Debates of Feb. 14th, 2003

Public Service Modernization Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 29, 2002 consideration of the motion that Bill C-212, An Act respecting user fees, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

User Fees Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to share some thoughts on this bill. I will begin by saying that I was asked by the sponsor of the bill, the member for Etobicoke North, and by the parliamentary secretary, the member for Niagara Centre, if I supported the bill? My answer was unequivocal. I said that I absolutely supported it, which means there are some things in the bill that make sense, but there are some concerns that need to be addressed.

To simply support it outright would probably cause some difficulty, unless we are absolutely sure, and I think this process will allow this to happen, that we will have an opportunity to make some changes.

Let me focus on a couple of things. I would not be surprised if the opposition supports a bill of this nature simply because the process which would be put in place would allow the opposition the opportunity to vote against every user fee that the government might deem necessary to put in place. To my friend, there is clearly an opportunity for political grandstanding if this is not handled properly, not that my hon. friends opposite would ever do that. Therefore we would be politicizing the process of putting in place fees, users fees, that were necessary for the proper functioning of agencies, departments of government. On the other hand, should Parliament not have a role in the oversight? That is where the balance here makes some sense.

I tend to agree with the principles the member has outlined in the bill of the need for more parliamentary oversight. We have to be careful about the process, not necessarily in terms of one fee or one issue, but in terms of the huge operation of public institutions in the government. In fact, there is even a suggestion that this could impact into the private sector whenever we deal with agencies or corporations that are regulated by government bodies. The obvious example would be Bell being regulated by the CRTC, or the music industry, or television or something of that kind. Some people might like it if we could have a more hands on ability to affect the fees that Bell charges. I do not know that we want to take the government, any government of any political stripe, down the road where we interfere to that level.

One issue is that when we at any level of government deal with a particular project, we should deal with the big picture. We should not micromanage. I do not believe that is what we were elected to do.

I use the example in days gone by when I was in municipal government. I was president of the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corporation, which builds housing projects. When we built a housing project, some members of the board literally wanted to pick the colour of the curtains or the design of the building. That is not the role of the board of that corporation. The role is to approve projects, put in place the financing and give the professionals the opportunity to build the facility, deliver it on time and hopefully on budget. To have the politicians involved in the everyday decisions and management of it would frankly cause me some concern.

I have spoken to the member about this. I believe if the bill receives approval in the House, it will go to committee. I am told it may go to the finance committee. It perhaps should go to government operations. I would ask the member to give some thought to that. It is more of an operational situation. The finance committee might find itself too busy to deal with the bill in a timely fashion.

One area I would want to deal with at committee would be the impact on crown corporations. In my role as parliamentary secretary of transport, the balance of that statement is four crown corporations. My role in working with the minister is to work with Canada Mortgage and Housing, Canada Lands, Canada Post, Queen's Quay and the old port of Montreal.

The concern I have is that many of these corporations, and I will just give a couple of examples, like Canada Post, CMHC and the Mint, have been given commercial mandates. They have a responsibility to market their services and products.

Canada Post is renowned throughout the world. It is a very typical Canadian institution. At home we tend to denigrate Canada Post and say nasty things about it. Yet there are some 26 countries throughout the world which hire the international marketing arm of Canada Post to help them do a better job of delivering mail in those countries. As is often so typical, a service developed here in Canada is recognized in other parts of the world in a better way and with greater acknowledgement of its success.

CMHC has a commercial mandate. The commercial mandate takes it to the point where it runs a very large and successful mortgage insurance operation. If it were impacted on the setting of its fees by the fact that it had to go through the actual fee setting outside the commercial realm or if it had to come to a parliamentary committee, we would be putting an unfair burden upon that corporation. It does have to compete. GE Capital has a mortgage insurance arm and it would be under no such obligation to come before a parliamentary committee to set its fees.

We have to look at some exemptions if we are to look at this. We have to be able to say that perhaps there are some fees or some areas that are more directly involved with Parliament and should have greater oversight and involvement. However clearly we should not penalize crown corporations or private sector corporations in their ability to compete in the marketplace.

