FINA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 22, 2002

¹

1535

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

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Harris

¹

1545

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Richard Harris

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Harris

Ms. Robillard

¹

1550

Mr. Richard Harris

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvan Loubier

¹

1555

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

º

1600

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Roy Cullen

º

1605

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Richard Neville (Deputy Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Roy Cullen

º

1610

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

º

1615

Ms. Robillard

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Robillard

Ms. Carole Swan (Associate Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

º

1620

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

The Chair

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Maria Minna

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Richard Neville

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

º

1625

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Harris

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Harris

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Harris

º

1630

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Richard Harris

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.)

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

º

1635

Ms. Robillard

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Pauline Picard

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Jean Szkotnicki (President, Canadian Animal Health Institute; Co-Chair, Business Coalition on Cost Recovery)

º

1645

Mr. Jayson Myers (Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; Co-Chair, Business Coalition on Cost Recovery)

º

1650

º

1655

Mr. Garth Whyte (Senior Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Member, Business Coalition on Cost Recovery)

»

1700

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris

»

1705

Mr. Garth Whyte

Mr. Harris

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Ms. Pauline Picard

»

1710

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Garth Whyte

»

1715

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Garth Whyte

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Ms. Jean Szkotnicki

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Jayson Myers

»

1720

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.)

Mr. Garth Whyte

»

1725

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Jayson Myers

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Gary Pillitteri

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Harris

»

1730

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Ms. Jean Szkotnicki

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Richard Harris

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

---

NUMBER 102

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 22, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

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

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), today we're examining the government's policy on cost recovery.

    Our witness is the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, who is the minister in charge.

[Translation]

    You may begin your presentation, Ms. Robillard.

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. With me today are my associates. To my right is Associate Secretary Carole Swan, and to my left, Deputy Comptroller General Richard Neville.

    Members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to bring you up to date on the progress of the Treasury Board's review of the Cost Recovery and Charging Policy.

    As you know, the issues related to external charging are complex and sensitive, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss them with you today and to further hear your views. Before I do that, however, I would like to put our cost recovery policy and practices into context.

[English]

    External charges have existed in one form or another since Confederation. Parks Canada, for example, has been charging for services since the 1880s. The Government of Canada, like most other governments today, charges for a diverse range of optional and mandatory services for the use of public assets and rights and privileges. Individuals, ministers, and departments are responsible and accountable for establishing external charges, pursuant to various authorities granted to them by Parliament. The policy sets out the principles and requirements to be followed in setting these charges. No group in society bears a disproportionate share of the burden.

    The government receives about $4 billion annually from external charging. About 42% of this represents payments from individuals and other governments for goods and services provided by federal government departments. For example, the RCMP charges provincial and territorial governments about $800 million for policing services. Citizenship and Immigration Canada recovers about $350 million from individuals for citizenship-related documentation, such as visas and permanent resident cards.

    About 18% represents charges for regulatory activities. The remainder represents payments from businesses for rights and privileges for the use of facilities and optional services. Some of these optional services, such as those provided by the National Research Council and Natural Resources Canada, contribute to Canadian firms' competitiveness and capability to innovate.

    Let me be clear: cost recovery is here to stay. Despite what some claim, cost recovery is not a tax grab. It is a fair and equitable way of financing government programs and services. We think it is reasonable that those who receive special services, or who derive benefits in excess of those enjoyed by taxpayers, should bear some, or all, of the cost of providing those services.

    As part of the policy review, the government conducted a benchmarking study of the policies of other jurisdictions. The study shows that Canada's cost recovery and charging policy and practices compare favourably with other countries, including our major trading partners. It also found that external charging represents a minor portion of total government revenues. In Canada this is about 2.2% of total revenues, a level generally aligned with the other countries studied, and less than half of what the provinces take in on average.

    For instance, in British Columbia external charging represents about 6.4% of total revenues. In Alberta it's 5.8%; Manitoba, 4%; Ontario, 5.3%; Quebec, 4%; and Nova Scotia, 2.9%. In most other jurisdictions, fee-setting is decentralized, as it is in Canada. As well, like Canada, other jurisdictions charge the full, or partial, cost of regulatory activities.

    However, our 1997 policy provides more guidance on certain requirements, such as consultation, service delivery, and dispute resolution, than those of other jurisdictions. The proposed changes are even more explicit.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    As you may know, we began the review of the 1997 policy in September 2000. I am certain some of you have wondered why the process is taking so long. Well, we are taking the necessary time to conduct a comprehensive review to address the key issues raised by this committee, the Office of the Auditor General, and our internal and external advisory groups, including the Business Coalition on Cost Recovery.

    We have conducted the review and the ensuing policy development work in an open and transparent manner, and we have endeavoured to be as inclusive as possible. We interviewed 85 government managers and 59 firms, industry associations or NGOs concerning some 70 programs. We consulted with our internal and external advisory groups on everything from the study design to the selection of the interviewees. In late summer of 2001, we briefed the advisory groups on the results of the review and shared with them seven discussion papers dealing with key issues raised during the interviews.

    Based on the comments received, we circulated the first draft of a revised policy to the advisory groups last December. Now, in response to comments received on the first draft, we are completing a second draft for distribution to our stakeholders. We hope to conclude these consultations by the end of the summer and finalize a revised policy for the consideration of Treasury Board ministers in the fall.

    I can assure you that we have taken every measure to address the key issues that were raised and that everything prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat has been shared with our internal and external advisory groups.

    The results of the review indicate that across the diverse range of government programs--there are 400 of them--, the policy is working reasonably well. We acknowledge that some programs are experiencing difficulties implementing certain requirements. These difficulties are not systemic. For some of these programs, charging is relatively new, and obviously departments and stakeholders alike are still adjusting.

    Some of the issues raised by this committee and other stakeholders are complex and difficult, and there are diverging views on how to address them. We are responding positively and constructively to the suggestions for improvements that fall within the scope of this policy. These include: more open, transparent and informative communication with stakeholders; better monitoring of the implementation of the policy by departments and the Treasury Board Secretariat; and improved reporting to Parliament and the public.

    In short, strengthening accountability is paramount.

