Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1997

Canada Marine Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motions in Group No. 3 are deemed to have been put, divisions demanded and deferred.

(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 18 and 19, is the next group of motions.

Is there unanimous consent for the proposal of the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans that each party have five minutes starting now to speak to Group No. 4?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motions in Group No. 4 are deemed to have been moved, seconded, and read by the Chair.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 15, on page 77, the following:

“133.1 (1) For greater certainty, on the continuance of a harbour commission under section 10 as a port authority, on the continuance of a local port corporation under section 12 as a port authority or, on the coming into force of an agreement entered into under subsection 80(5) with the St-Lawrence Seaway Authority, any person who, at the time of the coming into force of those sections or subsection was employed by one of those bodies and remains employed, may, if that person was a contributor under the Public Service Superanuation Act, elect to remain subject to the terms of the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and the regulations made under those Acts.”

(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes of subsection (1).”

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-9 be amended by

(a) replacing the heading before line 1 on page 79 with the following:

“Comparable Employee Benefits”

(b) adding after line 8 on page 79 the following:

“138.2 A person who has entered into an agreement under subsection 80(5) and every port authority shall take all reasonable steps to negotiate with the President of the Treasury Board a pension transfer agreement in accordance with section 40.2 of the Public Service Superannuation Act in respect of employees referred to in paragraph 130(b), 132(b) or 135(1)(b), as the case may be.

138.3 For the purposes of sections 138.4 to 138.6, “employee benefits” includes coverage and benefits in respect of employer-sponsored pension plans and of life, income protection, health care and dental care insurance plans.

138.4 A person who has entered into an agreement under subsection 80(5) shall, in respect of an employee referred to in paragraph 130(b), provide employee benefits that

(a) begin on the day of the transfer under paragraph 80(6)(f) or, if there is transitional coverage provided in respect of the person under section 40.1 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, on the expiry of the period of transitional coverage;

(b) are comparable to the employee benefits of the employee immediately before the transfer under paragraph 80(6)(f) and at a rate of contribution by the employee not greater than the rate that was applicable in respect of the employee immediately before that transfer; and

(c) end on the day on which an agreement to the contrary comes into force between the person and the bargaining agent representing the employee or, in the case of an unrepresented employee, the person and the employee.

138.5 A port authority shall, in respect of an employee referred to in paragraph 132(b), provide employee benefits that

(a) begin on the day on which the port authority is continued under subsection 12(1) or, if there is transitional coverage provided in respect of the port authority under section 40.1 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, on the expiry of the period of transitional coverage;

(b) are comparable to the employee benefits of the employee immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the local port corporation and at a rate of contribution by the employee not greater than the rate that was applicable in respect of the employee immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the local port corporation; and

(c) end on the day on which an agreement to the contrary comes into force between the port authority and the bargaining agent representing the employee or, in the case of an unrepresented employee, the port authority and the employee.

138.6 A port authority shall, in respect of an employee referred to in paragraph 135(1)(b), provide employee benefits that

(a) begin on the day on which the port authority is deemed to be incorporated under subsection 12(1) or, if there is transitional coverage provided in respect of the port authority under section 40.1 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, on the expiry of the period of transitional coverage;

(b) are comparable to the employee benefits of the employee immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the Canada Ports Corporation and at a rate of contribution by the employee not greater than the rate that was applicable in respect of the employee immediately before ceasing to be an employee of the Canada Ports Corporation; and

(c) end on the day on which an agreement to the contrary comes into force between the port authority and the bargaining agent representing the employee or, in the case of an unrepresented employee, the port authority and the employee.”

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the fourth group of amendments.

In drafting the Canada Shipping Act, the government has made human resources a priority. It has made an effort to ensure that all affected employees, whether unionized or not, would be treated fairly and it made sure the Canada Labour Code would be rigorously adhered to at all stages, in both the spirit and the letter.

In Bill C-9, the government has taken the position that employees of federal organizations which will be commercialized, divested or sold will be covered under comparable replacement pension arrangements. This is thoroughly consistent with past practices.

Under Bill C-9 the government has taken the position that employees of a federal organization which will be commercialized, divested or sold will be covered under comparable replacement pension arrangements. This is thoroughly consistent with past practices.

For example, recently transport employees at major airports have been offered comparable pension plan coverage to that of the public service plan. Similar arrangements were made for employees affected by the transfer of air navigation services to NavCan. The transfer provided employees with a parallel pension plan where employees were no worse off as a result of their move out of the public service.

By adding employment related provisions to its agreements with these new employers, the government has been able to exert direct influence to ensure that employees have been treated fairly with regard to offers of employment and replacement benefit packages.

During the Standing Committee on Transportation's examination of Bill C-9, an additional amendment was adopted to guarantee that ports employees will be able to take advantage of the transitional provisions recently established in the Public Service Superannuation Act on an equal footing with the seaway employees.

When Treasury Board has given its approval to this new clause, affected employees will be able to continue to participate in the federal pension plan for a time after divesting, so as to allow the new employer time to create, register and implement a new pension plan.