This comes to the very issue of the role of Parliament versus the role of government. We have had calls recently for a vote in this place on whether Canada should participate in a war in Iraq if a resolution comes down through the United Nations. It seems to make some sense to the people on the street that Parliament should make that decision. However the basic fundamental problem in differentiating between the role of Parliament and the role of government goes to the very root of my argument with regard to micromanaging.

The government has certain executive responsibilities. The government is the Prime Minister and the cabinet. The rest of the people members of Parliament in support of the government or members of Parliament in opposition to the government. Technically the government is that group of men and women who form the governor in council, which is the cabinet of the government, and they have a responsibility. If they had to come to Parliament for a vote every time they needed to make a decision which had widespread impact on the country or in our relationships in foreign affairs, because of the debates we see in this place where positions are entrenched because of certain beliefs and certain political parties, the risk would be that we would paralyze the country and make it impossible for the government to fulfill its mandate.

That does not mean Parliament should not have a lot to say and a lot to do with regard to all these decisions. That is why we have the committee system and the opportunity to go forward with ideas, good ideas such as Bill C-212.

Let me just wrap up by saying that having identified a couple of concerns to my colleague, the member for Etobicoke North, I hope we can take out of the bill some of the areas that would lead to micromanaging, that would hurt the commercialized mandates of crown corporations and private sector companies and that would take Parliament as a group into the areas in which frankly none of us were elected to be involved. At the same time, if we adopt the principle involved here, we can say that we stand for more accountability and transparency in the setting of user fees because at the end of the day, a user fee is simply another form of taxation. It may be voluntary taxation. In other cases it is mandatory and people require it.

I could go on about whether we should have user fees in health care, which would be the obvious one that comes to mind. That would not be a voluntary user fee, and our party is opposed to that. However I do not want to get into the debate of that issue in relationship to this bill.

We should support the bill in principle and send it to committee. However there needs to be an awful lot of work done among the member sponsoring it, the committee and the government to make this a useful tool where we can say to the people of Canada that we have indeed improved the system of governing this great nation.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today and speak to on behalf of our party to Bill C-212, the private member's bill which deals with criteria for user fees.

I want to remind the House that this problem has been around for a long time. To support that, I want to quote what the auditor general said in 1993 about the ability to scrutinize this. 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.

This caused our member for Medicine Hat to introduce a private member's bill on this very same topic in 1997, which was Bill C-205. I know he intended that his private member's bill would be an opportunity to fulfill those concerns which were raised by the auditor general of the day.

I know the member for Etobicoke North has raised a number of interesting areas and key points that need to be addressed. Quite frankly we agree with him when he calls for the need for more parliamentary oversight when user fees are introduced or changed. We agree with him when he calls for the need for greater stakeholder participation in the fee setting process, which is part of what I just said. We agree with him when he calls for the improved linkages between user fees, the federal department and the agency performance specification and standard.

He talks about the requirement for more comprehensive stakeholder impact and competitiveness analysis when new user fees or fee increases are contemplated. He talks about the goal of increased transparency addressing these fees where applicable. He goes on to talk about the need for independent dispute resolution process and the need for annual reports outlining all user fees. We understand what he is saying and we agree with his observations.

However in addition to having parliamentary scrutiny on user fees, we submit that the following principles should also apply. I know the member will probably agree with a lot of these as well and hopefully, in a collective fashion, we will be able to make some changes.

One, the fees must be based upon the actual cost to providing the service. Unfortunately they are not necessarily set that way now. Some fees are much higher than the actual cost of service being provided.

Two, services must be cost effective. I know the member opposite is a prudent type of thinker and will agree with that. This is a key point. In many cases we believe the services are not being provided in a cost effective way and we have to ensure they are.

