FINA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 12, 2003

1110

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.))

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff (Senior Director, Cost Recovery Policy Division, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

1115

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Richard Dupuis)

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

The Chair

1120

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Roy Cullen

1125

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

1130

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

1135

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

Mr. Roy Cullen

1140

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Nick Discepola

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

1145

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Nick Discepola

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

1150

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Maria Minna

1155

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

1200

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

1205

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc (Procedural Clerk)

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc

The Chair

Mr. Nick Discepola

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Roy Cullen

1210

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Nick Discepola

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

1215

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

The Chair

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

Mr. Nick Discepola

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Nick Discepola

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Leon Richins (Senior Policy Advisor, Cost Recovery Policy Division, Treasury Board Secretariat)

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

1220

Mr. Leon Richins

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Mr. Nick Discepola

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

1225

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

1230

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Tony Valeri

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Tony Valeri

Ms. Maria Minna

1235

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

1240

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Nick Discepola

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

1245

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.)

Mr. Roy Cullen

1250

Ms. Albina Guarnieri

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Tony Valeri

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Tony Valeri

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

1255

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Roy Cullen

1300

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

Mr. Roy Cullen

1305

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Charlie Penson

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

1310

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

NUMBER 064

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): I will now call this meeting to order. Thank you very much. Welcome, everyone.

The order of the day is Bill C-212, an act respecting user fees and the proposed policy of the Treasury Board on external charging policy. We're going to do clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-212, which is the private member's bill of our own member of Parliament and a member of this committee, Mr. Cullen. For clarification and for the record, I'll state that as Mr. Cullen is a sitting member of this committee, he is entitled to vote, but he can also answer questions as a witness to his own private member's bill.

Suzanne Shirreff from the Treasury Board is here for any questions. In response to Mr. Shawn Murphy's and Mr. Cullen's request to us, there was circulated to you in your offices some information, as much as possible, that was available on numbers. If anybody needs further clarification on that, Ms. Shirreff or Mr. Cullen can assist.

We had a representative of all of the parties, including our vice-chair from our government, at steering committee yesterday and we came to a consensus--I think all the members who were at that yesterday are here--on the pre-budget consultation notice that will go up on our website for next fall's pre-budget.

Also, in the invitation letter, it was a consensus document...the fourth draft...are all in favour of this notice?

An hon. member: Sorry, what was the question?

The Chair: Concurrence for our pre-budget consultation document, which you worked on yesterday.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: That's fine. That dispenses with that. I'll get it up on the website, and I can get the invitations out. There was concurrence yesterday, but that's fine.

Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): It won't get in the way, but I still have concerns.

The Chair: So noted.

Now we will move on to the order of the day.

We're going to go to clause-by-clause consideration. My understanding is that the clerk received the bulk of Mr. Cullen's amendments, which were distributed to you in your offices originally. Then there were four amendments that came yesterday and three small ones that just came, which are supposedly consequential.

Everybody should have a copy of all of the amendments. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?

Okay. I'm just going to state once again for the record, for the greatest allowable flexibility.... We have not ever adopted in this committee a rule about getting amendments in, but I'm going to urge, when we do our Standing Orders at another time, that we get that so we can get a notice in. Part of the reason is a mechanical one. Because of security reasons, the clerk can distribute them only by fax or electronically. As chair, I got mine only late this morning to review as to whether they were in order.

So we'll deal with that. I've talked to Mr. Cullen, and because there are only 10 clauses in this bill, we'll take them in order, but clause 1 is....

Yes, Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Ms. Shirreff was requested to submit a document outlining these fee schedules, I believe by Mr. Cullen and Mr. Murphy, at the end of our last meeting. You mentioned we did receive that. I'm just wondering if there's any need to have that highlighted, because in going through this entire exercise, the question that has come up time and time again is, what fees are we referring to, and in what format are they reported, gazetted, consolidated? That was the purpose of the exercise Ms. Shirreff went through.

Is everybody clear on that? I know it's a voluminous document.

The Chair: This is the document. It was sent to our offices.

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff (Senior Director, Cost Recovery Policy Division, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Yes. I guess this is a follow-up of the number of deliberations where we talked about how many fees were subjected to review and what forecasted future volumes could be expected.

I prepared a note to try to provide some clarity on that issue. I'm sure it has been circulated to members, but briefly, just to clarify some of the points, 47 departments are engaged in external charging. That involves about 400 programs altogether.

In terms of coming up with a specific count of charges, it's not readily available, because these types of charges tend to be grouped together into fee schedules and bundled together related to either a program or a function or activity.

Over the last couple of years we've not seen a very large volume of charging proposals, and as I said in prior deliberations, we've estimated that to be around 12 or 15 proposals. However, I would caution that the volume is not necessarily the sole measure of what we're talking about in terms of workload.

Some programs are more politically sensitive than others, some have many economically prominent paying users, and some have greater visibility. It can be quite typical that the process undertaken to put a fee schedule together can take the better part of two or three years to assemble into what we call a fee proposal.

In terms of forecasting future volumes, we should note that external charges don't come up for a scheduled review. Proposals to amend and increase charges are brought forward as costs or policy changes happen or are warranted. So, in effect, these are very difficult to predict.

It's important to note that each charging proposal could cover many individual charges. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency manages, by our count, some 735 individual charges.

Under the health of animals, for example, there are 330 fees. Any single proposal brought forward by CFIA--to continue with this same example--could include a large number of charges, depending upon the cost of policy factors that are being amended. If the amounts paid to veterinarians or meat inspectors increase, CFIA typically would look at their charges, which could be right across the board.

Á (1115)

The Chair: I think that was clear in the notes you provided.

Ms. Minna, and then Mr. Cullen, please.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciated getting the report from Top Box this morning, but it's rather too late. It's like closing the door after the horse has left the barn.

We're dealing with clause-by-clause. I would have appreciated receiving this kind of report at the outset of our deliberations from the department. That would have been helpful as I was trying to understand what's happening in terms of comparing that to the bill. I got this five minutes before I came down here, so it's kind of moot.

The Chair: As did I.

Ms. Maria Minna: I don't know where it was between June 4 and now. The memo says June 4. Was it at the clerk's office? I'd like to know when it was received by the clerk's office.

The Chair: Mr. Clerk.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Richard Dupuis): I do believe I received it two days ago.

Ms. Maria Minna: I see. Well, it's unfortunate.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Chair, the notion of predicting volumes has been challenging for all of us, but I asked my staff and we went over all the gazetting that goes through the Special Committee of Council.

I was told by the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat that roughly 70% of all new user fees or increases go through the Special Committee of Council, and they're gazetted. We counted them up, and if we extrapolated them to the whole population, it would be about 17 in a period of a year and a half.

In fairness, there are some that are grouped together--and I think the officials alluded to that--but it seems to me that if the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has 40 or 50 different fees, or whatever, it's probably not going to--or it will learn quickly if it hasn't done that already--come in and package them and amend them or propose to amend them all at the same time. So that would be tabled as a package. That's the way it's happening right now when they're put in front of the Special Committee of Council. They're all gazetted as a group.

So when we talk about numbers, we need to be careful to underestimate them but overestimate them as well.

That's all I'd like to say.

The Chair: Is everybody clear on that point?

For the sake of clarity again, the clerks, both the legislative clerk and our own procedural clerk, have reminded me that since the Speaker has done the regrouping of amendments in the House in the last little while, it's always up to the Speaker what he can do at report stage, but basically the general rule now is any amendments that can be presented here should be presented here.

So all the amendments, to my knowledge, are in only from Mr. Cullen, and we are receiving no other amendments, unless people present some on the floor today, which is allowable in this committee. But just so we're clear, all the written amendments in French and English are here now.

For further clarification, I'm advised that this includes numbers. If a number can be dealt with here, it should be dealt with here. But again, I'm not the Speaker of the House. They can do whatever they wish at some later date, but just so you realize we're dealing with these amendments right now.

Clause 1 will be postponed because it's the title.

I would suggest to you that we stand and postpone clause 2, because there are some amendments that deal with the definitions, if you adopt those later on.

Mr. Penson, please.

Á (1120)

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): This has to do with Mr. Cullen's first amendment. I'm just trying to figure out what line he's referring to. I see what it says, but when I go down in Bill C-212, in the first case, it's “An Act respecting user fees”, and so on, and then I get to line 8 as being “this Act”....

Okay, I think it has been clarified for me here. Thank you.

The Chair: I'll stand clause 2 until the end, and then we'll come back to it. Okay?

