Welcome to "Feedback to the Feds"

This is where Transport gets the "we only recover (.34 divided by 1.42) 24% of our costs" line from. Taken at face value, this also says that the federal government has reduced revenues to some 27% of that of previous years. However, we know that these revenues are now collected elsewhere, like from Nav Canada and from local airport authorities, etc., so there is no comparable reduction in costs to the user.

There is, however, another number that us ordinary folk would include in transportation revenues – the federal share of fuel taxes. They are listed, but as "Revenues Not Credited To Transport’s Budget". The numbers look like this:

Federal Fuel Tax revenue has increased by 30% since 1991/92, and represents about 78% of all transportation revenues. Given the sad state of our highways and the growing sad state of local airports, why isn’t some of this bonanza being fed back into transportation? Some windfall! Therefore, in my view, a proper accounting is as follows:

In fact, revenues from transportation not only pay all current costs of the Department of Transport, they produce a surplus of some $3.1 billion, which is currently used for other programs (vote buying?). Revenues from transportation in Canada would have covered all costs, including the travel and transportation costs of the other federal departments, and still would have produced a profit of $2.3 billion last year.

However, by the simple expedient of not crediting these revenues to transportation (where they are generated), the federal government avoids having to spend them on transportation needs. Incredible! I wonder if Mr. Martin would be kind enough to advise us what qualifies as "non-credited income," so that we wouldn’t have to pay income tax on it?

As this new math accounting takes its toll, your president, Kevin Psutka, is being deluged with calls about increased fees and municipal taxes being put in place to offset reductions in funding by the federal and provincial governments. Federal grants, subsidies, etc., for airports totalled only $45.6 million in 1998/99, of which $31 million went to the Airports Capital Assistance Program (ACAP), for which only regional airports with scheduled air carrier service are eligible. None, zero, "nada" funds went to local airports, and only $2.7 million went to non-NAS airports, presumably under terms of hand-over arrangements. That total of $45.6 million represents only 18% of the $266 million in federal airport lease fees alone – not much of a reinvestment, is it!

If ever there was a time and an opportunity for the federal government to rethink this execrable treatment of taxpayers, it is now. I suggest they don’t consider 50/50 monetary surplus programs until tax revenues are used fairly – or reduced so we can pay the new offsetting costs.

The numbers in the Report refute any need to add further "user fees" (or is that "usury fees?"). At least some material part of these tax revenues should go back into highways and airports, not more new "programs" from Ottawa.

I suggest all COPA members introduce this radical concept to your local MP before Ottawa finds new ways to spend any current "surplus".

Continue