The member raised the point that currently $4 billion was going into the federal treasury in user fees. If that cost is reflective of the program that needs to be put in place to administer it in the way which has been just outlined so that the different groups are not paying costs which are not their own or not inflated costs, then that is fine. However in many cases we believe those costs are in fact exaggerated and it is just another form of a hidden tax on the industry itself.

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

Four, there should be no cross-subsidization of services for commodities or region. This is a very important point. We have seen too much of this kind of thing in the past. We have seen too many cases where the costs are borne by one area that should be borne by another sector, another industry or another part of the country. Cross-subsidization should not and must not occur.

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

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

Simply put, we do not mind the idea of user fees or a cost recovery. We think that is important. However the user fees must reflect what is a reasonable amount of cost recovery to actually do the job and should not bear out an overinflated bureaucracy that does not adapt quickly to where that individual sector is itself.

It is important that these industries be allowed to function. We have a tough time already in this country. Taxes are very high. We have to compete internationally. Our productivity has fallen against that of the United States for about 25 years and we have to look at ways to cause that to change.

My party has held hearings across Ontario over the last few years. We have been told that regulation is just as big a cost to businesses, especially small businesses, as taxation is. In fact, it is disproportionately higher for small businesses because they do not have the people dedicated specifically to complying with regulation or people who are administrating these cost recovery programs on them.

Regulation is a huge cost. I think in some of the studies done by the Fraser Institute it showed a total regulation cost of $100 billion annually to industry in Canada. That is an astronomical amount. It hurts industry in terms of being competitive. It hurts the economy, and the bottom lines of businesses are tremendously affected.

To sum up, we understand what the member for Etobicoke North is trying to say in his bill. We support it. We have offered some further suggestions. We believe this is the time to get the user fee regime right after so many years. This is a step in the right direction and I suggest that all members in the House should support the bill.

[Tony Tirabassi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the member for Etobicoke North for his contribution to improving a very important area of user charging.

The government acknowledges that improvements can be made to our fee setting process. In fact, it is currently working on a policy review which I believe addresses a number of the concerns raised by my colleague in Bill C-212.

I would like to begin by providing some contextual and background information. Cost recovery and charging have existed in one form or another since Confederation. Parks Canada, for example, has been charging for its services since the 1880s.

Today, the Government of Canada, like most other governments, charges for a range of optional and mandatory services for the use of public assets and for rights and privileges. Revenues from these various activities currently amount to about $4 billion per year. This is in relation to a total expenditure of some $170 billion.

Canada's user charges comprise about 2% of total federal government revenues. A study of charging practices in other jurisdictions showed that this was generally in line with other countries studied.

Cost recovery is a fair and equitable way of financing government programs and services, including those of a regulatory nature. Its longevity and universal application are a testament to the soundness of its fundamental principle. This establishes that it is reasonable that those who receive special services in excess of those enjoyed by the general taxpayer should bear some, or all, of the cost of providing those services.

I should emphasize that this rationale is not challenged by those who pay the fees. In fact, private citizens, industry representatives, academics, economists, the Office of the Auditor General and the Standing Committee on Finance have all voiced support for this fundamental principle.

The cost recovery and charging policy ensures that, under the responsibility of the individual ministers, the consideration and implementation of charging initiatives is subject to important principles and requirements.

As I have indicated, user charging is not an activity specific only to Canada. A comparative study on the issue showed that the core objective of user charging does not vary among countries; that is, that users pay for the special services they receive. This includes charging for the full or partial cost of regulatory activities.

As in Canada, other countries' fee setting processes are decentralized, which means that ministers are accountable for the charges implemented by their departments. It is important to note that not a single jurisdiction saw the need to have its user fee requirements set in law.

In terms of policy guidance, Canada was found to be most explicit on a number of important elements, most notably, consultation and service standards.

Further, Canada is one of only two jurisdictions that require departments to provide dispute resolution mechanisms, and the only one to require departments work with fee payers to assess impacts.

Can more be done? Yes, absolutely, and we are striving to make those improvements.