(On clause 3--Fees)

The Chair: Now we will go to clause 3, on which we have amendment RC-6.

Mr. Cullen, would you like to move that?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, Madam Chair.

Again, I would like to thank the chair and the clerk for some indulgence. I got a package of amendments through, and then a number yesterday. Then, in going through the bill last night, I noticed a couple of housekeeping items, so we tabled them this morning.

I have amendments because I've been listening to witnesses and to colleagues on both sides.

This particular amendment removes crown corporations from the scope and application of the bill. I've heard this from a number of different stakeholders, that crown corporations already have a commercial orientation and they have other governance and reporting lines. So I'm suggesting we remove crown corporations from the scope of the bill.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I would ask Ms. Shirreff to expand on this. While there has been the removal of “Crown corporation”, the concern the department has is the definition of the word “body”. Can I get further clarification on what is meant by the term “other body”? That can be quite broad in scope.

Mr. Roy Cullen: “Other body” could be a foundation. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's meant to cover anything in the government, other than a crown corporation, that is not covered under “department, agency, board, [or] commission”. Within the ambit of the government, there are foundations or other governmental organizations that may not be defined clearly by “department, agency, board, [or] commission”.

Á (1125)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: The concern the department has is that another body that has the power to fix a user fee of a cost-recovery charge under the authority of an act of Parliament...in other words, their interpretation is that it can apply to non-governmental persons and entities such as NAVCAN, Shaw Cable, or Rogers. By a logical extension, it seems in those cases where a private sector firm is overseen by a regulatory authority, as in those mentioned above, the regulatory authority's decision would also be subject to the provisions in this bill.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I heard this concern before, and I went back to legislative counsel and they said this definition clearly excludes, in their judgment, any industries or sectors that are regulated by the federal government. I didn't want to pick up things like Bell Canada. I'm not a lawyer on these things, but I'm clear on that because I asked that question very clearly to the legislative drafters.

The Chair: Mr. Penson has a question, then Mr. Discepola.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Maybe this should go to Ms. Shirreff.

Does the practice as it exists now on user fees apply to crown corporations?

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: No, it does not. They apply the FAA, section 2, which defines departments.

Mr. Charlie Penson: What's that?

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: All departments, but not crown corporations. So it does include agencies and the various departments across the government, but it excludes crown corporations.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Do crown corporations charge user fees?

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: Yes, but they're not subject to the cost-recovery policy as it exists today, though if there are fees a department puts in place, then the crown corporation becomes, if you wish, a user and would pay that fee as well.

Mr. Charlie Penson: So a crown corporation would have their own system of cost recovery. Is that what you're telling us?

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: That's right.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): If you read the French translation of it, it's probably a little bit clearer because it says,

[Translation]

“any other body of the Government of Canada”.

[English]

It's any other body of the Government of Canada, so I don't see how it would apply to bodies regulated by the Government of Canada. I mean, CRTC, Bell Canada, or Rogers...I don't think you would call that.... It's only government bodies, not bodies regulated by the government. It's a nuance that's important.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I guess the reason for being a little more expansive rather than less is that I think departments and agencies might try to be creative, and there are various organizations that could be engaged to, if you like, circumvent the intent of the policy.

I'm sure that wouldn't happen, but if you comment that it does not apply to regulated industries, I'm very satisfied it doesn't.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Just as we go through this process, I wish to explain something to the committee. This bill is very complex. It deals with, at present, some $4 billion in recovery fees. Normally, in a government-sponsored bill the department would be here to more or less explain their bill and answer any questions.

Obviously this is a little different; it's a private member's bill. It was sponsored and drafted by Mr. Cullen, and ultimately it is his department that will receive whatever the wishes of the committee and Parliament are should this bill be approved.

From time to time in our discussions I think it would be fair that I refer to the department. I've had an opportunity to go through the department as we looked through Mr. Cullen's bill. They're asking for clarification in some areas, because they were not involved with the drafting of the bill.

So I just wish to explain that and be up front about it. And I think it's important, because in the end, I think what we're trying to do is make sure that whatever we adopt is solid.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, you're a signed-in member, and as far as I'm concerned, as a signed-in member you have the right to ask questions, as does every member around--

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: But I'm saying I will be referring to the officials, who have expressed some need for clarification.

The Chair: They're here to help the committee.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Ms. Shirreff would like to comment on this.

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: I have a point of clarification as well. It has to do with the definition of a body that has the power to fix user fees. I guess one of the questions or clarifications is that it may be unintentional, but in effect it could capture the Governor in Council, who also has the power to fix a user fee.

I'm just wondering if we could get clarification on that point.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Did you understand that, Mr. Cullen?

Mr. Roy Cullen: I don't really understand that. The scope of this bill applies to any minister or department head or agency head irrespective of whether a user fee is approved by cabinet.

We're going to come later to some amendments I'm proposing that reduce, if you like, the veto power of the committee, but my bill does not exempt any user fee the way it's defined here from being tabled in the House of Commons and going through the process that's envisaged by this bill.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

I will then call the question on amendment RC-6.

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: When we get to it, you can note now that we stood down the definition section, and because we have deleted here, this would have a consequential effect on RC-4.

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 4--Preconditions)

The Chair: We have three amendments only in clause 4.

Mr. Cullen, do you want to start with RC-7.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment makes it more explicit that when a new user fee is introduced or proposed or increased, there is a precondition that the department or agency establish standards that are comparable to those established by Canada's major trading partners and against which the performance of the regulating authority can be measured.

The notion of performance standards is referred to later in the bill, but given the interest of the members of the committee in the notion of performance standards, and my interest in that as well, I am proposing that it be built right into clause 4, which in the margin is called “Preconditions”. It basically reinforces the need to articulate performance standards against which ultimately the performance will be measured.

The Chair: Any questions or discussion?

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Amendment RC-8.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, this is meant to respond to concerns expressed that there could be users who would entertain frivolous complaints to a dispute mechanism process and there's no foolproof way of dealing with that. But what I've done here is propose that we add the word “reasonable” complaint. Now reasonable again is a judgmental aspect. I think there have been a lot of questions about how this independent dispute mechanism would operate. I think if this bill is passed, obviously it will have to be defined through government regulation.

I have some ideas on the process for how it might work as well. For example, I don't think it would be unreasonable if the dispute mechanism was considered not binding on anybody, especially the government. Secondly, if someone enters a complaint and they lose the complaint to an independent process, they might have to pick up the cost of the complaint, and likewise on the government side, if they fight the complaint and they subsequently lose it. But these are details that would have to be worked out later.

The bill basically describes the need for an independent dispute mechanism process. We've heard so much testimony that users really don't feel they have anywhere to go. There's an internal process, and notwithstanding some of the improvements that are proposed in the new government policy, most people are arguing quite strenuously that we need some kind of independent process. This particular amendment adds the word “reasonable” to accompany the complaint. So it has to be a reasonable complaint--just to provide more clarity around that.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Mr. Paquette and then Mr. Tirabassi.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Madam Chair, I am opposed to this amendment because the bill does not define what is reasonable and what is not. A complaint is a complaint. Surely the proposed mechanism, meaning the independent dispute resolution process, will include criteria to ensure that completely frivolous complaints are rejected. But if the legislation states that it must be a reasonable complaint, the word “reasonable” needs to be defined. A complaint or grievance is initiated. There will be a resolution of one kind or another. If the complaint is frivolous, it will be rejected, and if it is plausible, it will be heard. Therefore, I will oppose this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I defer to Ms. Shirreff, please.

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: I appreciate the independent fee mechanism, the need to define the role and all of this, but my question is to clarify where it comes in, in terms of the process and mechanics of putting a fee in place. And that speaks to other clauses where we talk about the minister tabling a proposal at Parliament. Presently, a proposal could typically be put in front of Treasury Board for example. Then it would move to the special cabinet council before it moves to the Canada Gazette. Then it would be reviewed by the Special Committee of Council and finally approved by Governor in Council, and then subjected to the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.

I guess I'm trying to understand where the independent fee mechanism comes at what stage during that process.

Mr. Roy Cullen: My bill basically says that as a precondition, the department or agency has to establish an independent dispute resolution process. And whether or not the Treasury Board Secretariat would want to set up some government-wide policy to have some consistency with that, I suppose that would be fair enough. But the way I would see it is that when the document is tabled in the House of Commons, the minister would define elements that are set out in the bill, describe the consultation process, and as a part of that, if the consultation process ended in some dispute and there was a panel that was struck, that would form part of the report that would be tabled in the House of Commons.

