Tony Tirabassi

[User Fees Act, February 14th, 2003]

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.

[Dorothy Rungeling, February 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate my constituent, Dorothy Wetherald Rungeling, for being named a Member of the Order of Canada.

Once billed as “Canada's Flying Housewife”, Dorothy dared to challenge convention and secured a place in aviation history. From her base at the Welland airport she earned her pilot's licence in 1949, her commercial licence in 1951, her instructor's certification in 1953, and her senior commercial pilot's licence in 1954.

To this day she is one of only three women in Canada to have accomplished this combination of feats. She also became the first Canadian woman to conduct a solo helicopter flight. The pursuit of her life long passion attracted worldwide attention as she competed in national and international air races.

Now in her nineties she remains active as a writer and instructor of computer skills to senior citizens. I wish to congratulate Dorothy.

[Whistle Blower Human Rights Act, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, before addressing any specifics relating to Bill C-201, I would first like to thank the hon. member for Surrey Central for allowing me to make this my first representation as parliamentary secretary and to compliment the hon. member for Surrey Central for his efforts in bringing forth this proposed legislation.

His obvious and very serious concern for protecting the rights of employees who, in good faith, make allegations respecting suspected wrongdoing within the public service is truly laudable.

The Government of Canada is strongly committed to promoting and protecting the dignity and the human rights of its public service employees.

The existing policy on internal disclosure of information concerning wrongdoing in the workplace, or IDP for short, allows employees to bring forward, in good faith, information concerning wrongdoing. This same policy ensures that they may do so in confidence and are protected from reprisal.

It is applicable to all departments and organizations of the public service as listed in schedule I, part I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Since its inception one year ago, the IDP has been working and it has been working very well.

A survey of departmental senior officers of disclosure, to whom employees may turn with information concerning suspected wrongdoing in the workplace, confirms this.

The survey carried out this past July revealed that to date more than 30 disclosures of wrongdoing have been handled through the IDP. All disclosures were addressed promptly, with two-thirds having been resolved within a few weeks and one-third still under investigation. These results clearly show the willingness of public service employees to come forward with information under this policy without fear of reprisal.

The IDP is not a static document. The policy has been in place for a short time. It is open to possible change and improvement. In fact, it will be reviewed in 2004 to ensure that it continues to allow employees to bring forward information concerning wrongdoing and to ensure that they are treated fairly and are protected from reprisal when they do so in a manner consistent with the policy.

We all know that Canadians expect their government to be guided by the principles of honesty, justice, integrity and good governance. These are precisely the principles that the IDP is working to maintain and ensure.

Having said that, I must now say that the government is unable to support Bill C-201 for several solid reasons. First, the government cannot support the bill because we are not convinced that legislative measures are necessary to address the issue of employee protection when whistleblowing in the federal public service.

In drafting the IDP, we chose a policy approach instead of legislation largely because our values as Canadians are clear: tolerance, integrity and respect for democracy and the democratic tradition.

The IDP reflects Canadians' beliefs about professional and ethical behaviour. This policy is not based on a rule book, but rather, resonates with commonly held standards of conduct.

Two other important considerations of why the government is unable to support the bill are because it confuses the mandates and jurisdictions of government, as well as reaching far beyond the purview of the Treasury Board.

The bill proposes to define an employee as a person who is or has been employed, or is being considered as an applicant for a position within the federal public service. It generously and, I might add, erroneously extends the definition to persons who provide goods or services to the Government of Canada on a contractual basis.

The bill would erode the important role of deputy ministers in the management of human resources in the public service.

A policy approach is more appropriate by situating accountability in the hands of deputy ministers as per the existing legislative framework. This was clearly stated in the Auditor General's report, chapter 12, which was tabled in October 2000, where there was a consensus that work had to be done in Canada's federal public sector to allow the voicing of ethical issues with appropriate protection for all concerned and it needed to be addressed as part of a comprehensive approach.

Furthermore, it was proposed that a senior independent authority be established to receive reports confidentially and act in a fair and impartial manner. That is to say, accountability as defined in the Public Service Employment Act, the Financial Administration Act, Security of Information Act and the Criminal Code of Canada.