[English]

    That said, I cannot promise a perfect policy or a policy that will satisfy everyone, but I can promise that the proposed changes will result in a good policy, one that balances the interests of taxpayers, users, and departments in response to the demands of Canadians for a government that is fair, equitable, and responsible.

    I've also come here today to listen to you. I know what some representatives of the industry think. I want to know what you parliamentarians have to say about the cost recovery and charging policy.

    I would like to thank you, the committee, for your work and input on this complex issue. Your contribution has been invaluable in advancing the policy review. We have taken seriously the concerns you raised in your report about accountability, and are committed to amending the policy in a way that will foster accountability, openness, and transparency.

    My appearance here today provides me with a further opportunity to consult with this committee. In that spirit, I welcome any questions or comments you may have.

    Thank you, Madam Speaker.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Robillard.

    Ten minutes, Mr. Harris, please.

    Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Madam Minister, the fear we have is that the government will recover the cost of mismanagement and bad legislation through the cost-recovery system. An example of it, I think, can easily be Bill C-68, which was first purported to cost $85 million to implement; it's now somewhere around $500 million. There's only 30% compliance; it's riddled with errors; and there's no doubt the cost recovery of that program is going to come from the firearms owners themselves.

    Because of the bad legislation, the price to implement it fully has gone from $85 million--as promised by the Minister of Justice at that time--to $500 million-plus at present. That's because the legislation was badly flawed in the first place.

    I guess we can expect that the government is going to try to recover the cost of implementing this badly flawed bill from the firearms owners, in which case we could expect to see just an astronomical set of licences and fees for firearm owners in the country, all because of bad legislation in the first place.

    How are you going to prevent this, Madam Minister?

¹  (1545)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Chair, there was some problem with the management of this specific program, which is why the expenses of the program increased over the months. But I have to say, those increases were not supported by the citizens who received the services. On the contrary, because of the problem with the management of the system, we had a moratorium on costs or fees for a certain time, to be an incentive for people to apply without any cost.

    I am aware of the problem with the management of the system, but in no way will we transfer these costs to the people who receive the services. On the contrary, when you look at the level of the fees right now, I think you could agree that they are reasonable.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Minister, are you now saying, then, that thus far the extra $415 million will simply be eaten by the government and not be passed on to the firearms owners? Is that what you're saying?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: When we have a problem in the management of the system--which was the case, and citizens were not responsible for it--the government has to pay. That said, it is clear that there are some fees here for the services people receive. It's very important that we evaluate exactly the standard of services to citizens before setting fee levels.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Thank you. I'm glad you brought up evaluation.

    I have one other question. It appears that the $24 security fee the government imposed on airline travellers was set very arbitrarily. I believe it's based on correct information to say that smaller airports, or smaller points for boarding aircraft, including floatplanes, were not even considered in the passenger count. The passenger count was made up from large, medium, and smaller--but still substantial--airports. Yet the hundreds and hundreds of very small airports, which do pass through several thousand--or maybe hundreds of thousands--of passengers a year were not even considered. So you have a $24 fee on a smaller number of travellers. It's charged to everybody--even the ones who weren't even counted the first time around.

    So when you refer to bad policy, it appears to me the government is failing taxpaying Canadians by not doing appropriate cost-benefit analysis before they implement a fee or program. This $24 security cost is a very good example. Canadians are waiting to see the government admit it has grossly mismanaged this fee. They simply want to see it rectified in a hurry.

    You're the minister in charge of fees, Madam Minister. We would expect with something near and dear to your heart like this, as you've said, you'll be looking after this $24 fee very quickly.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I don't think that's my title. I don't think I'm the minister in charge of fees.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Richard Harris: No, I was being kind to you.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: As president of the Treasury Board, I have to design the policies. The ones who are responsible for it are the ministers and the departments, each minister in each department.

    The example you bring forward right now, this afternoon, exceeds the policy that we will discuss together. I hope you have some suggestions to improve the policy, but it was decided through legislation passed by the House of Commons. I think the fees were included in the legislation passed by Parliament.

    So the subject exceeds, really, the matter of the policy we have in front of us today.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Okay.

    That's all I have at this time.

    The Chair: Mr. Loubier, you have ten minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Ms. Robillard, my colleague the Member for Drummond and I are pleased to welcome you to the Finance Committee. I'd like to focus briefly on the question put to you by Mr. Harris, but I'd like to approach it from a different perspective.

    On page one of your presentation, you state that “cost recovery is not a tax grab”. You then go on to say this:

...we think it reasonable that those who receive special services or derive benefits in excess of those enjoyed by taxpayers should bear some, or all, of the cost of providing these services.

    In the case of the transportation securty tax, you maintain the security fee charged to air travellers is not a tax grab.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The fee was introduced as a result of a egislative initiative which exceeds the scope of the policy that we are reviewing today, since this measure was approved by Parliament. That's what I was trying to explain.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yet, the arguments put forward, particularly by Mr. McCallum and the Finance Minister, are similar in tone to those found on the bottom of page one of your speaking notes, namely:

...it is reasonable that those who receive special services or derive benefits in excess of those enjoyed by taxpayers should bear some, or all, of the cost of providing those services.

    These are the kinds of arguments we've been hearing and we were often told that they came from you, Madam President. We were told that it was the policy of the government to generate revenues by imposing fees for security services.

    We have countered with the argument that on September 11, more persons died on the ground than in the doomed aircraft.

    Had you had to apply these principles to the air transportation security fee--I trust your advice was sought--would you have abandoned this fee in favour of a general tax charged to all taxpayers, since the issue is the general security of taxpayers? When this special fee comes up for review in October, will you be recommending to the Minister of Finance that he do away with this particular fee and find some other way to pay for broad security measures?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Loubier, you know very well that this is a legislative initiative passed by Parliament. It was approved by Parliament and received Royal Assent. Therefore, this measure is in force. A legislative initiative adopted in this manner is always open to review - and I don't want to get into this today - but in so far as the policy on cost recovery is concerned, our basic premise is that if certain persons receive additional services from which taxpayers in general do not benefit - for instance, if you apply for a passport, certain fees are charged - then this particular policy applies.

    The same holds true for businesses that contract for services or companies subject to special regulations. We are reviewing the policy within this particular framework. As for the security fee, it will up to the Minister of Finance to review this policy, if necessary.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Can we count on you, Madam President, to advise your colleagues that in the case of a legislative measure like the security fee, Treasury Board arguments to the effect that the government's new policy is to charge specific fees for specific services, simply doesn't wash?

