance amendment 34.
(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Mr. Epp, are you moving CA-35?
Mr. Ken Epp: I would like to move it and speak to it.
The Chair: Okay, please go ahead.
Mr. Ken Epp: I don't have a very long speech to make, since I know that I will be refuted exactly as I was on my previous one. But my statement still stands. I think it would give greater clarity if we specifically stated that the Auditor General of Canada is the auditor of the fund and shall carry out duties of auditor of the fund in accordance with the Auditor General Act, as this amendment states. It's a new addition to the sections that are given on page 110. It would add proposed section 6 there.
I would again urge the members to vote in favour of it, but frankly, Madam Chair, my hopes are not very high.
The Chair: I call the question. We're voting on amendment CA-35.
(Amendment negatived--[See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 45 and 46 agreed to on division)
(On clause 47)
The Chair: Okay, now we have four amendments to clause 47, CA-36, which is page 64 of your materials.
Mr. Solberg, please.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Well, as you'll note, we're proposing that we replace line 7 on page 111 with the following:
| or operated to benefit Canadians and to improve productivity in Canada. |
This was inspired by the last infrastructure program, which gave us fountains in the Prime Minister's riding, canoe museums, and sky boxes--luxury boxes--at Saddle Dome and the Edmonton Coliseum. What we're seeking to avoid here--
A voice: Bocce courts.
Mr. Monte Solberg: --bocce courts, thank you, and probably in your riding.
At any rate, rather obviously, what we're seeking to avoid here is turning this into a large pork barrel program for the government. Given that we're in a very competitive situation with the United States and have crucial shortfalls in funding for important infrastructure, we're arguing that this statement will help focus any infrastructure spending on things that are truly important to making the country more productive, as opposed to some of the things that occurred under the previous infrastructure program.
The Chair: Mr. Epp, please.
Mr. Ken Epp: I would like to add to an argument here. Those who have served on the committee for the last couple of years will know that it became an increasingly important theme of the finance committee to address the question of Canada's productivity. I think this simply is a carry-on of what the finance committee was basically committed to up until two or three weeks ago.
¼ (1830)
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Marcil.
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois--Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am quite sure the French text should read “exploité” and not “ploité”. It should be spelled correctly in French.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, the clerk will explain that for you.
[Translation]
The Clerk: Mr. Marcil, amendment CA-36 deals only, on the French side, with line 33 on page 110. The two letters that are missing before the hyphen, in order to read “exploité” are on line 32.
[English]
The Chair: Does that--
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: He was a teacher in his previous life.
[English]
The Chair: Does that explain it to your satisfaction?
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: Yes, Madam Chair, but we simply get into the habit of writing words properly when they are transcribed.
[English]
The Chair: Madame Picard.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard: I just want to remind you that “ploité” is not even a word. I understand what you say, Mr. Clerk, but if they had just written “ated to benefit” in English, it would not be accepted either. I think we absolutely need to use the whole word even if it appears this way in that line of the clause. “Ploité” is not a word. It does not mean anything. It is because we are educated that we can guess it means “exploité”, but somebody who reads this written in this fashion does not know what the words “ploité au profit” mean. I studied Latin and I have never—
[English]
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Hilton, go ahead.
Mr. Robert Hilton (Senior Program Analyst, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Madam Chair, perhaps I can explain that. In terms of why it is called benefit to the public, I think you can understand why the types of infrastructure we're dealing with, things like highway and rail, transportation, tourism--these do benefit more than Canadians and are actually going to be impacting on our tourist visitors to this country. We're also looking at the impact on the commercial traffic that comes up from the United States, and this infrastructure investment will obviously have an impact on improving their ability to deliver the goods and services we are looking for. So, in a sense, it's much broader to say benefit of the public, but it does capture the broader universe, as intended.
On the second point in terms of improving productivity, I think we can all agree essentially that we talk about economic growth as one of the objectives of this program. Certainly, productivity is one measure of economic growth, although it's not the only measure. I think, with due respect, if we're talking about things like sewage treatment infrastructure, it's not dealing with productivity in that sense.
The Chair: Mr. Kenney, please.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes. With respect to the witness, I'd like to point out that this committee, in fact the government majority on it, has at least twice explicitly called for a productivity covenant wherein every piece of legislation, every government program, would be assessed for its impact on Canadian productivity and would have, as an explicit goal, enhancing productivity. We didn't come up with this idea, frankly. Maurizio did and the committee has. The committee has almost unanimously, I think, endorsed this approach twice, that legislation should specifically mention productivity as an objective of new government programs. That's all we're seeking, and it's totally in line with this committee's consistent recommendations.
Just because the opposition has put this forward, I don't think we should vote against it simply because the government didn't accept the committee.... It's the committee's recommendations, so let's be consistent as a body here.
The Chair: Are we ready for the question?
