Public Accounts Committee on May 27th, 2008

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a number of concerns. Obviously, one is that taxpayers not be charged more than the service being delivered. The other is that we shouldn't put the government in such a situation where a liability has ballooned to such a degree that money has to come out of the operational budget of the crown in order to be able to deal with it. So I want to talk specifically about long-term liability, but I want to get some clarity first.

From the Auditor General's office, is it an oversimplification to say that the framework of your audit was to check the integrity of the process and to ensure that the data put through the process would be accurate, so that they would have a well-founded case in developing user fees in relation to the service or product or experience provided?

[Douglas Timmins]

I don't think that's necessarily an oversimplification. I do think that we point to the fact that we were looking for a comprehensive analysis that was providing the rationale, including consideration of other factors, as well as the cost and the value for certain fees.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Okay.

In the two court cases, the one provincial and the other in the Supreme Court, in their judgments did the courts provide any guidance towards governments, whether provincial or federal, on how to develop a user fee so that it would be defensible in the future and something that would fall within the legal framework of a user fee?

[Clyde MacLellan]

Both cases do discuss in broad terms what the courts' expectations were. We did not analyze those cases for the purpose of providing in our report any specific guidance to departments in relation to it. But I think it would be fair to suggest that it's worthy of consultation, especially in the most recent Connaught case, to examine what the implications of those cases will be for—

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Yes, I think it would be.

Maybe while you're looking that information up, I'll address this question on the broader framework specifically to Mr. Rigby.

Given what happened in Lebanon—the world being the unstable place it is quite often these days—my concern is that this would have to be a substantial factor in how you come up with a user fee cost. So I think it's incumbent upon us to understand what the legal ramifications are from these two judgments to really provide you with some good guidance for how long a framework you have to plan for. In other words, how much of a margin can you build up in order to ensure there isn't substantial liability to the Canadian people and at the same time be charging a fair fee? That's my first question, if you want to elucidate on whether or not you agree with that challenge.

Secondly, how many jurisdictions actually have a ten-year passport now?

[Stephen Rigby]

Mr. Sweet, on your first point, I think you're bang on. I think we have two issues that we have to resolve quickly. One is the time period over which we examine the fees and charges to see how much accumulated surplus or deficit we should take into account before we recommend to the government a change in the fee structure. Right now that's part of the discussions we're having with our colleagues at Treasury Board.

The other issue that you pointed out I also agree with. Where there are extraordinary circumstances, such as in Lebanon, where the costs are extreme and arguably outside the ambit of regular consular services, I think there is a question as to whether or not they should be included or excluded from debate in terms of establishing a multi-year trend for surplus or deficit. Again, this is another question that we're trying to take up as quickly as we can.

In terms of other jurisdictions that have a ten-year passport, perhaps I can defer to my colleague.

[A voice]

I'm not aware of it.

[Stephen Rigby]

We're not aware of it, but I can get that information and report it back to you.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

That would be good.

Now, another major concern is really about transparency.

Mr. Monette, I'm aware that you've not been in your position for a long time, but you did say in your remarks today that 85% of user fees have service standards. The problem is that they're not really reported. So you have this extreme case on page 21 of the Auditor General's report, where we have this glowing comment:

As an example of full and balanced performance monitoring and related public reporting, we found that the Parks Canada Agency included full cost information and complete information on standards....

But then for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not only do they not make it public and report against the performance standards.... And again, someone who is looking at this critically could maybe surmise, or ask themselves the question, what are you hiding? But the Department of Fisheries and Oceans then does a small-scale survey of 200 and then reports on performance on that.

How does a department continue to get away with that, and is that specifically going to be addressed?

[Rodney Monette]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

Yes, I think it needs to be addressed. We need to be clear on what the reporting requirements are on performance, and if there is not appropriate reporting, that's something that needs to be factored in when we do our assessment of that department. These are all things that are actually considered when the performance of the deputies and accounting officers are reviewed, so at the end of the day it should be something that departments are held accountable for.

Our job is to make sure that all the reporting requirements are clear. If it's to go up on the web, it should be on the web, and if it's supposed to be in the report on plans and priorities or the performance report, it has to be there. Our job is to make sure that we're pointing out who isn't doing it and giving some visibility to that. I'll very much commit to do that and try to give it that visibility.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Yes, it looks as though it's long overdue that there be some very clear benchmarking between departments. Some are doing such a great job and others are doing such an apparently abysmal job at reporting and monitoring.

It's too bad the Department of Fisheries and Oceans isn't here, Mr. Chairman, because one of the things that really concerns me is that a review hasn't been done—I'm trying to get the exact number here, but I think it was for over a decade. Now they have actually said they will commit to a review by 2010.

But previous reviews have said that their fees were far too low, and there is no evidence that they're going to have an interim increase while they're waiting for this next review. We have a decade-and-a-half of a fee that taxpayers are paying too much for, because they are not getting the full value for it.

I hope that somehow that will be communicated to Fisheries and Oceans: that they may need to consider an interim fee increase that might be nominal compared to what past reviews have said they should increase it by, while they're waiting for the exact answer in 2010 from their present review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

Mr. Bélanger, you have four minutes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Will it be four minutes for the next round as well, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Four minutes; that's it, yes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

For a total of eight?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, it won't be, Mr. Bélanger; it's four minutes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

You're sure it isn't five, instead of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You're down by ten seconds now, so you'd better get going.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

My initial questions are for the witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General.

If I understood correctly, you looked at 220 different fees amounting to $1.9 billion. Of these 220 fees, how many are subject to the User Fees Act?

[Clyde MacLellan]

Mr. Chairman, we have not determined exactly how many fees are subject to the User Fees Act, but we looked at three types of fees in the course of our audit.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I understand, but if you have done a full review, you should know approximately how many fees, out of 200, are subject to the User Fees Act.

[Clyde MacLellan]

Paragraph 1.75 of our report covers a different type of fee than the three mentioned and that fee is subject to the Act. Therefore, we looked at a total of four fees.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That is four fees out of 200 in total. So then, 216 fees are not subject to the Act. Is that because there wasn't...

[Douglas Timmins]

The act applies in all cases if the amount of the fee changes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I understand. So then, 216 of the 220 fees have not increased since 2004 or 2005, or since the act was adopted. Of the 220 fees, 216 have remained the same. Is that correct?