    We hope that you will so advise the Minister of Finance, because the tourism industry is suffering, as is air transportation in remote regions and small communities and in particular, regional development. This tax is killing the regions and small carriers.

    We're counting on you. Many stakeholders in Quebec and in Canada are counting on you and your common sense to prevail. What you're saying makes a lot of sense in fact. We too support the Cost Recovery Policy, but where appropriate, not in instances like this one . The airport security tax makes no sense whatsoever. As I was saying, we are counting on you, Madam President, and I'm confident you'll intervene on behalf of stakeholders who are already quite concerned about this tax and its impact today and in the medium term.

¹  (1555)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I hear what you're saying. Now then, I should point out that the Cost Recovery Policy is not, as I said, a new policy. It's not a new approach. Cost recovery has been used in one form or another for many years, almost since Confederation.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier:That's what I told Mr. McCallum.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard:It's a matter of revising this policy to ensure that it is in line with our objectives. The policy was last reviewed in 1997, and prior to that, in 1989. At the time of the 1997 review, the government promised to evaluate after a period of three years whether the stated objectives were being met. We have consulted with many groups over the past two years or so and I think we're approaching the end of the policy review process. Therefore, to my mind, this is a fine opportunity for me to get the reaction of committee members to the review process.

    In 2001, the committee issued a report which I found made for fascinating reading. However, I know that you have heard from many witnesses since 2001 and if members have any suggestion they would like to share with me today, before Treasury Board ministers adopt this revised policy, I am quite willing to hear your views.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier How do you respond, Madam Minister, to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the criticism that in sectors of the economy, the policy is stifling growth, particular in the agricultural sectors. This example is often cited by the Federation.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would hope that the Federation contacted whichever department was involved, because the policy makes it very clear - and it's further emphasized in the revised policy - that when a department decides to charge so much for a particular service, it must consult first with industry stakeholders.

    It is not our objective, not by any means, to stifle growth in a particular sector. We merely want stakeholders to pay their fair share for services received from the government. It's clear from the draft policy that you have seen and that is still being fine-tuned, that departments have an obligation to consult with industry stakeholders when they're considering charging a special fee or amending the among of the charge.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier:Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Loubier, you still have two more minutes, if you'd like, unless you would like to hand them over.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: I could transfer them to the Liberals.

    The Chair: Oh, oh. All right.

    Mr. Cullen, go ahead.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister and officials, for being here today.

    Minister, two years ago, in June 2000, this finance committee issued this report unanimously. There were 12 recommendations, and I would like to come back to some of those specifics. But what I'm hearing...and of course it's a delicate balancing act. I realize we need to have some kind of cost recovery and user fees. For me that's not an issue either. The problem seems to be in the details.

    It's useful that you've come here today to listen, but the problem is, we don't really know what our target is going to look like in terms of the final policy. Some of the challenges are how to define cost, and how to define the difference between a public good and a private good. It's generally good policy that some of the departments may be pushing the envelope in defining these things, but on the other hand, we have businesses that have agendas. We understand that.

    The Business Coalition on Cost Recovery will be speaking on this topic later this afternoon. It's made up of some very serious types of organizations. I know you're familiar with them. Let me just list them for you: the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters, the Canadian Animal Health Institute, the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Chamber of Maritime Commerce, the Crop Protection Institute of Canada, the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Manufacturers of Chemical Specialties, the Food Institute of Canada, and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. I've actually left some out.

    I think they'll tell us this afternoon that instead of moving forward, they're hearing that the policy is actually moving backwards compared with what it was two years ago. You may dispute that, but I get concerned when some very serious players in the industry are saying that. We'll hear more from them this afternoon.

    I have a couple of specific questions. You talked about benchmarking the policy with other jurisdictions. Let's look at an example: prescription drug user fees. In Australia, the drug reviews must be completed within legislated times. In the United Kingdom, the medicines control agency sets targets for clearance times, although they're not necessarily related to user fees. In the U.S.A., written performance goals tied to fees collection authority were negotiated with the industry.

    So my first question is, are you willing to have a mechanism in the policy that relates the user fees to performance and some performance standards, and if the departments don't meet those performance standards the fees would be reduced or there would be some consequences? When you're in the business of charging fees, you're in the business of the private sector, in a sense, and unfortunately the industry has no place to go; it's a monopoly. In any private sector scenario, the fees would have to be tied to performance, otherwise the customers would walk.

    Are you prepared to have something along those lines reflected in the policy that will come out this fall?

º  (1600)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Chair, since you produced the report the member is showing us this afternoon, I think there has been a lot of evolution in the revised policy. I hope you have the first draft of the revised policy, because we are revising the policy of 1997. We're at the point of producing the second draft of the revised policy. That is available to any member who is interested in looking at the details. As you say, this is really important.

    I know the coalition well. When I arrived in the portfolio, I met with some representatives, and they meet regularly with my officials. I'm happy that the dialogue is still going on with the coalition. Over the months, they have succeeded in reaching some consensus, and have discussed very complex issues. I'm not saying in the end we will agree on every point, but I think we have come a long way.

    Finally, on the issue of standards of service delivery, in the second draft of the policy we will table a few weeks from now and distribute to all our stakeholders, it is clear we want to require all programs to have service standards. They will be the obligation of each department, but they will have to consult on the service standards before deciding on them and report, if they are not met, what will happen, and what should be done on the side of services and the level of charges. That will be in the next draft of the policy.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you. I look forward to that.

    One of the other recommendations of the committee--given there will be some controversy or areas where it's not possible in all cases to resolve user fees proposed by the department and stakeholder groups--was for an explicit appeal process and setting up a third-party dispute resolution process to deal with user charge complaints.

    In the new policy, are you prepared to commit to this type of a process?

º  (1605)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That is a difficult question. I would say our final position on it is not quite clear. We have to look at different issues here. We have to look at the responsibility of the different ministers involved, and their accountability as ministers. This is decided in each department. It is not centrally decided. So the ministers are accountable for their departments. We're looking at this.

