Debates of March 27th, 2003

Budget Implementation Act, 2003

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had addressed the issue with respect to the CHST, I am sure not to the satisfaction of the member opposite, but he also talked about the sponsorship program.

Everyone in the Chamber is very concerned about that particular situation. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services has taken some very aggressive and assertive action to change that program, to bring more of the program in-house and to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent more wisely. That was a case of where the money had not been spent wisely. Unfortunately, that happened. The government has addressed it and we will have a very sound program moving into the future.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this extremely important bill. It is historic in the sense that it could be the last budget over which the Prime Minister of Canada will preside. As such, I want to tell all Canadians how fortunate we are to have a Prime Minister who has done what no other Prime Minister in the history of Canada has done in the period of time that he has presided over government affairs.

The budget would not have taken place if it had not been for the team effort of all the cabinet ministers collectively, as well as the excellent work of the administrations in the Department of Finance and in every other department across government. It also would not have taken place if it had not been for the total co-operation and support of the public across the country.

As my colleague from Etobicoke North stated a little earlier, we went through a very difficult time 10 years ago when we formed the government. The affairs of government were such that the vast majority of our revenues went to pay down the deficit and the debt to keep our house in order. We were in a situation where 70% of our revenues went to pay the deficit, which was quite unfortunate.

The government had to take some drastic measures to deal with that issue. As a result, a number of cuts took place. Nevertheless, we are in positive territory now. For the past few years the government has been able to turn a surplus. In fact, we have reduced the national debt by close to $45 billion.

I am quite happy with the budget for a lot of reasons. It not only addresses the sins of the past and past governments, but it also builds on and invests in the future.

A little earlier my colleague from the Canadian Alliance spoke about the CPP. That is one case in point where previous governments did not have the guts to stand up and take note of the fact that our pension plan was in deep trouble and that something needed to take place if we were to have the money in place for people, baby boomers today and young children in the future, to support their retirement.

The government, yes, through an increase in contributions, addressed that issue and managed it in such a way that we now have one of the most solid funds internationally in terms of pension funds for our people. That was a strong measure the government took in order to address the issue.

Another very important issue for which many of my colleagues may not be aware is that this government, for the first time ever in the history of Canada, introduced what perhaps no other government has introduced in terms of a system of management of government affairs, and that is the financial information system, for which I think we should all take note. For the first time ever we can easily access information from any government department. All we have to do is key in a program, key in some of the required information and we will be able to access it.

As a result of the tremendous work by Treasury Board, the persistence and tremendous amount of work by the Auditor General, as well as the administration of the government as a whole, we were able to introduce a management system that will improve not only the administration of government programs but also accountability and transparency.

As a result of that, the government, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, was able to address an issue that is very dear to Canadians, the issue of accountability and proper administration of government affairs.

There is a third thing that is worth taking note. For the first time in a long time there is an administration of transfer payments to the provinces in the area of health care. I wish my colleague had said it would have been extended to also include education. For the first time we can demand that our provincial governments be accountable for the amount of money given to them by the federal government in the area of health care.

As was stated earlier, the provinces can no longer take money that is dedicated for health care and spend it on roads, bridges or other things. The government has given the provinces the ability to plan ahead. Over and over again the provinces and territories have complained about the fact that we did not have in place a proper budgeting plan that would allow them to plan three or five years ahead. The government has now put a plan in place that will allow them to do this. We gave them the money. They know what will be coming down the pipes three or five years down the road. That was an extremely important measure. It is my hope that we will move into other areas such as post-secondary education and do exactly the same thing.

One issue which the Minister of Finance has spoken about and which the government has shown tremendous leadership and commitment to is investment in the area of infrastructure. Members know that for every dollar the government puts into the area of infrastructure, it generates $3 of investment in total. That is because the provincial government as well as municipalities are putting in matching funds. That money is going toward building bridges, roads and institutions in our communities. To that extent, it would also go toward creating jobs and generate economic activities in the country.

I am counting on the Minister of Finance to come through and make some federal commitments in the national capital region, particularly light rail and the Congress Centre which is a very important facility in our region. I know we will see some positive response from the government.

There are other important elements, such as investment in the lives of our children, families on low and middle incomes, cost reductions in terms of the government asking all departments to come up with close to $1 billion in savings, and the list goes on.

The government has been extremely creative in the area of housing. Previously, we put federal money into the area of housing for homeless people or individuals who needed housing, but it was conditional upon provincial governments and municipalities matching the funds. Now the federal government has come up with a creative way of cutting through the nonsense and bureaucracies. If an organization in my community or in any community has a creative proposal that addresses the issue of homelessness, it can apply for matching funds from the federal government. To that extent, we are taking the government back to the people.