Mr. Ken Epp: May I say one thing here?
The Chair: Mr. Epp, please.
¼ (1835)
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.
With respect to the official's statement that productivity is a measure of economic growth, that's not entirely so. You can generate a whole bunch of economic growth by spending government money on projects that do not increase productivity at all. Yet there's an economic activity there.
So I think it is valid and valuable to put it in as a separate item.
The Chair: Okay.
I'm going to call for the question on Canadian Alliance amendment 36.
Mr. Ken Epp: It's a great amendment. Come on, guys.
(Amendment negatived)
Mr. Ken Epp: Ah, they don't want productivity.
The Chair: For Canadian Alliance amendment 37, who is...?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Kenney, are you moving that?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, I move amendment CA-37, which is an amendment to clause 47. At proposed paragraph 2(c), right now it includes tourism or urban development infrastructure as one of the approved objectives of strategic infrastructure.
Madam Chair, I'm quite happy that the government has specified in the bill specific fixed capital assets where funds could be directed, such as highway or rail infrastructure, local transportation, urban development, sewage, and water. I'm not pleased, frankly, with proposed paragraph 2(f), which basically leaves it wide open to ministerial regulation to determine what's financed.
But I really think tourism falls outside the proper purview of what we think of as really targeted, useful infrastructure. We all know that in the past infrastructure funds have been used to pay for giant squirrels and probably big perogies and all sorts of--
A voice: Big perogies?
Mr. Jason Kenney: You know, the one on the stick where.... The various tourism--
The Chair: I don't know what you mean.
Mr. Jason Kenney: The big walleye. All these big huge...what do you call them?
A voice: Statues.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Big statues, thank you.
Quite honestly, I don't think that is an appropriate use of scarce tax dollars. We're simply asking that we omit tourism from the list, and keep in all the other objectives that the government has set out here.
Mr. Ken Epp: I have something to add, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: I would like to point out to the members that the Canadian public took great umbrage at the use of public funds to build various hotels. We won't mention where they were, because it's not nice to pick on Shawinigan.
The public took great umbrage at this. To take tourism out would reduce, I think, the temptation of various bureaucrats, public officials, and ministers of misusing the public's money. That's why I would like to see that out.
The Chair: Mr. Brison.
Mr. Scott Brison: On the same one, I can't support this amendment. To say that any tourism infrastructure is akin to funding giant perogies is I think a little bit of an overstatement.
I share the honourable member's concern with abuse of some of these funds. But tourism is a legitimate industry, and insofar as government has a role in any industry, I don't think we ought to be excluding tourism from any other industry.
And why is tourism different from any other industry? Coming from a region of the country that's not only the cradle of higher education in Canada, but also a great place to visit, I tend to think we ought to be at least....
I concur in terms of the problem, but why would we exclude tourism specifically? Maybe if it's excluding private...I don't know, that's different.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we could be here all night, but that's your desire.
Mr. Solberg, it's your turn.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Clearly, infrastructure is roads, sewers, curbs, gutters, and those kinds of things. When you start to expand it into things where the private sector already plays a role, you start to open it up to the temptation for politicians to use it to politically allocate economic resources. That's what's happened at many points in the past. That's when government starts to look really bad.
I think it's much better to leave that money in people's pockets in the form of lower taxes. Then if they want to build a giant perogy or a very large squirrel or some of these other things that are clearly important to the country but that people should do on their own, they can do that. I think it's not a question of excluding tourism; it's a question of excluding everything that's not infrastructure. That's really what it is.
¼ (1840)
The Chair: Mr. Hilton, you wanted to say something just before I call this question.
Mr. Robert Hilton: I have just one point of clarification here. I think if you're talking about something that is urban development infrastructure, you are totally excluding any of our rural partners out there who are in dire need of economic development. I think we have to make sure we're looking with attention to building up the economy in rural Canada where they may have a bona fide tourism project but they don't have the local funds to do it.
Mr. Monte Solberg: But we have western diversification and ACOA. How many programs do we have to turn into economic development? This is infrastructure. We have those other programs, and that's what they're designed to do, even though I don't think they're designed very well, so why would you have this in every program? It's crazy.
The Chair: I'm going to the vote. We are voting on Canadian Alliance amendment 37.
(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We'll move to Canadian Alliance amendment 38.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chair, I would like to move it.
The Chair: Mr. Epp, please move it.
Mr. Ken Epp: I've moved it, and I would like to also urge the members of the committee to support it.
I'm going to be brief in exchange for the support of the Liberal members. What it says right now is that the purpose is for carrying out large-scale strategic infrastructure projects that contribute to economic growth. What we propose with this amendment is that instead of just saying it contributes to economic growth, that it also, as the amendment states, improves Canada's productivity, and then it goes on. So nothing is replaced. It's just that this is added in there. It's the same thing.