    At the same time, we want to have consistency in the system, so we're looking to perhaps make it mandatory for departments to have an ADM in charge of it to have an overview of what's going on in the department. And I have been informed that the industry...you know, what we put in the policy of 1997, that the president of the Treasury Board is the point de contact.

    How do you say that in English?

    Mr. Richard Neville (Deputy Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Point of contact. Or, no, actually; court of last resort.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Okay.

    So the court of last resort that we had in the policy of 1997 will still be there. But if you want to make other comments about it, I'm open to listening to them today.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: I would encourage the minister to set up some kind of independent appeal process where these matters could be thrashed out. When defining costs, public goods, private goods, and setting service standards and whether they've been met, I think most people could live with some kind of independent dispute mechanism. I certainly could. I would encourage you to look at this very seriously.

    One of the other recommendations, Minister, was greater transparency of the fees charged. You said in your reply back in 2000, “The government will examine options for making information on cost recovery and revenues more easily available”.

    I'm wondering what you have come up with in the last while to meet this requirement.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, it is clear we'll do it. It is a commitment. I think it has be clear for everyone.

    As I said today, fees and cost recovery amount to $4 billion in revenues. But to get this information, you have to go to different places to collect the information and add the sums. So I think we're committed to giving better information to the public and Parliament.

    Perhaps Mr. Neville could add something to this.

    Mr. Richard Neville: Thank you. I appreciate that.

    For really the first time, we've gathered at the government-wide level the various programs where there is cost recovery. As the president of the Treasury Board stated, there are approximately 400 programs. We've broken them into five categories: rights and privileges, representing about 100 programs; services to other governments and international organizations, or approximately 40 programs; regulatory services, or 100 programs; miscellaneous services and administrative fees, or 100 programs; and sale of information and goods, or 50 programs.

    I think what's important is that we have this information now. We are just going through it carefully to ensure that what departments stated are cost-recovery programs are, in fact, these. We will be vetting the information. We will then be in a position to share this. It wasn't done previously, because we didn't have it all in one central database per se.

    So we've come a long way, but we still have a lot of work to do. I think we're on the right track.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: If I may, Madam Minister, if it could be put in a way that was understandable, digestible, and deals with fees and also with performance specifications and the extent to which departments have met those performance standards, I think that would be useful.

    One of the challenges, I guess, is the fact that we in the finance committee, the last time we reported, suggested that any new fees or any fee increases be subject to the scrutiny of a Commons committee. In your reply, you felt that this would be too cumbersome and would take away from the accountability of the government in council.

    We have some experience in other committees. The information can be packaged in a certain way so that the committee has some options in terms of how much detail they want to look at. Then they can flag certain items and have the department come before the committee and ask for greater clarification.

    For example, one item is how competitive these fees are with other jurisdictions where companies in Canada are competing, and what this does in terms of the competitiveness of that sector.

    So I would encourage you, if it is at all possible, to.... My understanding of the finance committee report was not to say that all the fees would have to be approved by the House of Commons finance committee but they would be subject to the scrutiny. It's like order in council appointments. The Commons committees are not able to reject an appointment but they can scrutinize. I think there would be a useful role for this committee, and this committee, by virtue of its recommendations, is saying they would welcome that, and they wouldn't feel overburdened. I think there are modalities to package it in a way so that the committee could find its way and identify only those sore points, if I could call them that, and do more work on those.

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If I understand your suggestion correctly, when we have the right information and the global picture of all the fees of the 400 programs, and we'll be able to validate that information, that report or that document could be looked at by your committee.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, I think, Minister, there are two components. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

    There's the whole question of transparency, of what fees are being paid and what service standards are being met. And there's another related and yet unrelated issue, that if departments are proposing new fees or increases in fees, there's a process to vet that, through the committee, in a scrutinizing way. The committee is then able to flag certain items that they just would like more information on.

    So I think there's a process that could be established that wouldn't be that burdensome. The committee and elected people would have an opportunity to review any new proposals coming forward.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: What I answered in reply to that question in the report last year, I think, was that we have to take into account ministerial accountability here, because the charges and the cost recovery are decided by each minister. That said, I think that Parliament can decide whatever it wants on that through its committees.

    But I think this is a complex issue that perhaps we should look at further.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: To add to that point, I fully appreciate that if it were a department outside of Treasury Board of course that was proposing a user-fee increase or a new user fee, I would suspect the committee would ask for that minister or the officials from that department, not the Treasury Board. So that element of ministerial accountability would be respected. I would think there's a way to do it that way.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, but don't forget that each department and each minister has to table in Parliament the plans and priorities and the performance report at the end of the year. Perhaps the committee could challenge the department and the minister when they table their performance report about the data they have in their report, that it should be more accurate as to what's going on in the department. I would encourage you to do that.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: One of the problems, since we're getting into somewhat of a dialogue, which I appreciate, is that...as long as I have enough time, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: You're over time.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Perhaps I can ask just one last question, then.

    The problem is putting this in a digestible form. We've had the debate in the House about the estimates process, and you get inundated with massive volumes of paper. If there were an easy way for the committee to scrutinize these things, as they come forward, I think that would be a better way for parliamentarians to actually play a real role rather than go through tomes of annual reports and plans and priorities.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Bennett, do you want the ten minutes, or do you want to share it with Ms. Minna?

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I'm sure I can share it, depending on how long the answer is.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Minister, you're obviously responsible for the overall policy, but most of what goes on is department by department by department.

    My first question is, does Treasury Board rate departments on how well they're consulting with their stakeholders, how well they do an impact analysis? There must be departments that are doing this better than others, and people who get good reviews from the stakeholders, and places that don't. I want to know, in terms of the way Treasury Board operates, in terms of transparency and accountability, are you weighting the departments in the way we know gender-based analysis happens and doesn't happen across departments?

    I guess the question would be, along the lines of what my colleague was saying, there's a methodology in health care called “accountability for reasonableness”, which comes out of New England. It's about how you make a decision about what drug gets covered, what procedure gets covered or not. It has to be done by consulting citizens. You have to announce it; you then have to circulate why it is what it is; you have to have a grounds for appeal; and then you have to enforce it. And it doesn't mean it gets changed by whispering, somewhere, later.