Now, the sequencing of all these internal processes, frankly, I think needs to be obviously spelled out. I think it's beyond the scope of the bill. I think it's totally manageable and it can be accomplished. To spell all that out in this bill would not be appropriate. I'm reminded of the many times when the government brings forward legislation and we are told at committee, oh well, that will all be sorted out in regulation. What this bill does is say there will be an independent dispute resolution process, and that has to be defined by regulation and how it intersects with all these other processes of government. I don't have answers for that in this bill. I have ideas. We all might have ideas.

Á (1140)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I'm just concerned that if we have an existing process with certain functions within it and then lay over it what's in this bill...is it not important that it be defined now, so that you don't get into the situation where you have a bill clashing with the existing processes later? Who's that going to be left up to, to resolve? You say it's to be left to regulations.

I think it would be important and I think the stakeholders would like to know now how it would be defined. You're going to have an existing process, a new bill, a transition. Wouldn't you want to know now how it's going to work--whose authority versus whose?

Mr. Roy Cullen: I suppose that's a fair comment, but we're getting ahead of ourselves. If the bill passes, I'll gladly draft up some regulations. But it's been a question to me: if a private member's bill is passed into law, even though it's a private member's bill, I presume the government would have to then define the regulations.

Coming back to the point, when we get to the more substantive amendment I'm proposing, essentially I'm proposing to take away the veto power of the committee, but by building in some very clear criteria for performance standards and what they mean to the user fee. The tabling of the document in the House of Commons and the process that follows is, the way my amendment reads, a matter of recommending.

If you get to a point where the users have asked for an independent panel to review the dispute, then clearly the gazetting has occurred, either implicitly or explicitly, so there's clearly a problem with the users. How all these processes fit among themselves, I think, is a totally manageable matter. I just don't buy the argument that it has to be spelled out in this bill.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'm not sure we need this, but let me just make my case.

It seems to me we're going to have a consultation process with industry, and then if industry is still not satisfied with the user fee, there will be this independent panel. I can't imagine too many people coming just causing mischief, because there would be a big cost to industry as well to have to come to make their case before a dispute panel. Let's wait and see if there gets to be a problem. If there gets to be a problem, maybe costs have to be awarded one way or the other if somebody is found to be bringing mischievous kinds of cases forward. It seems to me this is putting the cart before the horse.

I don't think we need this. It's a pretty subjective term, and unless it has definition, I would be voting against it.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, I'd be guided by the wisdom of the committee on this. I've been trying to be accommodative in the case of frivolous activity. I certainly, and the users I've talked to, have said if there are a lot of--in my judgment--frivolous activities, I'll be the first to call for changes myself, to the extent I could have any influence on it.

I'm open to the committee. I just thought that “reasonable”--agreed, it is subjective--might help to put it into context. But I'm open to the committee and the wish of the committee.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Discepola, and then Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I agree with Mr. Penson and Mr. Paquette. I don't think the word “reasonable” should be added, because I believe what it would do is essentially force some people to evaluate the request in terms of that reasonableness and maybe curtail some people from even entertaining entering into a dispute mechanism.

There are certainly many precedents before, in other dispute resolution processes, whereby the people who sit on that board, or however it may be structured, will be the best judge of whether the request was a reasonable request and whether it should be heard--as opposed to now putting the emphasis on the person, before he or she makes the request, to guarantee that it's a reasonable request. I don't even, frankly, see the need for the word “reasonable” in there.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Ms. Shirreff has a comment, Madam Chair.

Á (1145)

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: I used to--

Mr. Charlie Penson: If Ms. Shirreff has a point, can't she just raise it?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I'm trying to signal the chair.

The Chair: Well, quite frankly, Ms. Shirreff is a witness for the questions from the members. My preference is to keep with the procedure of the committee. I'm not going to set a new precedent here.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Can I just interject on a point of order here?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I think all we're doing is debating here--or we should be debating--whether the word “reasonable” should be added or removed, not what kind of processes should be involved if the legislation passes. Let's stick to the article, then, as opposed to probably rehashing an awful lot of debate that should have occurred prior to this stage, in my opinion.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, did you have a further question?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Again, I was just going to refer to Ms. Shirreff for comment.

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: As a point of clarification, an independent process being established in advance of something being tabled in Parliament...the process that exists today is from the authority of the minister. They begin the process and seek authority to go through the regulatory process, whose main element is that consultation with the broad stakeholders, the Canadian public, is not complete at that stage. That is done through publishing in the Canada Gazette and through more comments, and then the proposal is refined and approval is sought.

So on clarification about the independent process at this stage, we just have to be aware that the consultation is not completed, from a proposal standpoint.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, certainly that's my understanding too: that the only time it would be realistic for this mechanism to be triggered would be if the users were of the view that there was now a firm proposal moving forward to the government--the cabinet--to consider. Before that, there would be a lot of consultation and back and forth, and maybe some negotiation. But you get to a point where the department or the minister says, “That's it, I'm moving forward”, and if there are still issues on the table, the users then can decide with the stakeholders whether they're going to trigger this independent mechanism to try to resolve it.

The Chair: I'm ready to call the question here. This is on amendment RC-8.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're on amendment RC-9.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair. There has been concern expressed by the government that comparison with OECD countries is too broad and would become quite voluminous and time-consuming, potentially comparing apples with oranges, etc. I think that's a fair comment. I'm proposing with this amendment that rather than looking at all OECD countries, we limit the review--the benchmarking, if you like--to Canada's major trading partners.

For example, if you're looking at drug approvals, the main concern would be the U.S., the U.K., Europe, etc., and major competitors. This is meant to narrow the scope of the review; that's what this amendment is about.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Madam Chair. We appreciate that Mr. Cullen is recognizing the difficulty, maybe, in making that particular comparison. But from undertaking the benchmarking study, it was found that some countries weren't as forthcoming with information as we might have liked them to be. It might lead to comparisons with hard-to-get, incomplete, subjective information. I just throw this out for a suggestion: if we're looking at a particular department, there might be a comparable foreign jurisdiction that does things similarly to us in that area, but that might not be a major trading partner.

I'll just leave that out there. The department definitely has stated that this is fine.

Á (1150)

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, when you're benchmarking, it is not easy work. I did it in the private sector. We used to know how our prices stacked up against all our competition around the world. If we didn't know that, we were dead. Sometimes you had to look at different aspects of service, packaging, qualities, etc. It's not an easy task.

I think if the department or agency goes through an honest, vigorous process and reports back to the committee that either we don't have really good data that supports these comparisons or we only have one country, I don't think people are going to be totally unreasonable.

The problem I have with leaving it vacant is that there will be a tendency for a department or an agency to be more lax on the performance standard so that they can achieve the performance standard and collect the fee. I think we need some discipline in that process so that the fee at least is comparable to our trading partners' in that particular sphere.

The Chair: Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Cullen, is part of the reason for this “major trading partner” because we have to be competitive? For example, the United States is our major trading partner, and if we put ourselves in a non-competitive position versus our major trading partner, we would be at a disadvantage. Is that what you're thinking?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Absolutely. For example, concerning drug approval fees, there was some debate about how comparable they all were, but that also would become clearer if there were more transparency and accountability. But yes, if our fees and our performance standards aren't comparable, let's say on drug approvals, with those of the United States and Europe, we need to know that and deal with it.

Perhaps there's a very good reason, and that's why my bill also says the minister would have an opportunity to table a statement that our fee is higher for the following reasons. Then the committee would make a judgment around it.

The Chair: Mr. Discepola, were you on my list again?

Mr. Nick Discepola: This is a question for Mr. Cullen. I think there are 20 OECD countries--or are there more?

Mr. Roy Cullen: I think there are more than that.

Mr. Nick Discepola: More than that, even. Is it 28? If you're saying “major trading partners”, my first question is, what happens...? You're saying you take all the major trading partners, and if some of them don't even have a similar fee in that country, you ignore them. Then we have to be lower than any of the rest before we can approve a fee?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My bill isn't quite so prescriptive. It says there needs to be that kind of benchmarking; there needs to be an analysis of how comparable the fees are with those of our major trading partners. I think what you're getting to is a point that says a major trading partner is the United States, but if they don't have a fee that relates to MERX, or government procurement on it--I'm sure they do, but let's say they didn't--you wouldn't have anything to compare it with.

So yes, that is the case.