Another issue that is very dear to the hearts of my constituents is primary health care. As part of the package that was signed off by the provincial ministers of health, there is one important thing for many constituents in my riding and that is primary health care. We will be able to see a cohesive plan in the area of health care. Now I can walk to a health facility in my riding and ask for a consult, nursing support or doctor's advice and assistance. I can get all of that under one roof.

That is another clear indication that the system works. The government has done a marvellous job on the budget, as on all of the previous budgets. I will be supporting the bill and I call on my colleagues to do the same.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say the words as they are unparliamentary. The member said a whole bunch of things that are just totally wrong.

First, he said that we had spent, when the Liberals took over, up to 70% of the money on interest. That is not true. At maximum, it was around 30%, which is still way too high, that the interest payments were taking, but it was not 70%. His numbers are all whacky. He talked about the debt and how wonderful the government is in tackling the debt and reducing it. The fact of the matter is that when the Liberals came to power the debt was $508 billion. Under their watch it grew to $583 billion. It is true that since then it has come down a bit, but it is still higher than when they took office. If it were not for their free-spending ways, we would have reduced it much more.

I have much more to say, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask for unanimous consent for another two minutes?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:30 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 February 14 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

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and address Bill C-212 today, an act that deals with user fees.

I want to compliment the member across the way from Etobicoke North for bringing this forward. This is an issue that my party has been concerned about in the past. In fact, I brought forward a private member's bill on this very issue a number of years ago which was similar if not the same as this private member's bill. Right from the start I will state my sympathies.

It is important for people watching this debate on television to understand a bit of the background behind why this is an important issue and why it is important to have some way to govern the exploding use of user fees by the government. Right now there are about 50 different departments bringing in about $4 billion a year in user fees. There is something like 500 different fees that are in place right now.

The idea behind user fees is actually quite laudatory. The idea is to ensure that if a government service is provided for the benefit of a particular business or individual, then in that case it makes sense to charge a fee for that as opposed to taking the money out of general revenue because the benefits accrue to only one person or one business. Therefore it makes sense to have something like user fees.

Having said that, the concern is that the government does not have in place proper rules to ensure that the fees which are charged are actually what is necessary to cover the costs. Sometimes we find they exceed the costs. We also find very often, because we are talking about government monopolies, when these fees come in, they do not bring about the benefits which they are supposed to bring.

There is a famous example. Fees were brought in to deal with the approval of new medications for the veterinary industry, dealing with animal husbandry and that kind of thing. If I remember right, in 1996 there was a whole new regimen of user fees that came into place. The result is that since 1996 the cost of the fees have exploded and at the same time it now takes twice as long to get approval to use various medications that veterinarians need to practise their discipline. There is that case and there are many other cases.

Another example is the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. This is a famous, almost poster child, example of what happens when agencies become unregulated but on the other hand also have the power to charge user fees. In that case exactly the same thing happened. All these fees started pouring in but the agency actually became less efficient and was unable to approve pesticide use in anywhere near the time that it had previously. In fact it became slower and slower.

As a result of that, a number of people became quite concerned. I brought forward a private member's bill a number of years ago. The Auditor General has looked into this. A large coalition of industry people got together to bring this to the government's attention. The coalition included the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the chamber of commerce, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and a number of others all jumped on board and said that it was ridiculous and it was costing them a tremendous amount of money. Representatives came before the finance committee, testified, brought forward their own report, if I recall correctly, and made a number of recommendations.

My friend from Etobicoke North has adopted a number of those recommendations. I think he has adopted some ideas from the Auditor General's report and has included them in Bill C-212.

When I brought this forward, the government had all kinds of reasons why my bill should not go forward. That was a number of years ago now. I think my friend across the way has a number of his own colleagues interested in this issue now, and I hope he will find on his side a majority of people who will support the bill because it really is important.

I will not belabour this. I know there is an interest on a lot of sides to push the bill forward. I support it and I am sure that my colleagues in general support the drift and direction of the legislation. It is a good step. It is about time we brought forward something like this.

There is nothing worse than taxation without representation. In effect, that is what we have because agencies and departments bring these forward with really no discussion and really no representation. There is no parliamentary oversight at present to ensure that these fees are reasonable, that they are somehow tied to the benefits that are accruing to the businesses.

The last thing we want is taxation without representation. User fees yes, but taxation as just another way of bringing additional revenue into the government, no, we do not want that. That is not what this is about, just some way to ensure that costs are recovered when the government provides some kind of a legitimate service for a business or individual and they are the ones who solely benefit.

I have not used a lot of time, but suffice it to say that this is a step in the right direction. I will recommend to my colleagues on this side of the House that we support the member for Etobicoke North in his desire to bring forward this legislation and rein in that uncontrollable beast, the bureaucracy, that sometimes misunderstands the purpose of its powers. In this case, we have many examples of that so I will recommend to my colleagues that we support the bill.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise for a minute or two to endorse the private member's bill also. I had a personal interest from the standpoint that I had one example of a new set of user fees that had been applied in Pacific Rim National Park, a park which the member from Etobicoke would be familiar with, as am I.