    I think the reason the Business Coalition and others have had trouble is that some of this just seems to be arbitrary. Is there a way we can celebrate the departments that are doing it better? Is there a way of putting in this accountability for reasonableness so people know how much money is collected, how much it really costs to do something, and whether it is a cash cow or not for a department?

    I think if people understood, really, in a totally transparent accountability--which I know is your whole raison d'être at the Treasury Board--shouldn't we be shaming the bad departments and celebrating the good departments and putting some sort of “whole of government” approach to this that everybody could understand?

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would say the role of Treasury Board is not only to design the policy but also to monitor it, to do an active monitoring of the policy and the departments. When we do that, we discover sometimes there are problems, but we discover also that some departments have better practices than others and that all departments could share best practices among themselves to learn from one another. I think that's the role we play.

    As for cost recovery, because of the sensitive issue here and also the fact that we're aware of the impact cost recovery could have on an industry if it's not well applied, we've put into the policy that it's possible for an industry, if they are not satisfied with what's going on in a department, to come to the Treasury Board president, and we will look at it. It has happened in the past--in the marine industry, as an example.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: What my colleague is saying is the capacity for some sort of parliamentary oversight allows the stakeholders to come to us too. Usually, I only know what's happening in departments when the stakeholders come to me and tell me. Understanding that something may be a little out of line or a little heavy or deleterious to an industry only happens because....

    So perhaps you would just think about what Mr. Cullen was commenting on--if there were a way, other than just performance and all of those bulky departmental documents, that Parliament or this committee could question the ones that have been brought to our attention, they would be brought to our attention much more quickly if they knew we were going to look at them at this committee, as opposed to just coming and bugging you.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: True, but I have to say this is the regular work of the Treasury Board Secretariat: to help departments respect the different policies we have. It's clear this is not a public activity, because we do it internally in the government, but that's the role of my officials all the time. And not only in cost recovery, I would say; in a lot of other matters, to help to manage better. To manage better is the role of the secretariat.

    I don't know if my associate wants to add something to that.

    Ms. Carole Swan (Associate Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Thank you, Minister.

    I'll just mention that active monitoring and understanding what's going on in departments is a very large part of what the secretariat does. I think it's fair to say we don't rank departments, although we do try to encourage best practices. I think there is a lot we can learn and share among departments about what works and what doesn't work.

    I know there are issues, on occasion, with certain aspects of fee setting. It is our sense that the large majority of these are resolved, as they should be, with departments through a kind of dialogue and exchange. We're going to, hopefully, strengthen the policy so the assessment and that dialogue and the transparency is even greater. I think we have heard some interesting suggestions today about the nature of reporting that we'll want to think a little bit about to see how we can close on that one.

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: People want to know that cost recovery is real cost recovery, that it actually is in a place to make money. So you have to know how much something costs in order to recover it back in a fee. Unless this is done in a totally transparent way, people do see it as a cash cow. I think that sort of transparency is important to people.

    Ms. Carole Swan: True.

    The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Minna.

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

    In your statement, Madam Minister, you referred to some of the cost recovery. In the CIC department it was $350 million. Does that include the landing fee or not?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. We can confirm that, but I think the answer is yes.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Okay. My next question is twofold. If I recall, at the time the landing fee was introduced, I think the department was charging a $500 administration fee for these people when they applied, and then added $900 and something--I forget the exact number--which then came to $1,000 and something.

    Keeping that in mind, I'm looking at another paragraph further down, where you say this is “a fair and equitable way” of financing government programs. Again, I'm wondering if the equitable issue has been looked at in this context.

    I'm wondering if the landing fee today is still perceived to be necessary, given that at the time I think it was raised to deal with the issue of debt financing and debt reduction and so on, to assist with that, for people to pay their fair share.

    If you look at the issue of equity, I'm wondering if in fact the landing fee plus the administrative fee, which was then $500, put together, is an equitable charge for immigrants coming in, and if there have been any recent studies that show what effect, if any, it's having now that we've been in it for awhile.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We'll have to check with the immigration department directly on this. I don't think we have the information here.

    Mr. Richard Neville: It's department specific.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, I know.

    My colleague is saying this is department specific, and that's true.

    Ms. Maria Minna: I understand that, but I thought maybe you might have had something here.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, I'm sorry, Madam Minna, I don't have the information with me today.

    I just want to give an example. Sometimes we don't understand exactly what's under cost recovery and fees. It applies to individuals. It applies to governments, even when we give some policing services to provinces. That is considered to be a cost-recovery measure also. We charge the provinces. This is included in the $4 billion annually we are receiving.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Specific to a department, would it be possible to get information in terms of what studies have been done and what the impact of that charge is now? I'm looking at the equity issue that you raised in your comment.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Or we can ask the immigration department for you, or your committee can ask the department directly.

    As you wish, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Neville.

    Mr. Richard Neville: I have a point of clarification on the previous question. The fees are included in the $4 billion based on our initial consolidation of the programs.

    The Chair: Mr. Harris, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Minister, through you, Madam Chairman, when a department makes adjustment to an existing fee or introduces a new fee for a service, whether to industry or to individual Canadians, do you believe this department should have to be able to fully justify and rationalize that fee before it's implemented rather than months or years subsequently? Shouldn't a department be held accountable in the beginning to avoid any appearance of arbitrary decision-making regarding fees, the unilateral and arbitrary imposition of fees just because that department happens to think $28 is the right fee for something, without ever having to explain it until much further down the road when someone might question it; it's only then the department finds that it really should have only been $21?

    As I understand it, as far as user fees go, the buck stops at your desk. You design the policy and you monitor it, even though departments are charged to operate within the policy. Am I to understand that in the Treasury Board the buck stops at your desk as far as violations of the policy or transparency for any department? Is that correct?

º  (1625)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You're saying that the department should decide at the front end, at the beginning of the process; they should evaluate before the decision. This is exactly what the policy states, that the department should do this and should consult before deciding the level of the charges, and be sure about the evaluation.

    Mr. Richard Harris: How confident can industry and Canadians be that this part of the policy is going to be fully complied with by every department? It certainly wasn't with the $24 security fee. There was no transparency with it. For all purposes, it was an arbitrary number. It now turns out the passenger count, for example, was not complete. People are paying a higher fee than they should. Sometime down the road when we get to it, we'll find this is quite true.