As I said, I was going to be brief in exchange for the presumed support of this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you. I am calling the question on Canadian Alliance amendment 38.
(Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We move now to Canadian Alliance 39.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Chair, amendment 39 basically ensures that we hold the infrastructure fund accountable through the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. I think it's important that this be very explicit. We're talking about billions of dollars here. And as I mentioned before, the temptation, and frankly the history, of the government is to take these things and use them for projects that have nothing to do with infrastructure, and in some cases involve political payoffs. That's why it's pretty critical that there be accountability. So we're arguing that this amendment will help do that.
We urge members across the way who are concerned about holding their own government accountable to support this legislation.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question on Canadian Alliance amendment 39.
(Amendment negatived--[See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. Kenney.
¼ (1845)
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Chair, I don't have a motion. Since we're now going to, presumably, proceed to vote on clause 47, I have a question relative to the entire clause for one of the finance officials.
When the budget was tabled in November or December, the finance minister indicated that the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund would operate “at arm's length from government” and that it would not fall under the immediate supervision of the minister. As we know, that policy was reversed in the introduction of this bill. I'm wondering if anybody from the finance department can shed light on why the budget said one thing and the legislation said something different.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chairman, I have a point of order.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I don't know if Mr. Kenney was here, but that very point was elaborated on in some detail the other day when the witnesses were here. I don't know if you want to go back and look at the transcripts.
The Chair: Perhaps your colleagues were here at that time, Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Well, I've been here for about 90% of the witnesses. But if I could just hear a brief answer to the question, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Robert Hilton: I think you can appreciate that, in terms of having a fund versus a foundation, the fund right now is subject to all of the acts you were talking about earlier on. There were a series of orders in council passed on January 15. With the change in the ministry and the creation of the new Office of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations of Canada, the Privacy Act is now part of our governing umbrella, as is the Access to Information Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Employment Act, and the Financial Administration Act.
So in fact you have a program that is now under the rubric of governance through all the regulations and laws that have been passed. Essentially, we are part of the public service. We are not arm's length; we are a department.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Well, following from that, I just want to speak very briefly to this section because it's one of our principal objections to the bill.
I want to put on the record on behalf of my colleagues our strong opposition to this fund and the way it's being designed, using up what's left of whatever surplus is available in the coming fiscal years. We are very concerned. Our concern is based on the critique of the previous infrastructure funds, where, for instance, the previous Auditor General reported that Treasury Board claimed 98% of the programs funded created jobs; the actual audited number was 3%.
So the Auditor General has been very critical of the operation of similar funds in the past, and we, as parliamentarians, have every right to be concerned about this. My colleagues will be voting against this clause.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Just for the record, Madam Chair, the Auditor General has also pointed out, as did the Silverman report, as did McGill University, as did the University of Toronto, that 99.9% of the money spent on infrastructure was spent wisely. So this--
Mr. Ken Epp: Was it 99%?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: It was 99.9%.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I didn't see that in the Auditor General's report. Maybe you could get it for us.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Well, I happen to be very familiar with the infrastructure program, which your party has never supported.
The Chair: Order, please. It is the will of the committee at this stage to go to clause 47. All the amendments have been defeated on clause 47, so it is the original clause 47 we are dealing with.
(Clause 47 agreed to on division)
(Clause 1 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Shall the title pass?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill, with amendments, to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I will try to report this bill to the House tomorrow.
There are one or two points before we leave this bill.
Ms. Guarnieri asked to go on the record. Please have occasion to do it now.
¼ (1850)
Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I believe you will recall Bryon Wilfert's point of order earlier about the 10 to 6 vote. I think it pertained to Scott Brison's amendment. I believe I was recorded as voting with the amendment. I believe Bryon, who is my trusty seatmate, will testify that it was my intent to consistently vote with the government. I'd like to seek unanimous consent to record my vote with the government, please. Thank you.
The Chair: We have a unanimous--
Ms. Albina Guarnieri: You're a merciful committee.
The Chair: Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Chair, I don't think we object to this, but to be consistent in the rule as it's observed in the House in the future, I think when there is a mistake--and we all make them--we have to correct it before the clerk reports. I think we're in favour of this understanding, but--
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
May I have some clarification here that we have a clarification on this vote of Ms. Guarnieri? There were two other people who said they made a mistake. Are we going to deal with--
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: Just there. Okay. That is fine, because it's very clearly recorded by the clerk here in the other column, so this does correct something. Thank you very much.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, there was notice of a meeting tomorrow because of the fact that a week ago on the private member's bill, at our very first meeting, we had talked about a couple of witnesses on the agenda. The clerk has sent that notice out and I will just advise you. I may be a couple of minutes...I think you sent the notice for 3:30 p.m. tomorrow. I would suggest we should do that at 3:45 p.m., just in case I am late with reporting this bill to the House.
Thank you so much. We are adjourned.