I did some forensic work, or the best forensic work I knew how to do, not being an accountant, in terms of putting together park revenues and expenditures prior to and after the imposition of a whole new set of user fees that increased revenues considerably. The interesting fact was that expenditures rose to the same level as the new user fees and the government subsidy or non-user fee part of its budget remained the same, and there were no major projects undertaken.

What was clear to me is we, the taxpayers, were paying more, receiving the same, and we have added a whole bunch of non-accountable new activities which have created inefficiencies. It simply would not have occurred if there had been some form of oversight. I know that organizations were starting to mobilize. They were seeing this kind of ramification exhibit itself under all kinds of different user fee schedules.

This is an important initiative. It is too bad that it did not get here a lot earlier because there have certainly been initiatives in this place to make it happen. I endorse the member's bill as well and good luck with it.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add some comments on my support for the bill.

Companies sometimes worry that user fees are just a tax in another form and sometimes they have been used and abused in that way. In my experience, when companies see that a benefit comes to their part of the world or their organization, they do not mind paying the user fees. However they do get their knickers in a knot when they pay the fees and they do not get anything in return.

There is an example in my riding with which I am dealing right now with the Minister of Agriculture. A fairly small company is importing products from the United States which have been approved for use in the United States. It is a niche market for golf course fertilizer products. They have been used successfully for years.

The people at that company made an application to the agriculture department. They do not mind paying the fees for approval. They understand that fees are a part of it and are happy to do that. However the application has been with the Department of Agriculture for 10 years. They have waited 10 years for approval for this product. Finally a couple of months ago the Department of Agriculture told them that it cannot give approval because it lost the file. After 10 years, it just lost file. All the work that has been done for 10 years in trying to get the product approved is gone.

They do not mind paying the fees. They do not mind helping out by covering the costs of doing the research, the medical tests and so on, but the department lost the file. I think somebody just finally retired with the file. They waited 10 years to get approval. This company is trying to do business.

They have another application before the minister, and the minister and I are dealing with that right now. It is the same sort of thing. It has now been two years. They are going to miss another growing season. They do not mind paying the fees. They are happy to pay the fees. They just want a yes or no on the product. They are stocking retailers' shelves right now to see if they can get their business going.

By all means, let us have a look at this. Let us find ways to make sure that user fees are used properly and are not just a way to collect money. Let us make sure that we get value for corporations and individuals that are just trying to get ahead.

The people at the company in my riding, considering what has happened, are really very understanding. All they are asking is, “Are we doing something wrong? We will pay the fees. Is there more paperwork we need to do? Is there somebody else we could talk to?” It has taken so long now that it is not a matter of money, they just cannot get approval, even a yes or no.

Again the fees are not the issue, although they are sometimes seen as a tax grab. The issue is making sure that the fees are used for the purposes for which they are collected, that they just do not go into a black hole where approval processes, as in the case of the company in my constituency, just dragged on for so long that it got lost.

We want to make sure that user fees actually are used to help expedite the process. By all means let us send the bill to committee. Let us see if we can get this examined and see where we can help businesses get the job done. User fees certainly can be a productive part of that. Companies understand that. As long as they see cause and effect for fees and services, they are happy to be part of it and I think they should be.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5:45 p.m.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House will suspend to the call of the Chair. The adjournment debate would have taken place at 6:15 p.m., so as soon as we are able to get the parties involved here in the House, then we will proceed.

The House resumed at 6.02 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair needs a motion to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[Tony Tirabassi, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

So moved, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there consent that we see the clock as 6:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by putting the issue into context by way of statistics.

Francophones hold 78% of all federal jobs designated bilingual throughout Canada. Last year they received 68% of promotions and 71% of all bilingual positions. What this amounts to is systemic language discrimination. In fact, Canada's bilingual policy is really a divisive affirmative action program for francophones that discriminates against anglophones. Not only that, it violates the merit principle with respect to hiring, which states that people should be judged solely on their qualifications, experience and ability and not superfluous or irrelevant considerations. It also violates the quality of opportunity because it puts in place an artificial language requirement which denies people the opportunity to be fairly considered for a job and therefore denies equal opportunity.

The result of the government's policy is that since 1978 in the national capital region the number of federal civil service jobs designated bilingual has increased 12% and we have seen a near corresponding decline in the participation rate of anglophones of 10%.

It begs the question of why the government is forcing through these policies. In fact, effective March 31 it will have even stricter and more rigid artificial language requirements. The reason is that enforced bilingualism is a federal initiative to appease francophones and Quebec separatists.