    But this is what upsets business, industry, and Canadians. When they ask about fees charged, it takes so long to get an answer. It would be wonderful to instill a feeling of confidence in Canadians--no matter who they are or what they're doing--that government is not making arbitrary decisions. Therefore, government has a responsibility to be up front, to say why they are charging $28. It would be a wonderful way to run a program.

    Can we be assured that this will happen?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Again, for the security fee, it was decided by legislation. So I don't think you can say it was not transparent. It was the legislation.

    Mr. Richard Harris: But if I can interrupt you, Madam Minister, that number was brought in by a government who just happened to have a majority in Parliament. Therefore, of course it was decided by legislation.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, it was--

    Mr. Richard Harris: But there is still no rationalization or justification for the fee. It was simply a number introduced with the bill.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: But let's take another example, because this one was decided through legislation in Parliament.

    As I stated, we have 400 programs where cost-recovery or fees apply. In the revised policy, it is clear we have increased the requirements for departments, so that before they take a decision they make the right analysis of it and consult. This will be clear in the revised policy. In a few weeks from now, I hope you will see it is very clear in the second draft of the policy that it has to be applied by all departments.

    Mr. Richard Harris: I know fees can be introduced through legislation. You gave some examples. But the opposition and Canadians really don't have much control over their introduction, because the government holds the majority of power.

    But let's say someone in the transportation or manufacturing sector learns, all of a sudden, that a 28% increase could be forthcoming in a particular fee. Before it comes through legislation, should they not have the right to go to whatever department they're dealing with and say, “I want a complete rationalization and justification of this proposed increase in your fee”?

º  (1630)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, not only to get the justification of the department, but also to be consulted before the fee amount is decided by the department. This will be an obligation through the policy.

    Perhaps Mr. Neville could add to this.

    Mr. Richard Neville: Thank you, Minister.

    In the second draft of the policy, which is much more onerous on departments than even the first draft, the department must do an analysis and what we call an “environmental scan”, where you look at what's out there to see what the impact would be and then, prior to arriving at some final decisions, undertake a risk assessment to consider factors relevant to the charge--all of that, obviously, in a consultative process, which is much more demanding, again, in the second draft than was previously the case.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Well, lest I be misinterpreted, I am a fan of user fees. I believe they do play an important role, but as Mr. Cullen pointed out earlier, there has to be a tremendous amount of transparency when they're proposed to be implemented. Governments of past and present have a terrible habit of consulting until the cows come home and then bringing in legislation that doesn't necessarily reflect what they heard during their consultations.

    When it comes to implementing fees, we're just looking for some security that the witnesses who appear before the government are actually being listened to and that it's demonstrated with action on behalf of the government when it comes to setting fees, either initially or adjusting existing ones.

    I like the independent scrutineer that Mr. Cullen has suggested. I think that's absolutely essential in the event that the government doesn't do the first part of it and have the openness. It's just a matter of doing it right.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I might suggest, Madam Minister, that when your second draft comes out, perhaps you can send it to the clerk. Then it can be distributed to all members of our committee here.

    Mr. Wilfert, go ahead. You have five minutes.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I may have missed this, but about the second draft, Madam Minister, when would it be available?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: A few weeks from now. We're at the point to deliver. When I received your invitation to come here today, I felt that perhaps we'd have some new ideas to add from today, or some improvements on the ideas we already have. So it will be a few weeks from now.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: As you know, Madam Minister, Mr. Cullen referred to the report the Challenge for Change that the committee presented to you. One of the key recommendations was on information on user fees about revenues--making it more available, publishing the fee revenues, etc.--and you certainly have indicated that you want to make sure they're implemented consistently across the board.

    We talk about transparency and accountability, yet one of the key recommendations from that report was talking about how do we determine the user charge. We look at the performance of it, the justification of it. Now, one of the key elements to me would be that people have to know where to get that information. It has to be accessible. That information has to be more than just some facts and figures. We have to explain why it's coming in, how it will be applied, how it is monitored. And if in fact it's not doing what it says it's going to be doing, then we need to deal with it.

    I certainly think that Mr. Cullen's suggestion about the committee having a role to play is a very important one. Whether it's a municipal user fee or provincial or federal user fee, in governments user fees are increasing. I'm not as big a fan as Mr. Harris is; I think it's just another way of taxation. You're already paying for something and.... Take toll highways, for example. You're already paying for highways generally, but we're going to bring in a toll highway, and if you want to use it, then you pay for it.

    There are pros and cons, but I like to know what the rationale is and I like to know that it's very transparent. So if anyone comes to me or comes to committee, we are able to say this is why it's in, this is maybe the duration that it's going to be in for, and at a certain time, we're going to review it.

    Notwithstanding the issue that Mr. Harris has mentioned--and there are many circumstances surrounding it that may not fall into the general situation on special charges--in this overall policy I think it's important that the department not simply come back as it did and simply say we're going to examine the options. I'm hoping that in your next draft you will have done more than examine the options and that in fact you'll really have laid that out. If we can be of any assistance in providing further feedback, I hope we get that. Really, in end, we're here for the customer--the taxpayer--and we're here for them to understand what it is they're being asked to pay.

    If you'd like to comment on that, I'd be more than happy to hear from you.

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, I think it's clear to us that we have to improve the information given to the general public and to the ones who are targeted also by those user fees. I think that will be more clear in the new draft of the policy about the requirements to departments about information delivery.

    I would say also that we need to have une information intégrée. We need the same information from one department to the other one. We need consistent information. So each department is responsible through their ministerial report about giving that information, but I think we would like also to have a more general report, to have the whole picture of what's going on. This is where the secretariat plays a role, to gather all that information. It's a little bit complex but I think we'll succeed.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you, Madam Minister.

    The Chair: Okay, Madame Picard, the final one.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Since I'm the last in line to ask you a question, let me go with a brief one on an entirely different subject. With all due respect, when are you planning to table the estimates for the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility for the fund.

    Ms. Pauline Picard: I realize that, but you hold the pursetrings.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Budget funds are always approved before the end of the session.

    Ms. Pauline Picard:I see.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard:There's no need for you to be concerned.

    Ms. Pauline Picard:Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister, and your colleagues for joining us today.