There may be some discussion today about whether or not transferred employees should continue to be covered under the government's superannuation plan, but I point out that some of my colleagues may propose that, when transferring to a new retirement plan, affected employees should be able to transfer their accumulated benefits.

I am pleased to say the government has responded to many of the concerns raised to date on the issue of superannuation benefits to transferred employees. Motion No. 19 in fact proposes to amend the bill so that it covers all employees transferred to a number of different situations: the seaway, a not for profit corporation, a former local port corporation, and former non-corporate ports which are the divisional ports managed by Canada Ports Corporation.

Harbour commissions are the only group not included in this list. They are not affected by these questions because of existing coverage under their private benefit plans.

Motion No. 19 will ensure that new employers will have to offer benefits that are comparable to what the employees had immediately before the new employer took over and keep the comparable benefits in place unless the employer and the employees mutually agree to change them.

It will also set in place contribution rates that are not higher than what was paid by the employees immediately before they were taken over by the new employer. They will also begin their benefit plans when they take over the employees or immediately after any transitional coverage under federal plans. Finally they will take all reasonable steps to negotiate a pension transfer agreement with the Treasury Board.

The government has moved a long way toward meeting some of the objectives of my colleagues on the other side. We cannot, for reasons stated, move all the way to accommodate them but I think we have made our best effort in the spirit of co-operation to get the bill through.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in committee all opposition parties pressed the government side to ensure that the superannuation benefits of federal employees transferred over to the public ports and not just port authorities would be protected. Instead, the government with Motion No. 19, as near as I can determine from what I have read, merely clarifies and solidifies the rights of government employees moving to port authorities but does nothing at all for employees moving into the public ports.

These employees, some with 10 or 15 years of service, will be left out in the cold. They have fallen through the cracks. Their pensions are not portable and the bill literally leaves them hung out to dry.

They are not great in numbers but nevertheless these are real people. Some consideration should have been given to them.

Motion No. 18 really has the same deficiency. It does not relate to people transferring into the public ports. However, as I read that motion, it is a bit over generous to employees transferring to port authorities. To some extent it negates the intent of commercialization which was to get the government out of the business of ports.

I think on one hand there are the employees of public ports who are not going to be cared for at all. On the other hand, with either Motion No. 18 or 19, fair enough, the port authority people are being looked after. Motion No. 18 looks after them so well that we will not support it. We will support Motion No. 19 but I am extremely disappointed that the government only did half the job.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, in committee, I asked the Minister of Transport to stand up to his colleague, the Treasury Board President, and tell him that employees of local port authorities, employees of the St. Lawrence seaway, contrary to what was done in the case of the airports and Nav Canada, would continue to belong to a crown corporation. With this in mind, I asked the Minister of Transport to really reaffirm his role as leader and say that Treasury Board officials would not be the ones to decide that these employees would be out of the pension plan.

Contrary to what my Reform colleague has just said, it is clear in the amendment in Motion No. 18 moved by the Bloc Quebecois, and it is worth taking the trouble to read, that:

—any person who, at the time of the coming into force of those sections or subsection was employed by one of those bodies and remains employed, may, if that person was a contributor under the Public Service Superannuation Act, elect to remain subject to the terms of the Public Service Superannuation Act—

Our amendment makes this an obligation and allows employees to continue to belong to the government pension plan. The same reasoning as that used in the case of the airports and Nav Canada cannot be applied.

I respectfully submit that, when the minister tells us that employees will continue to be covered by a comparable pension plan, it is true that they will continue to be covered, but employees of these local port authorities are losing an important bargaining tool. Allow me to explain.

If a port's board of directors has a salary mass of $500,000 to divide among employees in the next collective agreement, the pie can only be cut into so many pieces. If, at the bargaining table, the port's finance director says that, under the legislation, this amendment, the government has obliged him to maintain a comparable pension plan.

I am not an actuary, but after 18 years in labour relations, I am well aware that maintaining a comparable pension plan for a group of 50 employees, such as in the port of Grande-Anse, in the Saguenay, or in the port of Quebec City, involves a different actuarial cost than allowing them to continue to belong to the government pension plan. The finance director for the port of Quebec City is therefore going to tell employees that he has $500,000 for improving working conditions in that particular year. If I maintain your pension plan, because you are just a small group, it will cost $400,000. There will only be $100,000 left to increase death benefits, annual leave and salaries”.

This is why, if our amendment to Motion No. 18 is not accepted, I predict that workers in Canadian ports will lose their negotiating power and the possibility to improve, in a dignified manner, through negotiations, their working conditions. As for the comparable pension plan, the cost involved in the case of a small group of employees will not be the same as would otherwise be the case.