The government is in the latter stages of a comprehensive review of this policy. The review heard from 59 firms, industry associations and other non-governmental organizations. This covered some 70 programs of the 400 federal programs with user charges. The review results indicated that most areas of federal cost recovery programs seemed to be working quite well.

In particular, the review found that the majority of paying users contacted were satisfied with the approach and the level of consultation on user charges. However they did cite a frequent need for greater feedback from departments during consultations.

Also, the review confirmed that paying users have raised relatively few disputes with respect to their fees. When disputes did occur, they were mostly administrative in nature and almost always resolved through informal contact directly with departments.

However the review also found that there should be greater awareness among paying users of the existing dispute resolution mechanisms available to them.

The review, as supported by previous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Auditor General, did, however, point to a need for clear direction in implementing the policy.

The proposed changes to the policy, therefore, will consider these recommendations as well as what was heard from users and departments. Namely: improved consistency through clearer overall direction with respect to what departments must do and consider when introducing or amending charges; greater clarification of the objectives and requirements expected for meaningful consultations; all programs with charges to have service standards, as well as consult with stakeholders on performance and on the measures to be taken if those standards are not met; increased attention on monitoring user charging activities within departments through stepped up Treasury Board Secretariat involvement.

In addition, every department will now be required to identify an individual at the assistant deputy minister level or higher to oversee the implementation of the policy and to serve as a point of contact for TBS.

Further recommendations are: increased direction and emphasis on establishing and communicating departmental dispute management mechanisms, including the provisions for independent advisory bodies to make recommendations to ministers; and, more open, clearly communicated information through enhanced annual reporting to Parliament and the public of such things as total revenue collected by the various types of charging activities and the performance provided to stakeholders.

This policy instrument, with its improvements ranging from greater monitoring to enhanced reporting, is intended to complement our existing standing committee system, a system that already provides the mandate for committees to flesh out issues relevant to Canadians.

It is important to note that the government is still working with the hon. member for Etobicoke North, industry representatives and departments on the revised changes to the cost recovery policy. A second draft of the proposed changes was distributed to all advisory committees in December 2002. Members, including industry representatives, are now in the process of submitting their comments.The second draft has also been shared with the Standing Committee on Finance so it can view the direction the government is proposing in a number of important areas.

The point being, that we continue to listen, to be open and to explore ideas for addressing concerns. We cannot , of course, promise across the board satisfaction with the end product given the nature and complexity of the issues at hand. However we are encouraged by the feedback from stakeholders and from the member for Etobicoke North, that we are headed in the right direction in a number of areas of concern.

Much of Bill C-212 appears aimed at issues related to regulatory activities and programs. Let me assure my colleagues that regulation does not exist for its own sake. Regulatory programs exist in response to the calls of generations of Canadians for the protection of their health and safety.

A report drafted last year for the OECD-wide review of regulatory reform in Canada stated the following:

Canada was one of the first OECD countries to adopt a regulatory reform programme and has pursued ever broader and deeper reforms for the past 25 years. The quality of its regulatory governance is almost certainly a key contributor to its successes in terms of both economic performance and the achievement of its social goals.

These words do not describe a system in need of major overhaul. We are striving to do better. The Smart Regulation Strategy announced in the last Speech from the Throne aims to accelerate reforms in key areas to promote health and sustainability, to contribute to innovation and economic growth, and to reduce the administrative burden on business.

No one is arguing against reforms. There is no system or organization that cannot be improved. We continue to work with stakeholders, and again, with my colleague from Etobicoke North, to find solutions and improvements to the cost recovery system.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for the private member's initiative before the House today in terms of greater accountability when it comes to user fees put on by the federal government.

There are many user fees that bring in a lot of cash for the federal government each and every year. The important thing is to bring in more accountability and transparency in terms of user fees in all forms of taxes and legislation in general.

In fact, I would like to see a whole raft of parliamentary reform to make this place more relevant to ordinary people. Over the years that I have been here, I have a seen a lessening of importance of the House of Commons itself and the growing importance of the executive.