Now, we could get into some more intricate wording that says “major trading partners” and “where it is relevant”, and “where there are possibilities” and all that, but--

Mr. Nick Discepola: No, my concern was more the obligation to have to be the lowest. Do you have to be the lowest, or can you be in the median or average of four or five countries that have similar fees?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Basically my bill, Madam Chair, says that if the fee is higher than that which exists with our major trading partners, then as part of the tabling of the user fee proposal, that fact would be indicated, and the minister or the department head would provide a rationale for it.

Ms. Maria Minna: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...as long as it doesn't constrain the price level.

I was just going to piggyback on Mr. Discepola on that same thing: as long as the wording doesn't mean it constrains the government or minister by forcing that it be lower, because it could be higher in some cases, and legitimately so. I just wanted to make sure that wording is.... But as long as it's a matter of just justifying or explaining it....

Á (1155)

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, as far as that explanation is concerned, I see the minister, or the department head, or the agency head, being able to come forward and say we've really tried hard and we can't find something totally comparable. I don't think people are going to be totally unreasonable about this.

The Chair: I have one question for clarification in my own head. Through who, and through what process, does each one of these things come about? Who is deciding which is the trading partner, or is that something else you thought would be dealt with by regulation?

Mr. Roy Cullen: No. As a criterion of the bill, for any new user fee, or increase in user fee, that is being proposed, there has to be this analysis. That's a requirement. So if a minister, or an agency head through a minister, wants to proceed with a new user fee or a user fee increase, that comparison must be part and parcel of that proposal.

The Chair: Mr. Pillitteri, go ahead.

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Madam Chair, I think I can understand this. When a corporation makes something subject to an approval, usually they'll put in there cost fees, because most of them are multinationals and they have different cost fees in different countries. Therefore, as a businessman, when you're making a business proposal to any body or competitive body, you also include your cost factor in there, what it costs you to make this presentation--the cost factor. So I think it is to the individuals to whom a service is being done that they usually bring forward their idea of a cost factor.

The Chair: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...if I was breaking a tie vote for that information.

Go ahead, Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: So we can follow this through a little bit further, Mr. Cullen, wouldn't it be that for whoever was doing that assessment, on whatever product it was being decided what user fee was being charged, the assessment would have to include who our major trading partner is in that specific area? So it would vary from product to product. It wouldn't always be the United States; it might be Europe or it might be Japan, and it would depend on what the user fee is being applied to. Is that right?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Absolutely, and I think, Madam Chair, that comes out also in terms of the consultation process. If the stakeholder groups felt that the comparisons were being made inappropriately or that there wasn't enough due diligence on that, they would raise that as part of the consultation process, and if they felt strongly enough about it in the end, they would raise this as part of their dispute that the comparisons, the benchmarkings, are inappropriate; they haven't been done completely.... So I think they work part and parcel together.

The Chair: I have a question as to whether we have ten people at the table. It's ten now. I just noticed we lost one. I have to keep track of the numbers now.

We're on RC-9 and I'm calling the question.

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5--Review and report)

The Chair: Mr. Cullen, you have RC-10.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, I move amendment RC-10. This amendment is meant to capture a couple of things. One, there was some concern that a committee of the House of Commons would be required to do an extensive analysis into every new user fee or user fee increase that was proposed. My understanding when it was originally drafted by legislative counsel was that this was not the case. You could say “the committee must review”, and if the committee decided it didn't want to, it certainly wouldn't have to. But I'm trying to recognize that there was some concern that the committee would be obligated to do a review, so this wording says, “may review a proposal”, instead of “must review”.

The other aspect of this amendment, Madam Chair, deals with the fact that it amends the wording such that if a stakeholder has an option other than the government--for example, if you go into a national park--my bill would cover if Parks Canada or the new parks agency wanted to increase the park general admission fee, or the range of fees, but by this amendment, it wouldn't cover charging for a pile of firewood or tent rental. This was raised by some stakeholders. For instance, in the national capital, if someone wanted to buy a map from the National Capital Commission, you'd be able to buy a map down at the local bookstore.

As long as a Canadian person has an option, then my bill doesn't cover that. It's trying to restrict it to those situations where the user fee is regulated by the government and there are no other options available to the user. For example, if you want to get a drug approved, there's only one place to go.

Â (1200)

The Chair: We have at least two questions. Mr. Tirabassi and Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just for clarification--and I know this was brought up by Mr. Gray, who appeared before the committee--the wording is “The Committee may review”, but what the committee deems that it may want to review and what a certain stakeholder out there may wish the committee to review might be different as far as priority is concerned or whether it should be reviewed or not. Is it the intent that perhaps one of the conditions of the committee review, in establishing whether it would review a certain fee or not, be that it would be in consultation with stakeholder groups? What would the input be there from the stakeholder groups to help the committee decide what it may in fact want to review?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, the way I would see this operating is the committee decides. It is the master of its own destiny. A likely scenario would be that the users and the stakeholders that followed these things would become aware that a proposal to increase a user fee, or introduce a new user fee, had been tabled in the House of Commons and referred to the appropriate committee. If the stakeholder groups felt they had problems with that user fee proposal, I'm sure they would try to contact members of the committee to have the committee do an active review. But the committee will decide its own process. They might say we're not interested in reviewing the user fee proposal; we either think it's reasonable or that there are other priorities, and that would be it. There could be lobbying efforts to get the committee to review a user fee, but the committee would decide whether it wanted to review it or not.

The Chair: Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I just want to say that there is a spelling mistake in the French version of the amendment.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Pardon me. Which word?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: It says in the French version “exclusivement pas lui” instead of “par lui”. It should be an r not an s. I just want to avoid having this mistake enshrined in the legislation.

[English]

The Chair: You're going to accept that as a friendly amendment?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, that's fine with me.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: For once, something happened in this committee.

[English]

The Chair: It's a typo. The clerk will fix it as a typo. The intention of the committee unanimously is to correct the French to the proper French and the English to the proper English. I think that is understood.

Are there any further questions on this point?

I call the question on RC-10.

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: On amendment RC-11, go ahead.

Â (1205)

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment I'm proposing really has to be seen in conjunction with an amendment we're coming to later, but I'll deal with it specifically. This amendment basically says that if a regulating authority doesn't meet the performance standard by greater than 10%--and that's to give some room for flexibility or measurement--the user fee shall be reduced by a percentage equivalent to the unachieved performance to a maximum of 50% of the user fee.

I brought this in, Madam Chair, because there was some concern about the veto power of a committee over user fees, and I'll come to that amendment later. I'm proposing that we eliminate the veto power of the committee, but that we build in a very tight and clear linkage on accountability if departments or agencies don't meet their performance standard.

The Chair: Did you want to stand this down and deal with the two together?

Mr. Roy Cullen: I could if people aren't clear on what I've said.

No, I think we can deal with it. We've talked to people. I think they know roughly what it's about.

The Chair: I want to reiterate what I said about numbers being one of those things that usually can't be changed in the House if they're set here, so be aware.

I'm going to get a further clarification on that because I was trying to get clarity on it this morning.

Legislative Clerk, do you want to say that into the microphone, please?

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc (Procedural Clerk): I was going to say that if people want to change an amendment adopted in committee, that's something you can do at report stage. You're always free to further amend something that the committee did. It's when you had a chance to change the bill and didn't do it, you can't come back usually and bring it in at report stage. If you want to further amend something adopted by the committee, that's usually selected at report stage.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I don't totally understand this point.

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc: The nuance is, if you have an opportunity to amend a section of the bill in committee and do not, usually at report stage you're not afforded that possibility of presenting that amendment there because you had a chance to do it in committee and didn't. But if the committee adopts an amendment at report stage, you can look at what the committee adopted and say, we think this is a good idea, but we'd like to change a few things in it. When you're further amending something, that's the kind of thing that's usually selected at report stage.

Mr. Nick Discepola: So you can't introduce new amendments is what you're saying.

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc: They usually will not be selected by the Speaker.

The Chair: What I was trying to highlight at the beginning of the meeting is that some of the rules about amendments at report stage have changed in the recent past.

Mr. Nick Discepola: You're just taking the power away from the member of Parliament and giving it to the Speaker.

The Chair: I don't tell the Speaker what to do. I'm just trying to make this committee aware of what it's doing here.

Yes, Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Regarding Mr. Cullen's amendment, I want to know how a regulating authority's performance is defined.

[English]

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

This amendment concerns the user fees referred to in the bill. If you remember, the amendment stipulated that it was the responsibility of the agency or department to determine exactly what standard it would meet. Also, in my opinion, it is a question of opportunity. For example, as you heard yesterday, many departments or agencies now base their performance standards on their user fees.