The reality, however, is that enforced bilingualism is discriminatory and divisive and reveals the anti-English sentiment and agenda of the Liberal government.

Former Liberal Prime Minister Pearson promised that the careers of public servants would not be negatively affected by enforced bilingualism, but that was a lie and a fraud.

First, a study conducted by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada found that an overwhelming majority of respondents who indicated that bilingualism negatively impacted their careers were English. This March 31 deadline to which I referred will see some public servants demoted or replaced simply because they are not bilingual, even though speaking a second language is not a legitimate requirement of their job.

The government's recent announcement of an additional $750 million to be spent on more bilingual programs begs the further question of why. The reason is that the government is now shifting from the initial purpose of bilingualism in the sense that unilingual Canadians, be they French or English, could access government services in either language. It is moving away from that toward a system in which the objective is not to provide frontline bilingual services but to ensure that French is spoken in the workplace.

The cost aspect, therefore, is twofold: first, hundreds of millions of dollars to taxpayers and private industry and, second, an incalculable social cost of lost opportunity or opportunity denied by unilingual Canadians, mostly anglophones.

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

Mr. Speaker, we should remember that bilingualism is rooted in Canadians' deeply held values of inclusiveness, tolerance and respect for others. Bilingualism is part of our heritage. It is what this country was founded on and it is what we continue to evolve toward.

The respect we show to our colleagues, public servants and fellow citizens must bear witness to this fact.

It is a principle that is widely recognized and accepted by Canadians, who expect bilingual services from public servants where bilingual services are mandated in regions designated bilingual.

Serving the public in both official languages comes down to a matter of respect for the public, a principle that the Public Service of Canada upholds. This is shown in the study entitled “Attitudes Towards the Use of Both Official Languages Within the Public Service of Canada”, which was carried out last year among more than 5,000 federal employees. Of these 5,000 federal employees, 92% of these public servants consider that it is important for them to serve the Canadian public in both official languages.

The results of this study not only confirm that official language are strongly anchored in public servants' day to day working lives, but also show that most federal employees are prepared to make an effort to encourage bilingualism.

The Public Service of Canada reflects the Canadian population and conveys Canadian values. In this perspective, the federal government endeavours to promote bilingualism in the public service.

What the government is promoting is not radical, but a progressive approach to ensure, as a first step, that Canadians in regions designated bilingual can exercise their right to receive federal services and communicate with the federal government in the official language of their choice.

To this end, the government must start by making sure that all federal employees who provide services to the public in these regions can do so in both official languages; in other words, that they are bilingual. Second, the government must ensure that these employees can communicate with their managers in the official language of their choice; in other words, that these managers too are bilingual.

This is how bilingualism has become one criterion among others for appointment to bilingual positions in the Public Service of Canada in bilingual regions. These positions account for only 37% of all positions in the federal public service.

The Official Languages Act nevertheless emphasizes that the language requirements of a position must be established in a spirit of objectivity. Consequently, no federal institution may arbitrarily establish language requirements, and language requirements that are established must be truly necessary for the performance of the duties of that position. Moreover, all federal government staffing policies with official language implications are rooted in the Official Languages Act.

The statistics clearly show that overall the government has been successful in fulfilling its commitment on this issue. The workforce of the various federal institutions does tend to reflect the respective presence of the two official language communities in the population as a whole without resorting to filling positions by the quota system or reserving positions for one language group in preference to another.

We must recognize success where it occurs. Where bilingualism is concerned, the government's practices are exemplary. Let us acknowledge and appreciate that fact.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned Canadian values of inclusiveness, tolerance and respect. I could not agree more, but when government policies do not respect the merit principle or equality of opportunity, then those principles of inclusiveness, tolerance and respect are thrown out the window.

The hon. member mentioned a couple of things: serving the public in both official languages and allowing members of the Canadian public to communicate with the federal government in the official language of their choice. That was supposedly the initial concept behind bilingualism, but what is taking place is that the government is shifting away from providing front line bilingual services to requiring that both languages be spoken in the workplace.

He said that it is not a quota system. In fact, it is a de facto quota system because what it does is put unilingual Canadians, and anglophones in particular, at a disadvantage. They are not being treated fairly or equally.

[Tony Tirabassi, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member I am sure is aware, this country was really founded on two distinct cultures and languages and it has evolved with two official languages. If we are to be just that, then for the services that we provide to Canadians, that is, the federal public service, which provides a multitude of government services to the public, we have to establish certain criteria. In regions where there is bilingualism, then obviously the service that is provided to Canadians in those regions must be in the two official languages, but there are certain regions where the numbers just do not justify offering services in two languages.

I can tell the House that the official languages commissioner appeared in front of the government operations committee and attested to the fact that indeed that is not the case; that there are opportunities in the English language or in the French language within the public service.