So, Motion No. 19 moved by the government does not satisfy us. It is not because we oppose maintaining the right of workers, but because we feel our Motion No. 18 would have been absolutely fair by providing a fair chance to negotiations and to employees to improve their conditions of employment, instead of being part of a comparable pension plan.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the last group of motions. I am little troubled. Perhaps I misunderstood. At committee several of us proposed amendments on the superannuation transfer between the harbour commissions to private corporations or to harbour authorities, that the superannuation benefits would be extended to all those employees of harbour commissions and ports that had them, that they would be supplied even on a temporary basis until such time as appropriate alternatives could be found.

Several members made amendments which would perform that and I thought we had been assured by the parliamentary secretary that they would be submitting an amendment that would address that need to make sure all employees had some continuation of superannuation benefits.

According to this, it applies only to Canada Port Authority employees, Motion No. 19.

Motion No. 18 is the same kind of motion, addressing the same issue. We prefer Motion No. 19. However, we understood that it would apply to all employees, not just to Canada Port Authority employees. I may have misunderstood that in committee but we did vote based on the assurances of the parliamentary secretary that there would be an alternative to the superannuation amendments that several of us put in.

Motion No. 20 is nice and simple and we agree that all fines recovered under this part should be paid over to the receiver general and form part of the consolidated revenue fund.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, in discussion of the marine act at the standing committee, it was acknowledged that there had been lengthy discussions in the previous Parliament and it was also understood that the affected groups were, overall, satisfied with the changes that had been made to the marine act.

In recognition of that and of their request that we not rehash the whole process and that we try to move the bill along, I believe the standing committee worked in that effort. The major area that came up for discussion, as we are being made aware, was to ensure that employees of Canada Ports continued with some kind of superannuation or pension benefits comparable to what they had.

I had a real treat of being in Churchill the day after the signing took place and the port was turned over to another company. I realized that Canada Ports really had not given two cents worth of its time with regard to its employees. There had been little or no discussion with the employees. The employees were given forms with which they were basically signing away their rights to any file or complaints they had under the human rights code. It was actually very disgraceful to see that approach taken with the employees.

What also happened with those employees is there was not a comparable plan in place.

I have a letter that was given to one of those employees with regard to the three months pay for the perceived difference in superannuation and RRSPs. The letter states that the money that person would have received, in that perceived difference, the money that person would get, would be put toward that person's earnings. Therefore, that person would be denied a length of time in which to claim unemployment. That person could not even take that money and invest it in something that would be there for retirement. It then went toward insurable earnings. So that person did not have even that difference of money that was recognized. That person would not even be allowed to use it for retirement.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to the special motion of the government whip which was adopted unanimously at the beginning of this debate, all questions should be deemed put no later than 5.30 p.m. today.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must advise the hon. member that there was unanimous consent to go on with the debate with five minutes for each party represented. The hon. member for Churchill is the last member to speak.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, further to discussion with Canada Ports employees, all the opposition parties and even some Liberal members recognized the real need to ensure employee benefits and pensions were continued. We are going through a major change here. I hope this is not something that will happen every day or every decade where employees who work for the Government of Canada are being told their jobs will no longer be there, that they are due to retire in five years and will not have the income or pension benefits they have planned for retirement.

It was hoped that the government would come up with a clause that would recognize this is a major change and that employees would be given the opportunity to continue with those same benefits. That is not to say that new employees may have had something different. Those employees who had planned their retirement based on that plan should have had the opportunity to continue.

This situation will not affect only Canada Ports. It is coming up in Atomic Energy Canada as those types of corporations are turned over. The issue will keep coming back. I suggest that we all look at the possibility of ensuring there is something for those employees so they are not five years to retirement without the funds they thought were available.

I will be supporting Motion No. 18 because I believe it is more encompassing. I put that motion forward at committee and I thank the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans resubmitting it.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the unanimous consent that was arrived at 10 minutes ago allowed for each party to have five minutes to speak. I also understand that the hon. member for the Reform Party spoke for just three minutes and we would not object to another two minutes being allowed for another member in that party. We have no objection.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will just sum up and get some clarification and hopefully some clarification for anyone who may be reading the results of this debate.

The hon. minister mentioned that in this tranferring from the one authority or one paycheque to another that these people would be no worse off. Those were the terms that he used. May I present this to the hon. minister. If someone is being transferred to the new authority and they do so with 20 years experience, will that 20 years experience count with the new authority so that if the pension age is with 30 years of service, that would be the same number of years which qualified that individual for full pension?

That has not been made clear and I think that should be made clear because that is valuable information for the people who are waiting for the new port authorities to be established.

The second thing is in Motion No. 19, which is a motion which was raised by the government—and I will be very quick—there is a statement there that says that this excludes the port authorities, but this is another issue and I am wondering how the government is going to deal with that other issue.

Those are my two points.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, all the questions on the motions at report stage are deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed to have been demanded. Therefore, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Thursday, December 4, 1997, at the end of government orders.

(Recorded divisions deemed demanded and deferred)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5:46 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

User Fee Act

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

moved that Bill C-205, an act to provide for parliamentary scrutiny and approval of user fees set by federal authority and to require public disclosure of the amount collected as user fees, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to finally be able to stand and speak in favour of this bill that I have introduced, Bill C-205, the user fee act.