[English]

I think it's a matter of the department or agency having articulated through this process, through this bill, what their performance standard is, or will be, and measure that against the actual results they've obtained.

Will this always be straight-ahead stuff? I suspect not. This really legislates the fact that a department or agency has to meet the performance standard they have articulated.

I suppose you could have circumstances where it's not totally clear that this is the officially articulated agency or department performance standard. I suppose one could have that debate. In my judgment, in 90% of the cases it will be fairly clear what the articulated performance standard was for the department for that user fee, and then we'll have to compare the actual performance.

Â (1210)

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): I want clarification on something. We're talking about RC-11, on proposed section 5.1, right? Maybe I'm missing something here. I can get the gist of the intent of the thing, but when I read this, “Where the performance of a regulating authority does not meet the standards established by that regulating authority by a percentage greater than ten per cent, the user fee shall be reduced”, according to my interpretation, if, for example, there was a performance standard that something be done within 60 days and you didn't do it in 54 days...not only are you required to meet it, but you're required to exceed it by at least 10%, and if you don't do that, your percentage will be reduced.

Mr. Nick Discepola: No, if you're within 10%, there's no--

Mr. Shawn Murphy: That's not what it says, though. That might be what the intent is, but it says “by that regulating authority by a percentage greater”--not within--“greater than ten per cent the user fee shall be reduced”. So my interpretation of that is you have to not only meet the performance standard, you have to exceed it by 10%, and if you don't exceed it by 10%, this is like under-promising and over-delivering personified. But again, this is a wording issue. Somebody has to do it. That's my interpretation of it, and I'm relatively confident that this is the way others would interpret it.

The Chair: We're the ones who have to do it if you're going to do it. So if it's important, deal with it.

Mr. Cullen, you might want to respond.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, I must say I don't see it that way, but if there's language that would make it more clear.... It talks about unachieved performance. It talks about not meeting the standards established. I thought it was clear. Your example was if the performance standard was 60 and they did it in 67, then this provision would click in.

Mr. Nick Discepola: If you take 100 days and they do it in 90 days, they've achieved 90% of their target, which is greater than 10%, right?

Ms. Maria Minna: I was going to actually agree with Mr. Murphy. I find the language confusing, and to me, when I read it, and I've reread it a couple of times...but on first reading, and even now, it leaves me thinking they have to exceed the standard by 10% rather than meet the standard. Meeting the standard is not enough.

The Chair: Could we--

Ms. Maria Minna: I think what you're saying is within 10%, right? If the standard is, say, 90 and you come in within--

Mr. Roy Cullen: No, the intent, Madam Chair, is to say that if your performance standard is 100 and you do it at 110--let's say it's 100 days and you do it in 110 days--then this clause doesn't take effect, but if you do it in 111 days, then the user fee would be reduced by 11%.

Ms. Maria Minna: You're giving flexibility.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I don't see a problem.

The Chair: Pierre, did you wish to comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Of course. In my opinion, the French version does not quite correspond to the English. According to what you said, the French version states that if the performance standard is not met, there is a proportional decrease in user fees, but if the standard is exceeded, nothing happens. Is that right?

Mr. Nick Discepola: No. I am told that if they are within 10%, the standard is not lowered.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: No. The French is very clear. I mean that it is not written in quite the same way in French and English.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Pension, and then Mr. Cullen. I can assure you there has to be concordance between the two languages here.

Go ahead, Mr. Penson.

Â (1215)

Mr. Charlie Penson: It seems to me that Mr. Paquette is satisfied with the French version. I'm satisfied with the English version because it says “Where the performance of a regulating authority does not meet the standards established by that regulating authority by a percentage greater than ten per cent”. So it seems to me it's clear that if their standard is 100 and they are 111, then they have to rebate the.... I think it's clear.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Ms. Shirreff would like to make a comment on this whole issue of service standards.

The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Shirreff.

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: It's more a general comment than on the issue of service standards.

The current policy in place requires establishing service standards where they are appropriate. The proposed policy made the leap of saying, “It's going to be mandatory”. I guess my point of clarification is that Bill C-212 maybe makes an assumption that all external charging programs currently have established performance standards, which may not be the case. I just want to point this out.

And in terms of implementation, our intent with the proposed policy was also to allow a time period to establish those. Again, from a stakeholder perspective, performance standards will be expected at the very low fee level established.

The Chair: Mr. Discepola, and then Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Just for Ms. Shirreff's information, it says “the performance of a regulating authority does not meet the standards established”. So if no standards are established, wouldn't that cover your case?

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: That's right, if it's not mandatory.

Mr. Nick Discepola: The way I read it, if they're established, and do “not meet the standards established”.... So if no standards are established, then we should cover that category. Or if lawyers are present in this room, they might say we need a comma or “and” or “but”. I don't know.

The Chair: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: I practised law for 25 years and the way I interpret this is that you would have to not only meet the performance standards, but you'd also have to exceed them by 10%.

Mr. Nick Discepola: But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the case where there are no established standards.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: It would just be redundant, I think.

Mr. Nick Discepola: That's what I think too.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: In fairness, in the earlier amendment, we did refer to a new user fee or an increase, so together with that there would have to be performance standards.

I think the House of Commons committee would want to ensure that every effort is made to establish a performance standard. In the absence of, let's say, a park fee.... Let's say you have to pay a fee to enter a federal park. I suppose a performance standard would be that once you pay the fee, you enter the park and as long as you behave yourself, you're fine.

I think people are not unreasonable about this. If there's a question about how one actually sets a performance standard, there's always a way to come up with one. If it were interested, the question in front of a committee would then be: is that as good as you can get?

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Mr. Richins has indicated to me that he'd like to comment on this particular area as well.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Leon Richins (Senior Policy Advisor, Cost Recovery Policy Division, Treasury Board Secretariat): Thank you.

If I could make the point, I just have a quick comment on service charges. I'm just looking at this amendment and I'm wondering if it takes into account the possibility of extenuating circumstances. Departments have limited resources, I suppose, so even if a service standard is in effect, there are the mad cows and the SARS of the world, which will have impacts on everybody's ability to do their day-to-day business.

So I'm wondering if having a hard and fast formula, as this amendment seems to intend, is necessarily going to fit every circumstance, because some extraordinary events do occur.

The Chair: Mr. Penson, and then Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Charlie Penson: In those kinds of disastrous circumstances, it seems to me that you don't want to be charging user fees on those groups. Those are extraordinary situations that require extraordinary solutions. If you didn't meet your performance standards during an emergency like mad cow disease, I don't think the example used was that the user would still have to pay it. Those kinds of situations go far beyond normal circumstances and would have to be exempted.

Â (1220)

Mr. Leon Richins: Sorry, just to clarify my remarks, I was not intending to say with that example that those people would be charged fees, but to speak of the need to divert resources to deal with those emergency situations that take resources away from the day-to-day approval of drugs, meat inspection, or what have you. I'm not necessarily talking about adding fees onto those cases, but am strictly speaking of the diversionary effect of having to move resources to deal with those extraordinary circumstances.

This amendment doesn't necessarily seem to allow for that flexibility, just in case. It sounds like if you miss your service standard by 10%, that's it. It doesn't take into account that there might be a very good reason why the department couldn't meet it in that particular circumstance.

The Chair: Mr. Murphy, and then Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: Again, I'll come back to my earlier comment, and I was wondering if Mr. Cullen would consider entertaining a friendly amendment to make it read “regulating authority within a range of 10%, the user fee”.

Mr. Roy Cullen: The standard established by that regulating authority...and you're saying within a range.

But what I'm trying to achieve here is that there are going to be rounding differences and there are going to be some circumstances, so if you say you're going to do it in 100 days and it takes you 110, I'm saying this mechanism doesn't trigger in. Maybe that's what you're saying.

Personally, I don't have difficulty with the clause, but if there's an amendment that people think will make it more clear.... What I'm trying to accomplish is just to say there are going to be adding errors and rounding errors, so if they say 100 days and it's 110, then this doesn't come into play. But if it's 120 days and they said it was 100, then it comes into play.

The Chair: I can offer to stand that down if you wish, Mr. Cullen. No?

Mr. Roy Cullen: If there is a friendly amendment and it has the support of the committee....

The Chair: I need one or the other.

Ms. Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna: At this point the wording is fine for me, unless somebody else has an amendment.