I came here in the Trudeau years, in 1968, and I remember a great battle in the summer of 1969 when I was just 23 years old. There was a great battle for the change of rules in the House of Commons. There was a tremendous fight which went on all through the month of July. With the change of rules, more power was taken away from the House of Commons and given to the Prime Minister's Office and the executive.

What has happened over the last 25 or 30 years is that the trend has continued through the Mulroney years into the present years, where the Prime Minister's Office and the executive have far too much power. What we need is some serious parliamentary reform where parliamentary committees would be more independent and have the right to timetable themselves, introduce legislation, and freely elect their own chairs. The member across the way knows exactly what I mean by that from the experience we had together at a House of Commons committee roughly one year ago.

That is the direction I believe we should be going as a House of Commons. The Prime Minister's Office and indeed the premiers' offices in our country have far too much power to make many appointments unilaterally. I have seen many appointments made by all levels of government over the years. If we were to recommend appointments to the relevant parliamentary committee, in other words, nominate an individual for a relevant position and have the relevant committee either ratify or accept the position, then certain recommendations by the federal government would not be made.

I remember the case of a former cabinet minister back in the Trudeau years who was appointed to head a crown corporation. In this particular case I did not find a single government member who agreed with the appointment, but they were all like political eunuchs because of our parliamentary system, they could not do anything to stop the appointment which was made by the Prime Minister of the day. That is not a commentary on one political party or the other. It is the kind of political system we have that puts far too much power into the hands of the executive branch of government and in the hands of the Prime Minister.

In fact, if we look at our system, I do not think we will find any system in the world that is a democracy and I am not talking about Baghdad or North Korea. However, I am talking about elected parliaments that put so much power in the hands of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's executives choose the federal judges; Supreme Court judges; cabinet ministers; and senators, except for the hockey team, the Ottawa Senators, which they are now bailing out by millions and millions of dollars a year. They appoint all the senior officials of government, the head of the RCMP, the head of the military, and the list goes on and on.

The Prime Minister also has the power to fix an election date whenever the Prime Minister wants to call an election and to bring in a budget whenever the Prime Minister wants to do so. We should have fixed dates for elections, budgets, and throne speeches. We should take that power away from the government. In doing so we would have timetabling that would be more fair and just for everybody concerned.

The fixed budget date, for example, would allow the provinces, municipalities and school boards to plan because they would know if there would be a budget every second or third week of February or March or whatever that date would be. We should have fixed election dates as well so that there would be a level playing field for all the parties.

Those are some of the things we need in terms of serious parliamentary reform. Part of that is greater accountability in terms of the finances and the taxes of the country.

A user fee is a tax with another name. It is not a hidden tax. It is very vivid and visible as a tax with another name. I oppose many user fees, however we do need some user fees. I am not saying we cannot have user fees. If we use a park often or some other public facility often, there are arguments to be made in favour of user fees.

However the problem with some fees is that they can be very regressive. A user fee usually applies across the board. Whether people are wealthy or poor they pay the same user fee. In that regard it becomes a very regressive tax. This is another reason to make sure we pass the motion before the House today, Parliament would have greater say and there would be greater accountability, greater transparency and less likelihood of a user fee that is really regressive.

This is a very important motion. I want to mention a recent example of spending gone wild without parliamentary accountability, the gun registry program. Whether we are in favour or against the gun registry program, it initially was supposed to cost $2 million a year, then $100 million and now it is over $1 billion.

The Auditor General has made it very clear that the program has become a major financial boondoggle. The Auditor General also said that Parliament was not allowed to see the books over the years, which we should have been able to do, and that things were hidden from the elected representatives of the people.

If there is one purpose more than any other purpose as to why we are here, it is to be the guardian or the watchdog over the tax money of the ordinary Canadian people, to make sure that their tax money is spent in a wise way and in a way that is good for the country and good for the common good.

However we have a gun registry program where over $1 billion dollars has been spent and where consultants have been hired. One billing I noticed, which was reported in one of the national newspapers, showed that the Department of Justice was billed for $1,000 a day for 365 days a year. What bureaucrat would sign off on that invoice, working Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, no matter what?

