Finance Committee on May 30th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any other discussion?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Just one last—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We did ask you I think the last time you were here to provide us with information. I believe you did provide us with that information. I do believe it did come in on the various fees that were being applied under various things, if I remember correctly. We've had so much stuff come in that I'm not exactly sure on this one.

In any event, we did want the information of what the service fees applied to, the various aspects, passports, etc.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I should have said that the Conservatives—we've talked about this previously—don't mind if we vote in block for clause 451 to 457 and we would request a recorded vote if there's unanimous consent to proceed in that fashion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, my thanks to our friends who have come before us. On two occasions, they have tried to appear before us. I just want to thank them for giving us the time.

I will also have to take a stand against this measure and vote against it, like my Conservative colleagues. Unfortunately, during the consultation process and the appearance of witnesses, I was not convinced that this was the right course of action and that all service fees had to be indexed to inflation in perpetuity.

A little earlier, you mentioned that, in your lifetime—but not in mine—the inflation rate was at 20%. So it's not outside the realm of possibility that it will happen again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm sorry to interrupt you. That was the interest rate. Inflation was around 10% or 11%. The interest rates were at 22%.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Okay.

The interest rates, which affect inflation, have been very high before. Those could be substantial amounts.

Linking service fees to inflation is not the appropriate method, in our view, especially not with an endless escalator like that. There may have been other ways of reaching that goal to ensure that taxpayers don't pay unduly for services provided to other taxpayers. The system must still be equitable.

However, I don't think this is the right measure to achieve this goal. I will therefore have to vote against clauses 451 to 457.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have just a few short questions.

On consultations, under clause 12, it says that the “responsible authority must consult interested persons and organizations”. Are there organizations that haven't done that for a while in the federal government?

[Roger Ermuth, Assistant Comptroller General, Financial Management Sector, Office of the Comptroller General, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Are there organizations that...? Sorry, I didn't hear that.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Are there organizations and departments that haven't done the consultation in a long time on certain fees?

[Roger Ermuth]

They would not have done consultation in terms of fees, but they would be in regular contact with their stakeholders on the services they're delivering on other aspects of their business.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

How do you constitute some of these advisory boards on this fee structure?

[Roger Ermuth]

The advisory boards in terms of being within the legislation?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes.

[Roger Ermuth]

For the advisory board within the legislation, again, are you talking about if there's a dispute that's unresolved, perhaps, or...?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

How do you actually do the fee structure?

[Roger Ermuth]

On the fee structure, again, the idea, the proposal, would be that first of all there would be a consultation with stakeholders. If the issues are not resolved, then there would be the ability to appeal in terms of having a panel struck.

In terms of the panel, the idea would be that the department or organization of the government would appoint one person to the panel. The stakeholders who are still opposed to whatever the aspect of the proposal is where there's no agreement would appoint a person. Then, combined, the two members of that committee would appoint a third person. From that, they would have a review of the issue and issue their report.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So fees could conceivably go down?

[Roger Ermuth]

Fees could conceivably go down under the legislation, yes. Out of the process in terms of whether the costs go down, etc., fees could go down at any point, but that wouldn't.... I mean, there would be a discussion with the stakeholders, but there would not be the same level of consultation as if there were a fee increase.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is that it, Mr. Ouellette?

I have one question. It's a very serious one on user service fees. It was reported in Blacklock's just recently. I'll read it out:

An Access To Information memo says federal agencies have simply ignored a 2004 law requiring transparency on user fees.

At the time, the bill was from a colleague of mine, Roy Cullen. It was Bill C-212. It was passed in the House of Commons 13 years ago and had unanimous support.

I'll continue:

The Act required public notice of new charges; appointment of an independent panel to field complaints; and a requirement that departments disclose actual costs of government services offered at a fee, with performance standards and annual reporting to Parliament. A 2016 Treasury Board memo obtained through the Access To Information Act disclosed 84 percent of government fees are never reported, and a quarter of departments—10 out of 41—sought exemptions from the Act.

Maybe you're not the one who can answer this, but given the fact that we get escalators in service fees and excise taxes, my question is, why has this act that was passed 13 years ago not been followed? If you don't have the answer, I'm asking you to get one.

[Roger Ermuth]

Sure. Forgive me, I am not familiar with the specifics of the piece of media that you're reading, but in terms of the statistic, the 84%, it's not necessarily that they're not reported. Through the departmental performance reports, we actually have a number of fees that are reported. Our understanding is that 84% of the fees are not subject to the User Fees Act. With the passing of the User Fees Act, which was a private member's bill, subsequent Department of Justice interpretation came to the conclusion that unless a fee was amended or introduced after the introduction of the User Fees Act, it was not subject to the provisions of the User Fees Act.

One thing we are proposing with the service fees act that we think would be a significant improvement, with the definition we've worked on in conjunction with our Department of Justice colleagues, is that all fees that fall within the definition be subject to the new legislation. We would have full coverage, where all provisions of the act would apply.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If you need the article, I can get it for you. I assume somebody has seen that article. If you could, give the committee a written response on that. I'm sure that Mr. Cullen, who is a former colleague of mine, will be asking from his perspective why the law wasn't abided by. We will need to get a response to him, and certainly this committee would like a response on that.

Mr. Ouellette, go ahead.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I was interested in what you said before, Mr. Ermuth. You suggested that everyone was complying, in evaluating the user fees, and here I learn that 84% are not compliant. What would be the truth, then? Is everyone complying or is everyone not complying?