What I wanted to say, though...it says user fees shall be reduced, but I'm going back to.... Mr. Richins commented it's fair to a degree, because this would automatically trigger...it says “shall”, and if there is an emergency situation that diverts attention or staff, it may cause a problem.

I just wanted that clarified.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Discepola and then Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I think what Mr. Richins is getting at is if you have established a particular performance standard in a particular department, and all of a sudden, because of extenuating circumstances, those resources have to be applied somewhere, preventing that department from now achieving those performance standards, they'll be penalized.

What we're saying is under those extenuating circumstances, I think that.... You can't foresee them in a bill, right? It would seem to me they're going to have to live with it. I don't know how you're going to say...because then it becomes very subjective--I wasn't able to meet it because I had this other obligation. I mean, how do you get into that?

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just going to make two comments. I think earlier there was talk about emergencies and disasters, and we come to an amendment later that deals with the ability of ministers and agencies to bring in something like the airport security fee, but I don't think that's what you were after.

In fairness, the problem we've had with user fees is that resources have been moved, maybe for very good reasons, from those areas where the resources are applied to meeting these performance standards on fees to areas maybe of other priorities. I don't think we can deal with that in this bill.

The only suggestion I would offer is let's say the user fee is reduced; there is a process--hopefully, the government will proceed also with the more transparent and accountable process through the estimates that Mr. Valeri's been working on--that could come around full circle. Then those estimates could be in front of a committee, the department could appear, and the committee would always have an opportunity to recommend the movement of resources from one part to another, or make recommendations to the House on any aspect of the estimates.

I think it would be a dangerous and slippery slope to provide an out on this without some sort of day of reckoning.

Â (1225)

The Chair: We are on amendment RC-11.

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: There is one amendment, RC-11.1, not on your sheet.

Mr. Cullen, do you want to introduce it?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

There are two amendments here. Can I speak to them together?

The Chair: Yes. Do you want to do RC-11.1 and RC-12 for the point of explanation? Is that what you wanted?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, that's right.

Regarding amendment 11.1, basically there was some concern that in the original bill it said “forty days”, and my intent was forty sitting days. We've inserted the words “forty sitting days”. I was under the impression that if you said “forty days” it meant forty sitting days, but apparently not. So we've just put “forty sitting days”.

But let me just talk briefly, if I may, Madam Chair, about amendment RC-12, because they're all part of the same clause.

There was some concern mentioned by members of the committee and other stakeholders that the way the bill reads now, without amendment, the committee would be obliged to report back to the House on a user fee proposal, either rejecting, amending, recommending, whatever. What this amendment does is say that--and it was my understanding this was how the committee system worked, but perhaps not, and at least this provides more clarity--if a fee proposal is tabled in the House, it's referred to a committee. If after 40 sitting days there has been no action by the committee, then the user fee as presented is deemed approved or deemed to be acceptable to the committee.

It's put in legal language, but that's the effect of both those amendments. So it does two things.

It does basically one thing because it just adds “sitting days” to “days”. So in 40 sitting days, if the committee hasn't looked at it, it's deemed to have been....

The Chair: We'll call the question, unless I see further discussion. I'll call the question on amendment RC-11.1 first.

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now we'll go to....

Yes, Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Could I just have clarification on amendment RC-12 from Mr. Cullen?

Â (1230)

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Cullen, what if the committee did not address this issue because it was working on all kinds of other projects, or what if the committee didn't meet?

I'm a little bit concerned that a user fee could slip through without having the committee look at it just because the committee has undertaken some other huge project or something.

Wouldn't the committee have to review it?

Mr. Roy Cullen: The way the bill is always read is that you can't command a committee to do anything. Even if you said “must review a fee proposal”...I was told by legislative counsel that even if you have the word “must”, if the committee decides not to look at it, they're not going to look at it. I've changed that wording to “may”, but I think the effect is the same.

I don't know about House procedure, but let's say, in your example, Mr. Penson, the committee really wanted to look at it, but it had other priorities. Could the chair report to the House that they wanted to look at it, but they couldn't do it within 40 days? I don't know. I'm not a procedural guru.

Maybe I could ask the clerk.

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc: It says if after 40 sitting days, which is 8 sitting weeks, it hasn't been looked at, it's deemed approved. But there doesn't appear to be a mechanism for an extension.

The Chair: Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): There is a mechanism. There's an aspect of the bill that deals specifically with oversight. If the department is required to adhere to a process of consultation with stakeholders, would there not be a reporting mechanism that indicates that this consultation is going on? It's not like this user fee is just going to show up and a committee would not be aware of a proposed increase or an introduction of a fee. So in advance of the consultation period being completed, and now the decision to introduce or amend the user fee, a committee would be aware of the desire of a department to change or increase a user fee and would have to adhere to a certain process of consultation. So even in advance of it, a committee could engage in discussion of the fee.

Mr. Charlie Penson: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...the way it works?

Mr. Tony Valeri: I believe that is the way it works. But the other point I want to make is that I don't think committees of Parliament, frankly, want to be tasked with micromanaging the introduction of user fees. We need to have an oversight capacity, and then we need to have the hammer.

If a user fee is deemed to have passed, is now in effect, the bill does allow committees to review the performance of that user fee and then does have the mechanism to deal with it if in fact you're not meeting performance standards.

So I don't think it would be--

Mr. Charlie Penson: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...in 40 days.

Mr. Tony Valeri: No. You have an ongoing ability to provide oversight on the user fee and strip if they are not meeting their performance. Right?

Ms. Maria Minna: It's only new ones.

Â (1235)

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Charlie Penson: May I just ask Mr. Cullen, then, what's the purpose of this amendment if that's the case?

Mr. Roy Cullen: The purpose of this amendment is two things. On the first one, you're absolutely right, Mr. Valeri, that before a user fee proposal would be tabled, there had to have been consultation, and if the stakeholders wanted to dispute, there'd be an independent....

In other words, when this was tabled, this would be where the minister or the minister responsible wanted to proceed with a user fee. They would describe the consultation process. They would describe, if there had been an independent panel, what they concluded. They would talk about the benchmark, all those things. So there would be some advance time.

On the choice of 40 days, if the committee wanted to increase it, I'm certainly prepared to entertain a friendly amendment. One thing that guided me to some extent was that the government needs to be able to act, and after 40 days, if the committee hasn't looked at it, it might mean that the committee is not that excited about it, one way or the other. But if you want to make it 60 days or whatever, fine.

The Chair: Ms. Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna: First of all, I agree with Mr. Cullen. I think 40 days is fine.

To answer Mr. Penson's question, if you look at the way the clause is written now, it means that if the committee doesn't deal with it in 40 days, the House then has to pass a resolution, so we would be passing on, loading up to the House, extra work that it doesn't need to have.

But the amendment basically says, if the committee has not done it within 40 days, then it's deemed to have been approved by the committee. It follows the same rules, more or less, as the estimates. So it's much clearer in my mind.

Mr. Charlie Penson: That's helpful. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: That's absolutely right. The way it's struck now in the legislation, the committee would be obliged to submit a report. This just says if there's no report within 40 days, the conclusion is that the committee is not that fussed about the user fee one way or the other. That's put into legal language.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I have one observation or comment. It's based again on Mr. Gray's submission here before the committee approximately a week ago. I'm reading his intervention from the blues:

If the committee doesn't deal with the user fee issue by a certain date it goes to the house. But in the house it would have to be dealt with by a motion which I would presume would be debatable, which I would presume would be amendable.

The amendments would be voted on.

He just goes on to say perhaps it might be in the best interests--now maybe it's a moot point--to have the House leader in, or his parliamentary secretary.

I'm wondering, Mr. Cullen, how much of this entire exercise is about, from what I've heard from the stakeholders, dealing with the time it takes to get the approvals processed so that they can get their products to market. Taking into consideration what was said by Mr. Gray, is there any way of knowing--because this is kind of the new part of it--how this might impact on that particular timeline, given the dynamics of the whole situation?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

When Mr. Gray gave his testimony, I'm not sure he was privy to all the amendments. In fact, it was because of his testimony and the input from other colleagues that I've introduced an amendment--which we're coming to--that basically takes away the veto power of a committee.

The way the bill is struck right now, if a committee of the House of Commons reviewed a user fee and within 40 days they reported back to the House that they felt the user fee proposal was inappropriate, that it didn't meet the performance standards that were reasonable in the circumstances, there hadn't been a full consultation, there had been a panel struck and the independent person sided with the users, and so on, and the committee was sympathetic to that, it would report that back to the House.