I will start by quoting from the auditor general's report from 1993. He said:

We are concerned that Parliament cannot readily scrutinize the user fees established by contracts and other non-regulatory means. There does not exist a government-wide summary of the fees being charged, the revenues raised and the authorities under which they are established.

He went on to say:

We have recommended that the Treasury Board review and report to Parliament on the adequacy of the current legislative and administrative framework for establishing user fees, and provide Parliament with government-wide summary information on fees being charged.

This is an important issue to many Canadians around the country. In 1996 user fees raised about $3.8 billion for the government coffers without absolutely any parliamentary scrutiny. We believe that that is taxation without representation. Pretty clearly, others feel the same way.

I sit on the finance committee and I can tell you we had a number of representations from different groups, a lot of agricultural-type groups who came before us to complain specifically about how easy it is for the government and the bureaucracy to start to raise user fees, again without really very much scrutiny, with very little regard for the impact it is having on the various sectors of the economy.

If you look back over the history of this issue, one of the things you come to suspect very quickly is that the government is really using user fees to simply tax people more. It is a way for the government to come up with more revenue and not necessarily just for cost recovery.

It is interesting that in the February 1995 federal budget the finance minister sent bureaucrats in search of $600 million in new revenue in a program he called cost recovery. This should cause us to be pretty suspicious. The government was in a terrible pinch in 1995. The finance minister ordered his bureaucrats to collect $600 million from the hides of people who were doing business with the government. That is being done through user fees.

The intended purpose of this bill is to fulfil concerns raised by the auditor general in his 1993 report. Essentially it would require scrutiny by the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons before any user fee is set or increased. The regulating authority, that being an agency or department, would be required to submit a proposal to the committee for review before any user fee is established or increased.

Madam Speaker, I might ask that you to give me a signal when I have used up about eight minutes of time. Then I will wrap up fairly quickly thereafter to allow my colleague to say a few words.

We believe beyond the issue of accountability, which is obviously an important issue, taxation without representation is pretty close to the wallets and the hearts of a lot of people as an issue they are concerned about. Apart from that is the issue of fairness.

It is difficult to judge whether or not the government is allowing user fees to pad shrinking budgets and appropriations. I can tell you that people are very concerned about it. I want to illustrate what I mean by reading from a brief which was presented to the finance committee a month or two ago. It comes from the Crop Protection Institute. It says:

Federal departments have very little acumen for accountability and management of cost recovery initiatives, as evidenced by experience with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), whose $12 million cost recovery target is realizing a $4.5 million shortfall, as predicted by industry, while the agency's performance and client orientation remain poor.

The cumulative impact of multiple cost recoveries within the Agri-Food value chain (i.e. pesticide registration, food inspection, veterinary drug registration, navigation system usage etc.) stifles this sector's potential to consistently deliver a trade surplus. The business impact test, while very useful, does not measure the effect of multiple cost recoveries within the interrelationships of a value chain.

While the government has increasingly chosen to have mandatory services paid for through user fees, instead of from consolidated revenues, this switch has not been accompanied by lower tax rates. Thus, businesses subject to user fees have actually had their cost of doing business increased by the government, impacting negatively on their ability to compete globally.

It is pretty obvious when there is a power that is granted to the bureaucracy to go ahead and start to raise user fees, but on the other hand there is no check on that power, no real parliamentary scrutiny. It allows the government to do things that are quite damaging to business. We are very concerned about that. We have seen this continue for some time despite the warnings of the auditor general. Although the government has done some things, it simply has not gone far enough to deal with the problems that industry has pointed to.

Some would argue, as the gentlemen from the Crop Protection Institution does, that user fees put us at a competitive disadvantage. I can tell you this from personal experience, Madam Speaker. There is a meat packing plant, IBP Lakeside, in my home town of Brooks, Alberta. It is having a terrible time contending with large increases in user fees which the government has slapped on them, while trying to remain competitive in what is a global marketplace.

They have to compete with the Americans and others around the world. These user fees make it extraordinarily difficult for them to do this.

It is interesting to note that if the user fees that are paid are combined at all three levels of government, it amounts to about $23 billion a year in this country, more than Canadians pay toward the hated GST.

I want to conclude by simply pointing out that there really is a trend for the government to use user fees to raise new revenue. I point to the new immigration head tax, $975. There is a passport fee that was increased from $35 to $60, beginning in 1997.

This is interesting. Fisheries Canada started collecting $15 million in recreational boat licences. In other words, people who did not used to have to worry about that are now going to be paying I think $15 a boat so that this money can go back into the department, ostensibly for them to increase their surveillance and that sort of thing.

Suffice it to say, without checks, without the ability of Parliament, in this case through a committee to go ahead and look at these sorts of things, it really does amount to taxation without representation. It is $3.8 billion a year.

I urge my colleagues around the House to seriously consider the objections that are being raised by the business community and by regular people, people who use parks, people who go fishing, about the unbridled use of user fees as a way for the government to increase its revenues.

