• For six weeks CTF has questioned policy base underlying flying tax decision
• Taxpayers ask why "private" travelers must fully bear "public" security costs
• CTF launches national petition in opposition to the flying tax

Letter

TORONTO: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) has written federal Finance Minister Paul Martin posing five key policy questions surrounding the implementation of the Airline Travelers Security Charge (ATSC), also known as the flying tax, effective April 1st.

Announced in the December budget, the tax will cost Canadian travelers $12 each way on domestic flights, $12 for departures to the U.S. and $24 for international flights. The flying tax is supposed to fund security improvements at Canadian airports.

Third time CTF requests answers about the 'flying tax'
In his letter to Minister Martin, CTF federal director Walter Robinson writes:

Since December 12th, we have been asking five fundamental policy questions with respect to your flying tax. These questions were again raised during our conversation on December 21st. With the resumption of Parliament today, we are aware that you intend to start the legislative process this week to ensure the ATSC is in effect for April 1st. Yet you continue to duck the fundamental policy questions that we have raised. Why do you continue to practice this 'flying tax' evasion

The five questions
On December 12th, the CTF issued a national news release (with copies forwarded to offices of the federal ministers of Finance and Transport) posing the following five questions:

1. Where does the government draw the line between public safety and private benefit in arriving at this user fee structure
2. How will this charge improve airline competition and encourage growth in domestic and international traffic from and to Canadian destinations
3. Why does Canada need a new federal authority to manage the security issue at all Why not just set stricter security regulations and standards for airport authorities and airlines
4. What accountability and reporting mechanisms will be in place to ensure that all monies raised go directly to aviation security measures
5. What assurances do Canadians have that this tax will not become a permanent revenue source for the government

Public good or private benefit
Robinson stated, "in principle, we support the notion of user fees when a private benefit is conferred to select group of individuals, but it seems as though general public security will be greatly enhanced as a result of aviation security improvements. So why do travelers have to fully bear the cost of this public good "

"And if terrorism is directed against the state, why doesn't the state play a greater role in its anti-terrorism response Further, one would think that with a $130 billion budget and a fresh auditor general's report sitting on the bookshelf, Ottawa could find just under $500 million each year in wasteful spending to reallocate toward the pressing and justifiable needs of aviation security," added Robinson.

National petition campaign underway
"Canadians are seeing this tax for what it is: just another revenue grab," said Robinson. "Minister Martin's silence and refusal to answer our pressing policy questions only serves to reinforce the public view that the government is capitalizing on public concerns and boosting its bottom line in the process."

The CTF has launched a Stop the Flying Tax national petition campaign to send a strong message to the federal government that Canadians have grave concerns about the proposed tax.

"We plan to deliver thousands of signatures to Paul Martin before in an effort to ground this tax. And the fact that it is scheduled to take effect on April 1st is surely a cruel April fool's joke in which Canadian travelers find no humour," concluded Robinson.