As the Auditor General said, a lot of this information was withheld from the Parliament.

I would like to see a system where a parliamentary committee, the public accounts committee or whatever, would have the power and the authority to subpoena any government department it wanted, to force a department to open its books, and allow the committee to have a thorough look at the books to make sure that the spending being done is being done in accordance with the intent and the laws that come out from the Parliament of Canada.

In that regard we may need, as it has in the United States, a better staffed parliamentary committee system, where we would have more funding to hire the expertise needed for the parliamentary committees, and where we would have the background to actually do a better cross-examination of some of the witnesses.

I remember back to the parliamentary constitutional debates a few years ago when we were looking at the issues surrounding the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. At that time Parliament decided in its wisdom to provide all the parties with extra research help for that parliamentary committee on the government side and the opposition side.

I was on that committee and it was probably the best committee on which I have ever served in terms of having the expertise, where parliamentarians had the ammunition, because of the thorough research being done by committee staff, to put the proper questions.

I know we have a good staff in the Library of Parliament but sometimes we have to supplement that staff with staff that is a bit more political in terms of the kind of research that they are doing.

I think we should look at some of these ideas as precedents in other parts of the world that have worked very well.

This comes right back to the main thrust which is that we need more accountability and more transparency, particularly when it comes to the public finances of the nation.

I would like to see the day when we have the political parties in this country coming together as one to say that the executive, the Prime Minister's Office, has far too much power, that Parliament has far less power, and that we have to increase the power and the independence of parliamentary committees. We need the right to initiate legislation, the right to timetable legislation and the right to have fewer confidence votes in the House of Commons. We have far too many confidence votes here.

In Britain, when Margaret Thatcher was at the height of her popularity, the government lost many votes on government bills but it did not fall. Instead, it went back to the drawing board and came up with bills that were more acceptable to the parliament of the country.We should be doing that in Canada. We are in the stone age in terms of the need for parliamentary reform.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the efforts of my colleague from Etobicoke North that are aimed at improving the federal fee setting process in Canada.

I would like to provide the House with some information on cost recovery and user charging in relation to what is in place and what my colleague's bill aims to achieve.

Currently, pursuant to the authorities granted to them by Parliament, individual ministers are responsible for establishing and amending fees. As such, ministers are responsible for evaluating and responding to the many factors relevant to a charging decision. They are accountable to the public and to Parliament.

The Treasury Board cost recovery and charging policy works inside this legislative framework, as it must. It sets out the conditions and factors ministers are to consider when users are charged.

Bill C-212 would change Canada's approach. It would establish a standing committee or mandate an existing standing committee to scrutinize all proposed user charges and make recommendations to the House for their approval or rejection.

This overlooks that standing committees currently have the power to examine user charges in their departmental portfolios and call on ministers to provide information.

As this debate has shown, the Standing Committee on Finance is willing and able to examine a government-wide practice like user charging in a very effective way.

The additional provisions of Bill C-212 would create an unprecedented overlap in responsibilities and authority between ministers, the standing committee, the House, and new undefined independent dispute mechanisms. It would create a new role for legal challenges so that ultimately the courts would decide.

That would make existing parliamentary oversight much less effective. This is because the bill would replace existing lines of authority with a very complex, costly and unwieldy new process. First, the bill's proposed approval process would require the House of Commons to approve, reject or amend all user charge proposals upon consideration of the committees recommendation. This would stray from the current practice and philosophy that Parliament delegates questions of application and detail, such as fee setting, to the executive which is done in the name of efficiency.

Second, as an act, the provisions of the bill would be enshrined in law. The ultimate arbiters of user charging then would not be parliamentarians or the executive. It would instead be Canada's court system. Complainants dissatisfied with a departmental decision or simply seeking to delay things might well go to court to argue a technical issue. For example, paragraph 4(1)(a) of the bill would require that:

Before a regulating authority fixes [or amends a fee]... it must take reasonable measures to notify clients...of the user fee proposed...