I would encourage them to consider this and work with me to encourage the people at public accounts to seriously consider this issue and perhaps actually implement at least part of what we are suggesting.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak with regard to Bill C-205, presented by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. The member is known for his concern for the well-being of the nation's finances. Let us therefore scrutinize the bill in light of our shared concerns for the proper fiscal management of Canada's public finances in a cost effective delivery of services to Canadians.

Bill C-205 would demand separate parliamentary authorization for the establishment or increase of individual user fees. It would also require that the amount collected by the government as user fees be shown separately in the public accounts. In short, all user fees that are to be introduced, increased, widened in application must be submitted to the House of Commons and have the approval of the House before coming into effect.

This is not all. Before the House passes a resolution authorizing these new increases or widened fees, a committee of the House must have 150 days to review the proposal.

This bill, while attempting to disclose, is itself enmeshed in ambiguities, difficulties and misconceptions. The bill as currently drafted would require that a considerable amount of amendments be made to clarify its application.

For example, the bill's inclusion of departments as fee setting authorities but with the exclusion of individual ministers does not accord with the existing legal authorities for fee setting. Also, the bill's inclusion of crown corporations as fee setting authorities is perhaps much broader than the intent the member for Medicine Hat would like.

First, in the case of crown corporations producing goods and services under commercial and competitive conditions, parliamentary authorization for every price, fee or charge would make reaction to market conditions impossible. It would also be incompatible with the confidentiality a competitive firm needs to maintain an effective presence in the marketplace.

Bill C-205 will seriously encumber crown corporations that compete with private interests. Crown corporations would effectively be paralyzed vis-à-vis the private sector.

Let us consider what effects the bill would have on existing user programs within departments and agencies. There are 300 separate categories of fees listed for external user charges in a report prepared by the Treasury Board secretariat. These fees range in scale from charges for firewood at Parks Canada campgrounds to drug certification fees. There may be thousands of changes to fees implemented across government in any one year.

Bill C-205 requires that a separate parliamentary authorization for each one of them would place a large administrative and processing burden on departments, agencies and parliament itself. Delays would result from the provision that a committee would have up to 150 days to consider each fee proposal, subsequent to which the House would have to act before the fee could take effect. This would make the implementation of user programs virtually impossible.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat has taken out his trowel and is prepared to layer curious procedural mortar on the process of cost recovery through user fees. Is the member's bill consistent with cost effective delivery of public services? Does it not undermine the very ideas of a fee for services and a move toward cost recovery?

The user fee concept is not new. Canadians have paid passport fees since the 1800s. The use of user fees to finance the delivery of public sector goods and services is increasing in Canada as it is in other OECD countries. It operates on the principle that those who enjoy, profit or benefit from government services, to the exclusion of the public at large, should be the ones who pay the cost of providing them.

This promotes fairness in the use of tax dollars and discipline in the consumption of services. It also gives users a direct say in the service and how it is delivered. It is cost effective, administratively sound and a fair way to deliver government services.

We are interested in prudent management and the cost effective delivery of goods and services to Canadians. When we came into office in 1993 not only did we face a large $42.5 billion deficit, high interest rates, increased taxes and record high unemployment. We were also looking at record levels of program spending.

In 1992-93 we were spending $122.6 billion in program spending. Thanks to the program review and the commitment of ministers, program spending will fall to $103.5 billion in 1998-99. This will represent only 11.9% of our gross domestic product, the lowest ratio since 1949-50.

We have succeeded in bringing our program spending under control. The deficit at $42.5 billion in 1993 will be eliminated by 1998-99. We are now debating over what to do with the fiscal dividend we have earned through proper fiscal management, a debate that would have been ridiculous, indeed inapplicable, under the previous government.

The government has shown restraint and discipline while never forgetting the most needy and vulnerable in society. We have managed our affairs effectively while maintaining quality service to Canadians.

Bill C-205 would not contribute to that success. It would indeed threaten it. After almost a decade of mistrust during the previous government, Canadians have a new and better relationship with their federal public institutions. Our public service is working with and for Canadians for a stronger, more prosperous, more dynamic and more secure Canada.

Canadians want effective public institutions and departments that will provide good value for their dollars. We have worked through program review to make programs and agencies responsible for the needs of Canadians. Bill C-205 is blind to the progress we have made so far.

A number of departments, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Industry Canada and Environment Canada, has been contacted to get their reaction to the bill. All indicated that it would do significant harm to their ability to implement changes to their programs as scheduled under program review, leading to significant delays and compliance needs.

Under Bill C-206 fee setting would become an adversarial political process, with the House committees becoming a target for intensive lobbying from various interest groups.

I conclude by saying that I do not oppose the intent behind the hon. member's bill. I agree, for example, that public accounts should include a better breakdown of tax revenue, but the member's bill is an excessive tool to bring it about.

The intentions of Bill C-205 are unworkable. The basic principles of the bill are incompatible with the effective delivery of programs in departments, agencies and crown corporations which provide goods and services to Canadians on a full or partial cost recovery basis.