The only way to have that adopted, then, under the current bill--I'm just describing to you the current bill before amendment--you'd have to have the chair or someone in the House introduce a concurrence motion to elevate that to the full House of Commons. Or a minister might want to introduce a concurrence motion because they felt the committee erred in its judgment. Then there would be a vote in the House of Commons.

Under the way the bill is currently structured, before amendments, if the House of Commons confirmed what the committee said, the regulating authority could not proceed with implementing the user fee or the user fee proposal.

I've heard from many colleagues, including Mr. Gray, that this is affecting the ability of the government to manage the executive branch, and all that. I could have lived with it myself, but I'm trying to be responsive, and I think the amendments I'm proposing are more pragmatic.

If you listen to the Treasury Board Secretariat, in a lot of the policy changes--in fact, in some of the policies now and in the policy changes they are proposing--the requirements are very much in line with what's in my bill.

So, yes, it's going to take some time, but even under the new policy it's going to take a little more time to benchmark, to consult, to do that. I think, frankly, that's appropriate. This is $4 billion a year. It's very much like a tax that is priced by monopolies, and I think we have a right and an obligation to review that in some detail.

The Chair: Just for the record, Mr. Gray and every witness before this committee on the bill had the amendments Mr. Roy gave all of us at the beginning. So he had all of those, but he did not have the ones that were just tabled, which I do believe include the veto one.

Is that correct, Mr. Cullen?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, that's correct. In fact, he had earlier ones, but Mr. Gray is a busy man, and I could tell from some of his testimony that he hadn't fully taken that into account. But that's fine. I heard his main message, which was that this could encumber the committee system and hamstring the government. So I'm trying to be accommodative to his remarks and others on the committee.

Â (1240)

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on amendment RC-12?

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now, on amendment RC-13, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: We just talked about amendment RC-13. This removes the veto power of the committee. I think I've just described it.

The way the bill currently stands, if the committee reported back and they had problems with the user fee and the House concurred in that, then the minister or the agency could not then proceed with the fee as proposed. We're proposing to delete that, but in lieu of that I'm building in clearer and tougher performance standards and the need to adhere to performance standards. I'm doing this in response to the government's concern and that of others that this gives a lot of power to the committee that some people were uncomfortable with. That's essentially what this does.

The Chair: Are there any questions or is there discussion on amendment RC-13?

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: On amendment RC-14, Mr. Cullen, please explain the motion you're tabling.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This again is responding to some concerns that there may be urgent needs with respect to national security on which the government would need to act quickly. An example I could give would be the airport security fee. It says, however, if it's a matter of national security or an emergency situation, the minister or agency can implement the fee, but they have to report it and table it in the House of Commons and everything else that is required in the act within a period of a year. The committee could then look at it or not look at it and report back at that time.

The Chair: Mr. Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola: With the previous amendment, did we not delete subclause 6(3) in its entirety? In that case, should your amendment now read (3) instead of (4)?

It's just a technicality.

The Chair: The editor fixes that.

Are we clear on that for sure?

On amendment RC-14, there were two people, Mr. Discepola and Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: Just a question to Mr. Cullen, through you, Madam Chair. I'm not following totally how a fee--and I certainly agree with the concept of user fees--would have anything to do with national defence or national security. These are issues the government deals with on a day-to-day basis. It's to try to recoup revenue. I don't see how there would ever be a situation where it would have to do with national defence or national security.

Even the example you mentioned was a budgetary situation, and they could have gone through the normal channels. I'm still not following the connection.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen, and then Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Murphy, I know you've had a great interest in the airport security fees, so maybe I picked the wrong example.

The way my bill is struck, without amendment, the government would have had to have tabled all this information before proceeding with a user fee. This gives the government some relief to implement a user fee in the case of a national emergency or a matter of national defence or security.

What it does is say that within a year, the same information has to be tabled. I think what would have happened, if we'd had this bill, is there would have been a good and wholesome discussion about whether there should be a user fee, whether it should be paid out of general revenues, whether the fee itself was a sufficient level, and whether it was comparable to our major trading partners, etc. And if the committee at that time had been of that view, they could have made a recommending report to the House.

I just feel there will be circumstances, and I think that's a good example of where the government might be obliged to deal with something that's a matter of national security or defence.

Â (1245)

The Chair: Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I just have a question to the legislative.... In the context of an instance of national security or a national emergency, would the executive branch not be exempted from any type of legislation that might require it to comply with user fees or something else?

If it's something like national security or a national emergency, would you even want to disclose this information a year from now? Are you going to talk about who they consulted with to set this up...well, we consulted with the FBI, and we consulted with CSIS and the rest of them. I'm not sure you're going to get information anyway.

I don't think the executive would be running around the country suggesting that things were a national emergency or in the interests of national defence unless they actually built the case for it, unless there actually was a reason to declare it as such.

The Chair: Are you trying to do a friendly amendment?

Mr. Tony Valeri: I don't know whether it's a friendly amendment or whether you even need it. I guess that's my question. Are you actually going to get something if you have an instance of national security or national defence, and is there any precedent for that in other legislation? I guess I would ask the people from the Treasury Board whether they're aware of any such instance.

The Chair: Ms. Shirreff.

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: I'm certainly not an expert, but it seems to me for issues of that nature it would be up to Parliament to decide what it needs to do, and it would do what it needs to do. So there must be some rules on how to deal with those issues.

That would be my general understanding.

The Chair: I have a list now with Mr. Penson and Ms. Guarnieri.

In essence, Mr. Valeri, your thought actually comes in where it starts “In such a case”, and it could end before that if you wanted to separate those two thoughts.

I'm just putting that to you.

Mr. Penson, Ms. Guarnieri, and then Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Cullen, this would be a new subclause to clause 6, is that correct? Amendment RC-14 would add a whole subclause to this clause.

I want to know why it's necessary. In cases of emergency, security, or national defence, do you feel...I guess you're talking about the airport security tax. But it seems to me we don't need this section in there. In the case of an emergency, security, or defence situation, I don't think people should be charged a user fee, or specific groups anyway. Those are national interests.

I have a problem with the airport security tax being applied to one group. I think security is a national problem that needs to be addressed by all the Canadian public, not specific user groups. So I wouldn't be in agreement with adding this to the clause at all.

The Chair: Did you want to address that first, Mr. Cullen?

Mr. Roy Cullen: No, I can comment after.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): I was just wondering--the officials might be able to clarify this--wouldn't cabinet have special powers, exemption powers, in an emergency situation? They can override Parliament.

That's my observation. It may be somewhat redundant.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I guess the question is, can the cabinet essentially override an act of Parliament in an emergency? Isn't that the question?

Â (1250)

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Yes, for good order, peace, and good government, under the Constitution, they can override anything.

Mr. Roy Cullen: In the case of national defence or emergency? I'm not a lawyer. I don't know the answer to that.

The Chair: And neither is our legislative clerk, at this point. I'd just point that out.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I would take it out, and if in fact there is an issue here, you can always deal with it at report stage.

The Chair: Actually, that's my point.

Mr. Tony Valeri: You need unanimous consent to withdraw. Would that allow them to reintroduce it at report stage?

Mr. Nick Discepola: No, because this is not a clause. This is an addition. You don't need unanimous consent.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I'm just asking the question. I don't know.

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc: If something is withdrawn at committee, it usually wouldn't be reintroduced at report stage, because you had a chance to do it at committee and didn't. This was adopted by the House in 2001. It was a change to Standing Order 76(1).

But if there were some extenuating circumstance, if there was new information that came to light, for example, that was not clear beforehand, or if there was a reworked version of an earlier amendment, that would likely be submitted.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Could we get that agreed on then, on the basis of some information to support our thesis that in an emergency situation cabinet can override this anyway? We need to have more information in order to--

The Chair: I don't think we have that information at this table right now.

Mr. Roy Cullen: We can reject it and then bring it back in if there's new information.

Mr. Tony Valeri: We could have unanimous consent to withdraw it and then bring it back in once we have additional information.

Is that agreeable? No?

Mr. Charlie Penson: But if there's new information, and the case could be made to the Speaker--

The Chair: I'm going to go in order. It's Paquette and then Discepola.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I simply wanted to say that the House of Commons adopted the air security tax. There was a national security problem, and Bills C-36 and C-35 were adopted very quickly. I am sure these bills contain clauses related to these issues.

So, I do not think that it is useful to make reference to this in a bill on user fees, and I would simply remove it. I am convinced that, in the legislation passed after September 11, the executive branch ensured it had sufficient flexibility to respond to situations like this, even if we were not in agreement.