Paragraph 4(1)(b) adds that the regulating authority:

give all clients or service users a reasonable opportunity to provide ideas or proposals for ways to improve the services to which the user fee relates;

There is no definition as to what constitutes reasonable in these cases. Therefore complainants lose nothing by contending in court that the Canada Gazette and the Internet were not reasonable means of notification, or that a four week consultation period was not reasonable as it coincided with a busy period in their work cycle.

Imagine the caseload on the already overburdened court system. Consider how this would delay decision making for new fee proposals. Imagine how all this would impede the courts' ability to hear more serious cases, such as violent crime, and consider, of course, the court and legal costs.

Third, paragraph 4(1)(e) calls for each charging authority to:

establish an independent dispute resolution process to address a complaint or grievance submitted by a client regarding the user fee or change.

The bill does not establish whether this new ruling authority would overrule the minister responsible for the charge. For that matter, it might overrule the authority of the House committee.

Nor does the bill define what constitutes a complaint or grievance. The government is well aware that complaints range from relatively minor practical questions to challenges of a department's fundamental right to institute charges.

Fourth, the bill would extend the reach of this approval process more broadly than perhaps was intended. We must note that it would also apply to crown corporations. Their ability to quickly respond to clients would be delayed by this new process and that contradicts the reason Parliament granted them a reasonable degree of independent authority: so that government could be more businesslike.

Much hard work was done here in Parliament to create crown corporations like Canada Post. The intent was to make these organizations more efficient and reduce the red tape burden on delivering these services to Canadians. Why would we undo that work and effectively make them less responsive? Yet that is what the bill would do.

Furthermore, the bill reads, “This Act applies to all fees fixed by a regulating authority”. The bill defines “regulating authority” as:

--a department, agency, board, Crown corporation, commission, or any other body that has the power to fix a user fee or a cost recovery charge under the authority of an Act of Parliament.

As worded, the bill could also apply to private sector entities, such as Bell Canada and Shaw cable, whose prices are “fixed by a regulating authority”, like the CRTC. These businesses would be embroiled in yet another round of hearings and the expense and delay associated with them. The repercussions would be far reaching and potentially very serious for firms who rely on faster, not slower, decision making authorities, which in turn affects their bottom line.

Fifth, the proposed process would also require fees to be justified in comparison to all those of all other OECD countries. This risks pressuring Canada to establish fees at an international lowest common denominator. Canadians feel strongly about their government's role in protecting public health, safety and security. They expect better of us than such an unsophisticated approach. They understand that many complex factors determine the level of service people want and the amount they are willing and able to pay.

I wish to convey strongly that the government is committed to the values of transparency and accountability which are so important to this subject. It is very serious about improving the current policy on user charging, which is now in the final stages of development. Extensive consultations have been held with internal and external stakeholders. In December, the government distributed a second draft of proposed policy changes to all policy review advisory committees. For its part, the government remains committed to acting on this feedback to address outstanding concerns.

The policy remains open and the review continues. The direction it is taking will provide more explicit guidance to departments who charge. This will strengthen the accountability of the fee setting process to Parliament, to stakeholders and to the public to bring about greater consistency.

This is in response to previous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Auditor General. The changes clearly address the concerns raised by my hon. colleague's bill, which include: improved consistency through clear overall direction with respect to what departments must do and consider when introducing or amending charges; greater clarification of the objectives and requirements expected for meaningful consultations and that these consultations will be ongoing throughout the life of the charging program and not just at the inception of the charges; all programs with charges to have service standards; increased attention to monitoring user charging activities within departments; increased direction and emphasis on establishing and communicating dispute management mechanisms; and more open, clearly communicating information through enhanced annual reporting to Parliament and the public.

These are the reasons why I commend my hon. colleague's concern about improving the situation. I hope I have injected some of the reasons why the system we have now, while it can be improved and I hope it will be improved, is working quite well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)