I cannot therefore support the bill.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is surprising to hear what our colleague opposite had to say. Dealing with transparency, with how our money is spent, is always complicated; it is always a long process. But when the process is to tax people, when the process is to introduce hidden taxes, the government is quick to act.

We have before us today in the House of Commons Bill C-205 introduced by the member for Medicine Hat. In this bill, the Reform member states that this law would provide for parliamentary scrutiny and approval of user fees set by a federal authority and require public disclosure of the amount collected as user fees.

The Bloc Quebecois, a party that promotes transparency, is also willing to promote this bill. This initiative by my Reform colleague is in keeping with a recommendation made by the auditor general in his 1993 report, and I would like to quote him. My colleague mentioned this earlier, but I would like to repeat it because sometimes the members opposite have difficulty understanding the facts.

Here is what the auditor general said “We are concerned that it is not easy for Parliament to scrutinize closely user fees as determined by the market and other non-regulatory instruments. There is no government-wide summary of fees charged, of revenues collected and of the authorities under which these fees are set.”

This Reform bill addresses this legitimate concern by the auditor general. These user fees are a type of hidden tax that the Minister of Finance approves. Federal agencies are charging fees in an attempt to overcome the cuts that the Liberal government imposed on them.

In fact, these federal agencies implemented these service charges when the Minister of Finance authorized them to do so in 1995. The minister stated at that time that it was appropriate to charge such new fees in order to finance part of the programs and services provided by the federal government.

Who is paying for this new approach? The taxpayer.

I would like to give you several examples of increases to service charges made by agencies under federal authority: a head tax of $975 for each new immigrant coming to Canada; administration fees for a passport increased from $35 to $60.

Another example affects directly families and people who love the outdoors: in 1995-1996, $35 million were collected in entrance fees paid by users of our lovely national camping sites, and these fees almost doubled in the year 1996-1997, totalling over $61 million. Today, national camping facilities cost more than private camping facilities.

How can these hidden taxes imposed with the finance minister's blessing be justified when the people of Quebec and Canada are overburdened with taxes as it is? Bill C-205 comes at the right moment to unmask the Liberals' game. Where is this money going? The Minister of Finance did not say anything about that either. Whenever this government has to account to the people, it shirks its responsibility. There is a long list of examples.

One issue of particular concern to Quebeckers is that of harmonising the GST, which costs our taxpayers $2 billion. In spite of repeated requests on our part, the Minister of Finance still will not agree to disclose his real motives for denying this legitimate request.

The Minister of Finance repeatedly said that his studies and analyses showed that Quebec was not entitled to this money. In a last-ditch effort to resolve this issue, the leader of our party made a fair and equitable proposal to the two parties involved in this controversy over numbers. The Bloc leader asked that a three-member expert panel look into this issue. The federal government will not agree to this totally democratic and legitimate approach. What is it trying to hide from the public?

The EI fund, with surpluses expected to exceed $15 billion, is another issue. In the report he tabled in October, the auditor general mentioned that the finance minister should administer the EI fund in a more transparent fashion. The minister's financial statements should show, under a separate account, the amounts paid in and out of the EI fund.

This too would help give credibility to this government. Yet, the finance minister still denies this request. Why? He is afraid of the public finding out how he is playing with the EI fund surpluses.

Who are the losers in this economic debate? The workers, who are heavily penalized by this Liberal government.

With this bill, democracy could make strides. The issue of transparency is front and centre, and that is the first step in stopping this marketing operation the Liberal government launched in this House with the Speech from the Throne. It should be pointed out to the hon. members of this House that, in 1996 alone, these new user fees generated $3.8 billion in revenue for the federal government, without any form of review being conducted.

The finance minister's game is obvious. This is another source of revenue that looks like a roundabout way of collecting more taxes from the taxpayers. The time has come to put a stop to these hidden taxes. The time has come for the public to be made aware of the use made of this money by the government.

The Bloc Quebecois fully supports the principle of Bill C-205, allowing members of Parliament to subject to scrutiny the source of revenue from user fees.

For the reasons stated the bill, namely transparency, responsibility and representation, our party is in favour of Bill C-205.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we were discussing the issue of user fees I am quite sure it would be a different debate, but as we are discussing a private member's bill to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of user fees I want to rise in support of the bill.

The user fee act will require scrutiny by the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons before any user fee may be set or increased. The regulating authority must submit a proposal to the committee before any fee is established or increased.

The report of the committee is subject to the concurrence of the House. If the committee does not report within 150 days, the House may pass a resolution approving, denying or amending the proposed fee or change. The regulating authority is bound by the decision of the House.

The enactment also requires public accounts and other government reports on revenue that identify sources of revenue to identify the amount of revenue from user fees.

The legislation of my colleague from Medicine Hat is designed as a response to the auditor general's comments that parliament needs to scrutinize user fees. There does not exist a government-wide summary of the fees being charged, the revenues raised and the authorities under which they were established. There is a lack of scrutiny.