[English]

The Chair: One thing I do know is that if you wish to withdraw the amendment, you could do a friendly amendment, you could change it, you could split it, or whatever you want to do here, but to withdraw it right now, you would have to have the unanimous consent of this committee. I just want to be clear on that.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, on the effect of withdrawing it...if something enormous came to light later, could it or something similar be reintroduced into the House at report stage?

The Chair: That's totally in the purview of the Speaker or whatever he allows at report stage. That's the overriding principle.

But you want to address the general principles since we've made the changes, because I think a lot of members aren't as clear on what can be introduced.

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc: In this case, I think the Speaker would probably be sympathetic to an amendment that the committee wanted to consider but felt that it didn't have the information to do so. Once more information were provided, I think the Speaker would probably by sympathetic--but I don't make rulings, the Speaker does.

Mr. Roy Cullen: So would we have a motion to withdraw it, or would we just delete it?

The Chair: I'm giving you your options.

Normally speaking, if you defeat something at committee, you cannot reintroduce it in the House. I think that's always been the case.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I'm happy to withdraw it, Madam Chair, but I think we need unanimous consent, which is for the committee to decide.

The Chair: Are you asking for unanimous consent, Mr. Cullen?

Â (1255)

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, I'm asking for unanimous consent to withdraw amendment RC-14.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: We're now going to deal with clause 6 as amended.

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 7--Amendment)

The Chair: Shall amendment RC-14.1...?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, this amendment basically brings into line the language of the bill with the language of the other amendments, where we got rid of the veto power of the committee. It brings the language into conformity with that.

If you have a regulating authority, the bill covers new fees or increases in fees, but if a department or agency gets very clever and says, “Well, we're not going to increase the fee and we're not going to introduce a new fee, but we're going to expand the definition of who is covered by the fee....” It's a little cute, but I just want to make sure we don't allow that to happen.

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: On amendment RC-15, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you Madam Chair.

The unamended bill reads that you can only increase a user fee if you're going to confer additional benefits. On reflection, there might be a situation where there are legitimate cost pressures, so the performance standard might not go up, but there might be a case to be made to increase a user fee. So the amendment just allows for that possibility.

The Chair: So this is a deletion then on page 4.

Do you have a question, Mr. Penson?

Mr. Charlie Penson: How would you govern that? What would be the criteria for deciding?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Again, Mr. Penson, if there was an increase in a fee, the department or agency ought to go through the process. They'd have to define what the costs are, what costs they are meaning to recapture, and they'd then have to make a case for the fact that there was no increase in the performance standard but there were legitimate cost pressures. They would also have to table the fact that there was a discussion with stakeholders, there was either an agreement with stakeholders or there wasn't, and how that would trigger the dispute mechanism, and all that.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Not on the amendment, but once we've dealt with the amendment, I'd like to have an opportunity to speak to that clause.

The Chair: We're on the amendment right now. Is there any further discussion on amendment RC-15, lines 13 to 17 on page 4, that deletion? Is everybody clear on that?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now, you had a question, Mr. Tirabassi, with respect to--

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I'm just looking for some clarification. It appears by some of the previous clauses that the minister would not hold any authority to fix or set these. Indeed, that would all be done by Parliament. They would be approving all the new fees and amended fees. That's the interpretation we got. Is there any clarification to that?

Mr. Roy Cullen: The effect of the amendments, by deleting the veto power of the committee, means that the committee's work is recommending in nature to the House. So it changes that. That was the whole idea of that amendment.

· (1300)

The Chair: Just to be clear, it changes it to what?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Instead of the committee having a veto power, the committee would then have a recommendation to the House that it doesn't like the user fee or whatever, and then if the House concurred in that, that would be a recommending motion to the government, but it would not preclude the minister or the agency from proceeding with the fee. It would be powerful, hopefully, that the minister would listen to what the House of Commons was saying.

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(On clause 9--Regulations)

The Chair: Amendment RC-16 is on....

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment basically, again, brings the language into conformity with the other amendments we've approved. The clause right now says “a regulation or order may not be inconsistent with the recommendation of the House of Commons”. If we left that in, the minister or the department head would be precluded because of a recommendation of a House of Commons report.

So this is just to make the bill totally consistent in terms of language and--

The Chair: Colleagues, this was one that was received today, so it's on a separate piece of paper.

Are there any questions or is there discussion on amendment RC-16?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 10)

The Chair: On clause 10, there are no amendments. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Yes, if I could please refer to Ms. Shirreff, she has some comments and will ask for some clarification on a few points on this clause.

The Chair: Sure, go ahead.

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: I guess a point of clarification here is that I think the intent of that whole clause is to amend the Financial Administration Act to say, technically, cost recovery will be done according to the new User Fees Act.

I just want to bring to your attention that there are other acts that give authority for ministers to fix fees, and those are broad in nature. They are done through either program legislation or general legislation. I see an amendment to the FAA, which is only one mechanism, so it may be important to consider other acts that ministers use to fix fees and that's how they get their authority. It's done usually through ministerial order or it's included right in their program legislation, such as the Fisheries Act. So it's not in all cases that departments use the FAA. They use their own legislation.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, I was told that 70% or so go through the Special Committee of Council but that another area to cover is the Financial Administration Act. We could examine this more closely.

My understanding through legislative counsel is that the bill, the way it's struck and with this addition, covers the vast majority of fees, but I'm prepared to look at that again.

I would caution against excluding the Financial Administration Act, because I'm told that's important to include in the bill.

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: If I can just add something, it may cover 70%, but the point is, if we are to capture all user fees, it would be important to also reflect that in other authorities that are given to ministers. As I say, it's not only the FAA. Some use it, but they use their own in some cases.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, the bill makes it clear that any regulating authority that plans to increase a fee or introduce a new fee is covered by this act. Legislative counsel recommended including the Financial Administration Act. I'm not a lawyer, but this bill covers all user fees, to my knowledge.

· (1305)

The Chair: Ms. Shirreff, are you saying it doesn't?

Mrs. Suzanne Shirreff: I'm saying, from my understanding it would not. You'd have to do similar amendments to the other authorities that are given to ministers with the authority to fix fees. That's in various program legislation and various ministerial orders that are granted to ministers.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, I think it's important to pass this, and if there have to be other acts included in consequential amendments, then we could add them in later. I'm not aware of any other requirement right now. I don't have a lawyer with me.

Mr. Charlie Penson: That was my point as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] amend it in the House.

[English]

The Chair: Do we have any amendment to this clause that I should be dealing with? There is no amendment tendered, so we are dealing with clause 10.

(Clause 10 agreed to)

(On clause 2--Definitions)

The Chair: We're now dealing with amendment RC-1.

Mr. Roy Cullen: What this does is make it clearer that the user fee would be tabled in the House and then referred by the House to the appropriate committee. The language was not clear on that. I would expect that Parliament will decide that if it was a health user fee, it would go to the health committee, or if it was a transport user fee, it would go to the transport committee, but the House would have to make a determination on that.

But this bill sort of clarifies it. It's the prerogative of the House to decide which committee the user fee proposal goes to.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now I have to go to amendment RC-5 because of the way the definitions go in the bill. The amendment is on page 5 of the original batch.

Mr. Roy Cullen: This amendment is needed to provide additional clarity that the user fee is required only when a direct benefit or advantage is conferred upon an individual or corporation. If no such benefit is conferred, the good or service is a public good or service and is funded through Consolidated Revenue through general taxation.

It responds to a concern by some witnesses, especially on these new substances notification regulations, where we heard that they're paying a fee of $250,000 but it's not conferring any direct advantage or private benefit.

I'm quite concerned, actually, that the way the Treasury Board policy may be moving is to eliminate the requirement for providing a direct advantage. If you're not providing a direct advantage or benefit, then it seems to me it's not appropriate that there be a user fee.

The Chair: Are there more questions or discussion?

(Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Amendment RC-2 is consequential to RC-5; therefore it is carried. Amendment RC-3 is consequential to amendment RC-9, which deleted the term “OECD” country, so that is carried as well. Amendment RC-4 is consequential to RC-6, which removed “Crown corporation”, so that is carried also.

Now we're down to the definitions section as amended.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I will do so. Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill? I think it would be pretty difficult to understand without it.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I will stay to table the bill tomorrow.

So congratulations, Mr. Cullen. The committee has passed your private member's bill.

· (1310)

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And to all the members of the committee, the staff, and the department, thank you.

The Chair: We are adjourned.