In just over one month the federal government's Air Travelers Security Charge (ATSC) also known as the ‘flying tax' will take effect. On April 1st (insert your own April Fool's joke) a one-way ticket for travel within Canada will increase by $12 while the price of a round trip fare will jump by $24. A flight to the U.S. will cost you an additional $12 and international jaunts, an extra $24 on departure.

The flying tax was announced in the December budget as a response to the new realities of increased costs for aviation security in our post September 11th world. In fairness to Ottawa, the budget lays out $2.2 billion of expenditures on security (although were not quite sure what the feds are buying) over six years and a collection period of five years of an equal amount.

But we now have word that the new agency (read: more federal bureaucracy) that is supposed to oversee aviation security will not be operational until October or November of this year. So why do we have to pay a tax to fund a bureaucracy that doesn't exist yet? This is only one of several questions that taxpayers, including yours truly, have been asking Finance Minister Paul Martin.

Indeed five key policy questions about the flying tax have been posed repeatedly to the Minister. First on December 12th in a national news release, then on December 21st in a personal call with the Minister and finally on January 28th in a formal letter to his office.

Question 1: Where does the government draw the line between public safety and private benefit in arriving at this user fee structure?

In December's budget, the costs for border crossing improvements and fast-tracking frequent fliers through customs and airports were absorbed by all taxpayers while security costs at airports are destined to be borne solely by the traveling public, there is considerable inconsistency in policy application in this instance.

Terrorism is directed against the state, as it was on 9-11. So if terrorism is directed against the state, why doesn't the state play a greater role in its anti-terrorism response?

Over 3,000 citizens from 80 countries tragically lost their lives on the ground on that fateful day with another 300 or so perishing on the hijacked flights. The point here is not to count the fatalities but to stress that 10 times as many people perished who weren't flying as those were.

Which leads us back to question number one. Yours truly is not averse to user fees in principle in this context, but should travellers alone bear the costs of $2.2 billion in security improvements when it is clear that all of society will - or has the potential - to benefit?

Question 2: How will this charge improve airline competition and encourage growth in domestic and international traffic from and to Canadian destinations?

Twenty-four dollars on a round-trip, full fare across the continent is relatively minimal in one's purchase decision, however, adding $24 to a discount carrier's short-haul fee seems exorbitant. The current government has already presided over the death of eight airlines in nine years, this charge could send others to the graveyard.

Question 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 and allow market flexibility and innovation to determine the funding structure to meet these new requirements?

Bigger government is not the answer to security and public safety issues, properly crafted policy is the more appropriate response. Ottawa should simply set stricter security requirements in terms of training and equipment and use the disincentives of the market (read: big ticket, multi-million dollar fines) for those who fail to comply.

Question 4: What accountability and reporting mechanisms will be in place to ensure that all monies raised go directly to aviation security measures?

Given the fact that the Finance committee has so far railroaded this thing through in just two days of hearings (about 4 hours max), the answer to this question is that are no accountability mechanisms in place. And just like EI taxes, all monies collected will go first to the consolidated general revenue fund.

Question 5: What assurances do Canadians have that this tax will not become a permanent revenue source for the government?

Again, the answer is … none. If the changes that these revenues are supposed to fund are scheduled for implementation over five years, why doesn't the government announce a sunset clause when the tax will end?

The flying tax as presently constructed is an example of poor public policy and the questions posed above reinforce this assertion. Sadly, E.T. will probably phone home before Paul Martin responds to our questions.