Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I am a Yellowknifer. I live here. I do business here, and I travel regularly through the Yellowknife Airport. The idea of running the airport as a self-sufficient business, charging user fees and landing fees, property leases and vendor rents designed to generate a profit like a business, in that context, it would appear to be a good concept, but the fact is that the Yellowknife Airport is not a business, it's not run by businesspeople, and it's not expected by residents to be a business. It's a government-owned and operated facility. It's almost certainly the NWT's most important piece of transportation infrastructure. It provides critical services to every individual, community, and business in the territory.

Mr. Chair, I agree that the experience for the traveller needs to be improved, the terminal needs some updating, we have to get people checked in more quickly, and we certainly need to break the bottleneck at the security area. Parking needs improvement, and, yes, safety for passengers going to and from the terminal to the planes needs to always remain a priority, but these things should be the focus of managing the airport every day, not just when it wants to seek $10 million a year in user fees.

The Yellowknife Airport should always have the travellers' best interests in mind and be continually improving the air travel experience, but the Yellowknife Airport is also more than just an airport passenger terminal. It includes exploration support companies, such as Matrix. It has a new diamond polishing plant in Almod Diamonds. The ever-famous Buffalo Airways is also located here in a big way. Aboriginal-owned transport and logistics companies such as Det'on Cho Logistics, and BBE are located at the airport. Of course, a number the North's homegrown airlines and helicopter companies are located here, as well. We even have an auto dealership and a few rental car businesses located here, as well.

Mr. Chair, these companies represent lifelines to the North. They bring cargo in and out, they support tourism, they support industry, but, most importantly, they support residents and the communities. Not one of these businesses is just a Yellowknife business. They are part of that critical infrastructure hub I spoke of that makes up the Yellowknife Airport. All of these northern businesses have one expectation of us as a government: to keep the cost of doing business down. In fact, I can't even begin to understand how we balance this idea of a user fee against many other demands we face as a government.

We have to fight tooth and nail for more money for education needs, for justice needs, and social needs to help overcome many challenges we face on those fronts, but here and now with the airport, there is just a simple list of nice-to-have projects and let's grab as much as $10 million a year in new money from residents to pay for it.

I don't need to shine a light on our economic realities anymore, Mr. Chair. Our residents our faced with those realities, and they are demanding every day that we keep the cost of living down. They told us clearly during the election campaign. That is why it's in our mandate. Yet, with this user fee proposal, we are going to be direct contributors to increasing the cost of living and the cost of doing business in the North. If we want to contribute to the economy, we need to keep overhead low. That will support established businesses and stimulate new ventures, and it will allow residents to keep their own money in their own pockets. Now is not the time to apply a new tax, a significant one at that.

Mr. Chair, the Northern Air Transportation Association, NATA, suggests the proposed user fee will work against the goals and priorities of this government. NATA points out that air travellers already pay significant taxes and fees. A recent ticket between Edmonton and Yellowknife with a base price of $112 actually cost the traveller $196. That is a 75 per cent tax. Now our proposed user fee would be on top of that. NATA also points out that it's the federal government, not a user-pay system, that is responsible for providing key airport infrastructure funding.

Northern air carriers are doing all they can to remain competitive. Numbers from the Yukon-based airline Air North show that lower air fares there helped increase the number of visitors, stimulate the economy, and support the business sector, but estimates indicate that a user fee in Yukon that would raise roughly $7 million for their airport would likely cost the economy $6 million in reduced tourism, lowered business travel, and a higher cost of living. The NWT-Nunavut Chamber of Mines, the North's voice on resource opportunities, recently put out a news release clearly stating that they are opposed to such a fee. They said it decentivize investment in the North, it goes against support for a healthy mineral industry and it will add to the cost of doing business. The president went so far as to say that it goes against the NWT Mineral Development Strategy which was created to rejuvenate investment, and he inferred that, if the government really wants to generate revenue instead of new taxes, it should support exploration in mining opportunities.

Both NATA and the NWT Chamber of Commerce have argued strongly that the department has not made a proper business case for this new fee. They further suggest that the airport should show it operates at a maximum efficiency and take advantage of all other revenue-generating opportunities before users are saddled with more fees. A user fee that can be perpetually increased will take away any incentive to improve efficiencies of existing operations.

NATA is sponsoring the Northern Aviation Business Conference here in Yellowknife in April. The conference will specifically address needed airport improvements. I suggest our government needs to be at that conference with open eyes and open ears.

NWT Tourism and their members said no to the fee proposal. Why? Because tour operators -- among the brightest sector in our economic outlook -- will be burdened with higher operating costs.

Mr. Chair, we heard from northern airlines, we've heard from the Chamber of Mines, we've heard from the NWT Chamber of Commerce and we've heard from NWT Tourism and we've heard from individuals. Higher costs do not support competitiveness, resource development, business growth or tourism, and certainly, of course, higher cost is a direct conflict with our mandate goal to lower the cost of living. New user fees at the Yellowknife Airport create an obstacle to achieving all these goals.

Mr. Chair, I like to use the triple-bottom-line approach to evaluate policy and program proposals; that means, to go forward, an idea has to succeed on three separate bottom line levels: fiscal, social, and environmental. This is clearly a lopsided initiative that has very limited benefit to attaining sustainability. If this user fee proposal were to be tested using a triple-bottom-line scorecard, it fails, Mr. Chair.

I agree that the Yellowknife Airport needs to grow and provide better service to travellers, but I submit that now is not the time to take money out of our economy this way. Instead, I speak today to say that now is the time to support the mandate and support Northern businesses and families. Now is the time to protect individuals, families and small businesses by sticking to our government's ultimate business plan: the mandate, where it is clearly stated as our second priority on page 6 “the 18th Assembly will lower the cost of living.”

For these many reasons, Mr. Chair, I will not be in support of Bill 7: An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.