    We're going to suspend for a minute so that we can bring our next witnesses forward and continue with our meeting.

º  (1638)  

---

º  (1642)  

    The Chair: Welcome back.

    We have the second round of witnesses on our examination of government's policy on cost recovery. Jayson Myers, senior vice-president and chief economist with Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, is here in his capacity as co-chair of the Business Coalition on Cost Recovery. Jean Szkotnicki is president of the Canadian Animal Health Institute and is also co-chair of the Business Coalition on Cost Recovery. Garth Whyte is senior vice-president, national affairs, of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and we also have Doug Blair.

    Welcome to all.

    Ms. Szkotnicki, you're going to start, so go ahead and just continue your presentation until you're done. Thank you.

    Ms. Jean Szkotnicki (President, Canadian Animal Health Institute; Co-Chair, Business Coalition on Cost Recovery): Good afternoon. My name is Jean Szkotnicki. I'm the president of the Canadian Animal Health Institute and, as you said, co-chair of the Business Coalition on Cost Recovery, the BCCR.

    With me today are my fellow co-chair of the BCCR, Jayson Myers, senior vice-president and chief economist of the Canadian Manufactures and Exporters; Garth Whyte, executive vice-president of National Affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and a BCCR member; and Doug Blair, president of RIAS Inc. RIAS Inc. has produced a number of economic analyses of the cost to business and the Canadian economy of the continued inefficiencies associated with federal cost-recovery programs.

    On behalf of the Business Coalition on Cost Recovery, I want to thank the committee for inviting us to appear today.

    I also want to commend you for your ongoing commitment to fixing federal cost-recovery policy. Even two years after its release, this committee's June 2000 report, Challenge for Change: A Study of Cost Recovery, is easily the most comprehensive analysis we have of the problems plaguing cost recovery and its implementation. The report's 12 recommendations, if they had been implemented, would have resolved these problems and set the policy back on the right track. Unfortunately, they were not implemented or even responded to in a serious way.

    So here we are again, with no progress to show. In fact, things have actually gotten worse. While the government has done nothing to improve cost recovery, government departments have continued to implement new fees and to reduce the value we receive for the fees we are already paying.

    For anyone who thinks this is not a significant problem, consider this: RIAS Inc. has worked closely with a number of key economic sectors in Canada to quantify what the unnecessary delays caused by cost recovery are costing our economy. Their work shows some stunning results. For example, since Treasury Board started reviewing its cost-recovery policy two years ago, continued problems with cost-recovered market access programs have cost Canadian companies in some of our key economic sectors over $480 million in lost sales and reduced investment in R and D by $110 million. Canada missed out on creating a minimum of 260 science-based jobs, which by the way are exactly the kinds of jobs the government's new innovation strategy is trying to figure out how to create, and at least 140 fewer new health care products were made available to Canadian consumers.

    I don't need to tell you that this is hurting Canadian industry. You knew that two years ago, and now, if anything, the situation is worse. Today we actually have a very simple message for you: it's time for the government to open your report and act on its recommendations.

    Before going on, I want to remind you about the BCCR, our history and our goals. The BCCR was founded in 1998 by many of Canada's leading business organizations, including the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Animal Health Institute, groups such as Rx&D, Canada's researched-based pharmaceuticals, and the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. Together we represent small, medium, and large enterprises in every sector of the economy. Collectively, our members generate more than $330 billion in economic activity and provide jobs for well over two million Canadians living in every community and neighbourhood in the country.

    We understand and we accept the need to pay reasonable fees for federal services. We have never argued that fees should not be paid, but when these fees were implemented, the government promised to make them fair, accountable, and transparent. We also expected--and the committee highlighted this in its report--that any cost-recovery policy would need to have effective oversight, funding and dispute resolution mechanisms, and a means of ensuring that agencies delivered the honest service standards they promised.

º  (1645)  

    In our experience, our cost recovery does not reflect these basic principles.

    Mr. Jayson Myers (Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; Co-Chair, Business Coalition on Cost Recovery): Thanks, Jean.

    In light of the minister's comments, maybe I should begin by underlining the fact that we're not challenging the rationale behind cost recovery or the principles that underlie the government's cost-recovery policy. Our concern is with the way that policy is or is not being implemented. Our purpose is to actually improve the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory policy and cost-recovery policy.

    But to understand our frustration with the policy, you just have to look at what's happened with anybody who's actually tried to improve it. As Jean has pointed out, BCCR was formed four years ago, when many of our member associations and companies realized that the problems they were experiencing with cost recovery were endemic. They were systematic throughout the government.

    We were particularly bothered about fees being charged for mandatory regulatory programs, like human and veterinary drug licensing and customs inspection, that companies had to go through to simply do business here in Canada. Companies unhappy with the service standards being promised but not met in these programs really don't have any other option. All they can do is pay the fees and hope the service will improve one day. In these cases, user fees really do look like taxes.

    Our first action as a coalition was to commission a study on cost recovery, called “Where Does the Buck Stop?, which RIAS Inc. undertook for us. It looked at the increase in government user fees, and the lack of service, transparency, and accountability, and tried to put some economic figures around that.

    But we weren't alone in this process. In April 1999, the Auditor General issued a report critical of the implementation of user fees in the agricultural sector. He specifically cited the failure to meet performance standards, lack of fee transparency, and the absence of a dispute resolution mechanism as major failures.

    Later that year, an appearance by the coalition before this committee during its 1999 pre-budget consultations led to a recommendation in your pre-budget report, and later to hearings and your special report on the subject of cost-recovery policy. As we said, if the committee's report had been acted upon, cost recovery would have already been improved, but it wasn't. Quite frankly, the lack of response by the government trivializes your work and the concerns of the organizations and individuals you've met with.

    We've had consultation upon consultation. The problems should be well known by now, so let's get on with it. Let's get on with the process of improving this policy.

    It took three years for Treasury Board to finally get around to releasing the first draft of its proposed revisions of cost-recovery policy last January. But far from giving us hope, the draft was actually worse than the policy currently in effect. The links between fees, service, and performance were weakened. Provisions for impact assessments to gauge the competitiveness impact of fees were watered down, and the revised policy increased pressure on regulators to recover 100% of their costs, without any consideration at all of what that would do to business.