As such, still toward accountability, the bill would seek to extend the regime over bodies that are under provincial and territorial jurisdictions and to govern conduct in the courts and in the media.

On another important point, it would be remiss to fail to take note of the bill's assertions concerning unrestricted freedom of expression. These assertions are in fact in direct opposition to the duty of loyalty recognized by the courts that public service employees owe to the government and that underpins the institution of non-partisan public service.

Similarly, the creation of a registry by Treasury Board, which would encompass a copy of every written allegation made pursuant to this bill, would be contrary to the protection of employee confidentiality as assured under the existing policy.

Finally, I would like to point out to the House that remedies for violation provided for in Bill C-201 go far beyond IDP provisions. These are particularly troubling elements of the bill. If the House will bear with me, I will take a few moments to elaborate on this section.

As set forth in the proposed legislation, persons with authority can be fined up to $5,000 upon violation of the rights of disclosure. The bill would also permit the disclosure to bring a civil action before the court. Going one step further, any legal fees incurred by the disclosure would be reimbursed. Successful claimants, moreover, would receive both a public apology from the government and a discretionary award. These are troubling remedies. They are also, in my opinion at least, classic examples of the cure being worse than the affliction.

In conclusion, I would like to assure all members that the government is committed to protecting the rights of those who see wrongdoing in the workplace and ensuring that public service employees have the confidence to come forward. This is a responsibility that the Government of Canada does not take lightly.

The government does not, however, regard Bill C-201 as the appropriate path to follow in protecting the rights of the federal public service employees who, in good faith, bring forward information concerning wrongdoing in the workplace. The government therefore will not be voting in support of the bill.

[World Junior Hockey Championships, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the young men who so admirably represented Canada in the World Junior Hockey Championships in Halifax and Sydney, Nova Scotia from December 26 to January 5. Under head coach Marc Habscheid, Team Canada became stronger and stronger throughout the tournament proving that they were the team to beat. Although they fell short of their own expectations of gold, the rest of Canada was cheering them as they won the silver medal with hard work, true grit and determination.

One of my constituents, left winger Daniel Paillé from the city of Welland, was a member of this truly successful team. I know that he will display his silver medal with great pride.

Please join me in congratulating the entire team on their outstanding performance.

[Goodwill Games, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the World Congress of Amateur Athletes is a non-profit organization whose mandate is to promote peace, brotherhood and mutual appreciation of all cultures through amateur competition.

This coming January, 87 individuals will be attending the WCOAA Goodwill Games in Nuevo Vallarta, Mexico. The chapter of this organization that is located in my riding, the Glenridge Martial Arts Academy, has students from the age of 4 to 80 years who study Tai Chi, karate, Qi Gong, Kobudo and kendo under chief instructor George Picard.

Four of my constituents, Shannon Bishop, Dan Houston, Irma Bulatovic and Raimondo Bosellino will be among the participants at the Goodwill Games in Mexico. Please join me in wishing them good luck as they proudly represent Canada abroad.

[Committees of the House, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to its orders of reference of Thursday, October 10, 2002, the committee has considered Bill C-227, an act respecting a national day of remembrance of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, and agreed on Thursday, November 28, 2002, to report it without amendment.

[Persons with Disabilities, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, during this week of activities acknowledging persons with disabilities, we should be reminded that all Canadians should have the opportunity to display their talents and their skills. Canada needs, and must have, access to these talents and skills in the knowledge based economy.

I am encouraged that the government committed in the Speech from the Throne in September to work with provinces to fast track a comprehensive labour market agreement to remove barriers to working and learning for persons with disabilities.

As we work together we are building a more inclusive society that supports independent living and sustainable livelihoods.

[Petitions, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition deals with the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who suffer from debilitating illnesses such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy and spinal cord injuries. The petitioners ask that Parliament focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Petitions, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four petitions today from the constituents in my riding of Niagara Centre.

Three of the petitions ask that Parliament protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Trade, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government have continuously supported trade initiatives with impoverished nations, so that all involved may better participate and benefit in this new era of globalization. I understand that the Minister for International Trade will be leading a trade mission to Africa in November.

Given the challenges that Africa faces related to trade and development, what can Canadian companies gain by participating in the upcoming trade mission?