User fees are more and more present for services which the government provides. Not only are they becoming more abundant but they are becoming higher.

It is easy to show a surplus when services are cut. It is easy to show a surplus when we operate government as pay for service. The government has cut and slashed so much the budgets of departments that they now turn to user fees to make up for the loss. In 1996 the federal bureaucrats picked up $3.8 billion in user fees for government services, 7% more than in 1995.

User fees have been able to explode without scrutiny. People are affected by these user fees that are imposed on them. They are hitting us from every angle. Ottawa has cut its deficit on the backs of the provinces and the provinces are doing the same on the backs of municipalities, hospitals and school boards. With no government to download onto and under pressure from citizens to hold the line on taxes, local politicians have increasingly turned to user fees. Local governments now raise more than $9 billion a year in user fees and hospitals another $3 billion, double what they were pulling in a decade ago.

As a trustee with my school district, I was aware over the years that students had to buy some supplies, wood for carpentry and material for sewing, gym shorts, a calculator, a French verb book. As the years went by the list got longer and longer. Finally there was a public outcry because there were just so many items the students had to purchase on their own. Such is the case with the Government of Canada.

This legislation would be a start. Members in this Parliament would have a chance to represent their constituents' concerns over the government's user fees. They would have a chance to have public debate on user fee increases. We would have a chance to decide if it was fair for Canadians to pay for the government's cuts to departmental budgets. This is why I will be supporting this bill.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-205 presented by the member for Medicine Hat.

I have heard people say that the member for Medicine Hat should be knighted for his service to the people of Canada performed through this bill. There are others who say he should be ignited. I do not know which it should be but I do appreciate that he has brought this bill forward. It is a very serious topic.

In the time that I have to speak on this bill, I will deal with the user fees and the problems they cause to farmers and those in the agricultural industry. I will focus on that area, although many of my comments could be applied to any other business or industry.

I will begin by referring to the 1993 auditor general's report, which the hon. member for Medicine Hat referred to briefly. It should have been a starting point for the government as it delved into the user fee fiasco it is in now. Second, I will deal with the principles that should guide changes to user fees. Third, I am going to talk about the general concerns that farmers and agribusiness have expressed regarding user fees. And if I have time, I will refer to what particular farm organizations and agriculture processors have said about what user fees are doing to them.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat explained his bill and the impact it would have on the whole issue of user fees. User fees as they have been used by the federal government and other levels of government have become a new way of taxing people. We had something like 36 tax increases by the government in the last Parliament plus the budget promise for a 73% increase in the Canada pension plan premium. And already in this Parliament the same government has made tax increases and sometime this week or next, because closure has been invoked, we will be debating and passing Bill C-2, the increase in Canada pension plan premiums of 73%.

Farmers who manage their businesses are faced with these very real tax increases and the increase in Canada pension plan premiums. Since most farmers own their own businesses and are self-employed, they would face an increase over five years amounting to $3,200 a year. They have that increase as well as the whole barrage of user fees that affect them both directly and indirectly. I will talk about some of these fees.

Starting with the auditor general's report, the hon. member for Medicine Hat talked a bit about the report. In the 1993 report the auditor general called for the scrutiny of Parliament on user fees. That is exactly what the hon. member for Medicine Hat is calling for in his private member's bill.

The auditor general stated: “We are concerned that Parliament cannot readily scrutinize the user fees established by contracts and other non-regulatory means”. The auditor general said that he was concerned Parliament generally does not have a chance to scrutinize new fees. He went on to say that Parliament really cannot scrutinize user fees established by contracts and other non-regulatory means: “There does not exist a government wide summary of fees being charged and revenues raised by the authorities under which they are established”.

He also said that the use of contracts on a broad scale to establish fees needs to include careful consideration of such issues as: how they would affect the parties and that parties be consulted; how Parliament would be given the opportunity to review fees established by contracts; and how users would be assured they are being charged the same price for identical services being used.

The auditor general said that Parliament should scrutinize the fees. He went on to explain that there are many increases in user fees that really are not defined as such. Therefore they are not even guided by the rules as they exist to guide the establishment and the use of user fees, including contracts. The auditor general specifically picked on contracts because we are talking about a sizeable number of dollars being put in place without being passed through Parliament, without the scrutiny of something like a parliamentary committee. The auditor general was not pleased with what had happened to that point and nothing has been done since to improve the situation.

I will talk about what the principles to guide user fees should be. Much of my material comes from what the Canadian Dehydrators Association says the principles for the implementation of user fees should be.

First, the fee must be based on the actual cost of providing the service. They are not necessarily set that way now. Some fees are much higher than the cost of the service being provided.

Second, these services must be provided cost effectively. That is a key point Reform has focused on over the past few years we have been here. We said that in many cases we believe the services are not being provided in a cost effective way and we have to make sure that they are.

Third, administrative costs must be low and the documentation requirements must be there in the operation of the business.

