Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-212, An Act respecting user fees, introduced by the hon. member for Etobicoke North. I can say from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois will support this initiative.
Indeed, user fees, whether they are set by departments or other federal agencies, are a recent development, but one that seems to be gaining momentum. As we know, in recent years, not only in Canada, but also in a large part of the western world, governments have had a tendency to reduce personal and corporate income taxes, while trying to find other means, which are often less visible than personal income taxes, to fund the activities and services provided by their various departments or agencies.
It is estimated that, for last year alone, consumers paid $4 billion for services provided by government agencies or departments.
Taxpayers are not stupid. They realize that if, on the one hand, taxes are lowered but, on the other hand, user fees increase, they might end up being the losers.
As the bill proposes, there is a need for greater transparence about what these user fees really are and for Parliament to play a role in setting these fees. We know that, contrary to income tax, which is a progressive tax—the higher the income, the higher the marginal tax rate—user fees are the same for everyone. They represent a form of regressive taxation, which may be totally legitimate—there is no denying that—but which still affects taxpayers and the people of Canada and Quebec differently.
Before user fees are imposed or changes are made to them, it is imperative that Parliament have the authority to look at the impact of imposing or changing these fees. Especially since this is not only a regressive tax, but user fees will often be charged for a service that is a monopoly.
Take passports for instance. If I need a passport, I have no choice. I must contact the department responsible be issuing passports, fill out the form and pay for the service. This is a monopolistic situation.
Regulation is necessary, as in the case of most monopolies. Parliament must ensure that imposing user fees will not have disproportionate and unfair consequences for Canadians and Quebeckers.
Also, and this is in keeping with the debate we had this morning, there is the matter of the quality of service. If user fees become common and increase, but the quality of service available to the taxpayers and users decreases, and there is a monopoly, there will certainly be public frustration and even questions about the public nature of these services, as is already the case.
So it is perfectly normal for Parliament to be able to make a decision using the procedure set out in this bill, one I find quite appropriate. Parliament must be able to vote on the imposition and amount of user fees.
This bill also proposes to establish a federal regulatory body—which is quite appropriate—to hear complaints and also examine the imposition of user fees or changes to user fees. We have no problem with this. I think that the Standing Committee on Finance should also play a major role in considering requests to implement user fees, as well as the amount of such fees, based of course on all the documents prepared by this federal regulatory body.
Should the House support this bill at second reading, and I hope it does, and refer it to a committee, I would like to look at a particular issue that is not covered by the hon. member's bill, namely private foundations.
In her April 2002 report, the Auditor General said, and I am quoting the first paragraph of the main points in chapter one:
The federal government has paid billions of taxpayers' dollars to private foundations and other delegated arrangements set up to achieve public objectives, transferring the funds years before Canadians receive the intended benefits.
I draw the attention of the House to the following sentence:
The government has delegated program responsibilities to these arrangements, but they are often beyond the reach of Parliament's scrutiny.
The Auditor General is referring here to public programs.
It seems to me some private foundations could also provide services and collect user fees. We should take a close look at this. I am not referring to all the activities of these foundations. Indeed, as regards this aspect, the Auditor General is already proposing greater accountability to Parliament on the part of the government and of these foundations, which receive billions of dollars from the federal government.
In addition to what the Auditor General proposed, I think that during consideration of Bill C-212, we could see whether there is interest in expanding this bill to certain private-based activities—as the Auditor General mentioned herself—that have responsibilities with respect to public programs.
At this stage, I have made a list of foundations that we might find interesting, and there are many. I think the committee will have to take a more technical approach to all this information, namely whether a foundation to which delegated a certain number of responsibilities in public programming have been delegated, imposed user fees.
At this time, I will not dispute the fact that Bill C-212, An Act respecting user fees, could also apply to the activities of some private foundations.
I think the basic principle of the bill is entirely valid. It has a close connection with current discussions within all the political parties about enhancing the role of Parliament and the role of its members. It is a duty that is expected of the elected members, that is, to ensure that user fees are valid and reasonable when they are implemented, and that these fees do not become prohibitive.
It is part of the role of Parliament. It is also an issue of transparency, especially in a context where tax breaks totalling $100 billion have been announced for the next five years. The government should not give tax breaks with one hand and take back user fees with the other. This amounts to regressive taxing. There are already examples of what this government is capable of, with employment insurance.
So, in terms of transparency and democracy, I think that Bill C-212 deserves the support of the House. As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, the member can be assured of the support of the Bloc Quebecois.