Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has been a long road coming to this place for Bill 7. Initially it came to committee and some details were omitted that didn't allow proper analysis. It went back for review for 120 days and committee has had time to consider it. Those public consultations, at least for me -- and I'll be clear, I am speaking for myself as an honourable Member of this House -- those public consultations were a real eye-opener for me. At first, the bill seemed an important step forward in delivering on crucial infrastructure improvements for the Yellowknife Airport and further economic opportunities, but the more we looked into it and the more we heard from important stakeholders, the more we realized that there was more in play here, and the proposed benefits and enhancements were less important than pulling an expensive piece of public infrastructure off the government's books and asking consumers to directly subsidize it through increased fees and taxes.
As we looked through other jurisdictions in Canada, and even through global rates of airline competitiveness, Canada ranks very poorly in affordable air travel, and largely because of increased fees and taxes that are imposed on tickets through airport authorities.
Even more recently, perhaps coincidentally in time for this debate, the CBC has launched a major investigative report into how airport improvement fees roll out across the country, and it was found that anywhere between 4 to 6 per cent of fees are kept by airlines, and this plan, this airport improvement plan, that this legislation enables didn't seem to be aware of that concern and it was not subject to committee's study, so there are a lot of unanswered questions.
It was originally called a governance reform for the Yellowknife Airport, and really it's more a governance structure for accounting, not really governance for the airport itself. There is an economic advisory committee that has been proposed, and this committee is not publicly accountable. It's not even accountable to the Minister; it's accountable to his Ministry. These are red flags in terms of creating a really robust entrepreneurial basis for funding increased economic and commercial activities at the Yellowknife Airport, and, ultimately, for a government that has pledged to keep the cost of living low, to tackle unnecessary increases to the cost of living, and that initially opposed a national carbon tax scheme out of concerns for increasing the cost of living. I find it somewhat galling that we are embarking wholeheartedly into increasing the cost of air travel in the Northwest Territories, and not just for Yellowknife but everyone who travels through that airport, which includes our world class tourism industry.
This is an industry worth subsidizing in my humble submission, Mr. Chair, and the price elasticity of airline rates has been noted in many of the submissions the committee received, and there is a direct correlation in decreased commercial activity as a result of increase in fees. People are very shrewd when they are purchasing air flights, and there are many resources out there to help make the most economical decision for them, so there will most likely be an impact; all the evidence that we were presented points to that.
Furthermore, what we heard is that people want a better airport. People want better infrastructure, better opportunities. This plan doesn't get us there any time soon. It's aspirational, and it was sold on aspirations. The immediate short and immediate term results of this plan is going to be fee increases and substantial fee increases across the board.
Nunavut and Yukon, our sister jurisdictions, are continuing to subsidize their airports. They have engaged in the federal government and in P3 projects to improve their local infrastructure and those are immediate projects that are under way today. We still don't have a plan to improve infrastructure. I would also argue that, if this is a political priority for government, then we will find the political will to put those improvements in, and if that's what the Assembly agrees to as a whole when we develop our mandate or develop those broad political priorities, then that's what takes precedent and perhaps bumps things up the capital planning list.
So I think that there's been a lot of work done on a sales pitch for this, and I appreciate that the department is trying to communicate its objectives here but I think they missed the mark. Ultimately, although this -- I can only call it a cash grab at this point has a direction that is towards airport improvement is far off, and at this time I can't support it. Perhaps under different economic conditions for our territory I could support it, but at a time when our economy is still sluggish and needs assistance from this government in the form of capital, in the form of opportunities, this is not an opportunity that is going to help our economy at this time.
This is an extra burden on the backs of Northerners who will be paying for this piece of infrastructure through fees and taxes, and those are my number one concerns: ensuring that our residents are not unduly burdened by any increases to the cost of living.
I have heard that line repeated by our Premier, by our Finance Minister, by numerous Members of Cabinet, so I can't understand why progressive things like carbon taxes can't be considered because of their undue cost yet an airport tax is completely reasonable and rational as a policy direction of this government.
So with that, Mr. Chair, I'll conclude my comments. This is not a quick decision that I have come to; this is something that has been with the committee that I serve on, Economic Development and Environment. I do want to thank my honourable friends on that committee and the work of our chair, the honourable Member from Yellowknife North, in moving this file along and ensuring that we were allowed to do our due diligence and had a thorough review of this proposal and well considered, including allowing the public to have their voices heard. Thank you.