Fourth, there must be no cross-subsidization of services across commodities or regions. This is an important point. We have seen too much of this kind of thing in the past. We have seen too many cases where the costs in one area are being borne for costs that actually should be borne by another sector, another industry or another part of the country. Cross-subsidization should not be occurring.

Fifth, wherever possible the fees should be directly applied to prevent fee inflation to indirect application through a service provider.

Sixth, there must be a system in place for tracking the overall incidence of fees and its effect on industry with a process for consultation.

Some general concerns have been expressed by farmers and others in the agriculture industry. There are seven or eight of them. I do not know if I will get through them all, but I will see how I do. Some of these concerns have been expressed to me by many different groups. I could go through the list which includes the Ontario Corn Producers and the Canadian Meat Council. Many concerns are expressed about the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Marine Services Act.

Someone who is not familiar with what goes on in agriculture might ask how on earth can the fees charged under the Marine Services Act affect farmers. Farmers move products and the agriculture industry moves products through ports and the fees are borne by farmers.

There is the Crop Protection Institute. There are letters from many individuals and representatives of farm groups, of industry groups, and so on. They expressed the common concerns that I would like to put on record here, but I understand from your signal I will not be allowed to, Madam Speaker.

One concern I do want to express is that we cannot look at user fees in isolation. We have to look at them and their cumulative effect on industry. We can look at a whole series of user fees that do impact on any industry in the agricultural sector. There is no agency in government that looks at these total accumulation of fees and the impact on the industry. There is no government agency that looks at the comparison of fees in the other countries Canada competes with.

These are my concerns. I see that my time is up. I look forward to the hon. member for Medicine Hat doing his wrap up on the bill. I am sure he will comment on some points made by the members across the floor.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I read Bill C-205 with care and tried to see how it would improve things at the moment for user fees. I must say I am still looking.

What is the intent of this bill? That was my question. All user fees—new, increased or expanded—have to be submitted to the House of Commons.

The definition of user fees is too broad. It applies to both the fees established by the governor in council and to all federal agencies, including crown corporations, whether we are talking about user fees for a good, a service, authorization, a permit or a license authorized by Parliament.

To have force of law, user fees must be approved by the House of Commons. Before the House approves them, a committee of the House has 150 days to study the proposed fees. The amounts of money generated by user fees should appear separately in public accounts.

I think this is going too far. In its present form, the bill is, to say the least, weak in form and content. It requires so much reworking, so many amendments, in order to clarify its implementation, that studying it at a later stage in our parliamentary process becomes unrealistic.

The government has made significant progress where user fees are concerned, but Bill C-205 contains just what is needed for chaos and disorder.

Charging user fees is good government. If the intention of the bill is legitimate, however, the reality remains that it would impose a huge burden on our parliamentary process on the one hand, and would make it impossible to operate certain crown corporations and agencies on the other.

This private member's bill would require separate authorization by Parliament to set or increase user fees and would introduce chaos into a system that works well at the present time.

The costs and associated delays associated with this bill would represent a serious threat to all government programs based on user fees.

The bill is so vague that it would apply to commercial prices set by crown corporations, and by so doing would hamper their operations.

In the case of crown corporations producing commercial goods and services, requiring the authority of Parliament for each of these user fees would completely gum up the works.

This bill would also make it impossible to maintain the confidentiality an organization requires in its dealings with clients. The result could be major damage to the point of making it impossible for many crown corporations to operate.

The same might also happen with programs. There are some 300 programs and categories of user fees listed in the Treasury Board Secretariat's report on user fees and many of these categories contain a large number of individual fees. They range from prices for firewood in Parks Canada campgrounds to fees for certifying drugs. There can be thousands of fee changes on a government-wide scale every year.

Imagine the administrative burden and the parliamentary bottleneck created by thousands of requests for changes in user fees. Imagine the additional workload for departments, government organizations and crown corporations, as well as for Parliament and parliamentarians.

Imagine, as well, the delays resulting from a clause in the bill authorizing the parliamentary committee to consider a proposed user fee increase for 150 days. And, to top it all off, the House would have to approve the committee's decision or recommendation. This would make it virtually impossible to administer user fee programs.

There is also every indication that departments would find it impossible to conduct the program review in a consistent manner.

Setting user fees would become a complicated exercise within the political process of parliamentary committees, which would become the prime target of intensive lobbying on the part of interest groups affected by user fee proposals.

While we feel it would be impossible to implement the bill, we are not opposed to some of its underlying elements. We agree that public accounts should provide more detailed information on revenues other than taxes. Unfortunately, the scope of the member's bill is too broad to represent only a minor change in public accounts.

We also support the idea of parliamentarians monitoring user fees. The fact is that user fees are mentioned more and more often in the reports on plans and priorities. Moreover, the legislation affecting the industry and health departments now provides that all user fees imposed by a minister must be referred, as part of a permanent process, to a committee of the House.

For these reasons, and for the reasons mentioned by my colleague, I cannot support the bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member for Medicine Hat wish to conclude for five minutes?