    In fact, we have heard from many departments that regulatory programs are already being geared up to increase their fees, in anticipation of a new cost-recovery policy being approved. This is all despite clear evidence that we, this committee, the Auditor General, and many others have presented that the policy and its implementation need a major overhaul.

    The first draft of the new policy ran counter to the government's broader objectives of promoting high-value job creation, wealth, and innovation in Canada. It also contradicted the goals explicitly stating the government's innovation strategy.

    The first draft of the new policy did not include even one of the suggestions made by this committee, the Auditor General, or even the Treasury Board's own expert advisory panel. We'll table for you a letter that was sent by advisory panel members--Jean was one of those members--to then Secretary of the Treasury Board, Frank Claydon, outlining their concerns with the proposed draft. No wonder we have little confidence that all of this consultation will some day lead to an improvement in the process.

    With all of this going on, the harmful application of cost recovery has continued and even accelerated. Starting next month, for example, the government is raising the subscription fee for its online contract tendering service, MERX, by 600%, from $5 to $30 a month.

º  (1650)  

    This hefty increase actually discourages the government's own initiative to increase the provision of government services on line. It also deters small and medium-sized businesses from bidding on government contract work.

    We've included in our presentation a copy of a letter that Garth Whyte, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, has sent to Public Works Minister Don Boudria expressing his concerns about this unilateral decision to increase fees.

    Another case is Environment Canada's desire to charge individual companies for new substance notification. Under this proposal, companies will be charged a fee to add new items to the domestic substances list. Unfortunately, the department plans to levy the entire fee against the company making the first notification even though, once it's added, any company would be able to add the product for import.

    Structured like this, the fee actually discourages innovators by charging them a fee while giving less innovative competitors a free ride. Played out to its logical end, nobody would want to register or import a newer, safer, improved product for fear someone else would take the benefit of the risk they first undertook.

    But new and higher fees are only part of the problem. The level and quality of services that companies are receiving for their fees are also deteriorating. Right now it takes seven months longer for Canada to review and approve human drug submissions than it does for the U.S. This means Canadians are missing out on technologies and drugs that are already helping patients in other countries. It also means Canada is losing out on investment, research and development, and manufacturing opportunities.

    According to Health Canada's own data, the department is one of the slowest agencies in the world for reviewing new biotherapeutic products. The average time it takes to review and approve these products went up from 517 days in 1999 to 920 days in 2000.

    For new, active biological substances defined as “priority review” by Health Canada--and that means they can usefully be used to treat life-threatening and debilitating diseases--approval times average 825 days. The average U.S. approval time for the same priority class is only 212 days, meaning U.S. patients can get priority drugs more than a year and a half before Canadian patients can.

    Let's be clear; this extra time doesn't come about because Canada is doing a better job reviewing these products. It simply represents the time submissions sit dormant in a queue waiting to be reviewed. For example, the average time taken by Health Canada to approve a new generic drug submission is 458 days. Of this, the actual time spent reviewing the submission is only 30 days. The rest, 428 days, is the time it takes the department to pick the submission off the top of the pile, or the bottom of the pile by that time.

    Despite these delays, companies are still being charged the full fee for registering their new products.

º  (1655)  

     We thought user fees were going to actually improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of Canada's regulatory system. Clearly, this hasn't been the case. These problems are systemic across all departments. What we want is for Treasury Board to actually do its job in implementing cost-recovery policy.

    Mr. Garth Whyte (Senior Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Member, Business Coalition on Cost Recovery): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Jay.

    So what is it the Coalition on Cost Recovery wants? Well, it's not more consultation. The time for consultation and review is long gone. The solutions to our concerns have been clear since this committee released its report on the subject nearly two years ago.

    Fees should be linked to performance. We support the setting and reporting of service standards, but to be meaningful, fees should be linked to the standards set. Where the promised standard is not met, then the fee--we agree, Roy--should be reduced.

    Secondly, the departments and agencies must do a better job of reporting to Parliament on the fees they charge. A comprehensive and detailed list of user fees charged should be tabled in Parliament annually. We were really encouraged--at least I was really encouraged, I should talk to my colleagues--when Treasury Board said for the first time, for the first time they've been before you, even though they said before that they were doing it, that they can list 400 programs.

    I find it confusing when they say “400 programs”. Really, that's 400 programs; it's not a list of all the fees. One agency, the Pest Management Review Agency, has two fee programs--a maintenance fee that you pay on an annual basis and another fee that you do just for initiating a project, a registration fee. Under the registration fee program, they have 45 different fees. Under food inspection, there are 1,500 fees.

    So it's one thing to say there are 400 fee programs, but how many fees are there? And why can't we get a current list? We think in this report the department should indicate the performance that was promised in conjunction with the fee and the performance that is actually being achieved. We need that list. How else can we start?

    And that's old fees. What about the new fees? Parliament should have the power to review and approve applications for new fees, period. Again, I think it would be useful for the Treasury Board policy to list all the proposed new fees. If they're having a problem getting hold of it, that tells us that we have a problem.

    As well, better impact assessments are needed to determine the impact of user fees on economic growth and job creation. We came before this committee--I know we're here often--on the pre-budget consultation. We talked about the non-stop market economy. We talked about how they are creating a lot of the new jobs. We talked about how currently there are 285,000 jobs that are not being filled.

    We asked them, what are the most onerous outside influences on you right now? If you remember the table, usually it's consumer spending or it's interest rates or it's inflation. Number one: input costs. Number two: regulation.

    Now, input costs can be gas or hydro, but it's also government fees. And guess what? The paper burden and the regulations that are required to do some of these fees.... I think we need to look at the overall impacts of the fees. If Treasury Board can't do it, who does it? We think you folks should be doing it.

    So we need better assessment on what the impacts are on economic growth and job creation and we need to ensure the proposed fees are comparable to fees being charged in other countries. Fees should be charged where an individual or an individual company receives a private benefit. Otherwise, they should be called what they really are--taxes.

    Finally, a third-party, independent referee should be established to handle disputes between government departments and fee payers. We don't know where to go. Again, we're encouraged to hear that Treasury Board is the department of last resort. If you could get out of her a phone number that we could have to phone, we'd appreciate it.

    These improvements are particularly vital for mandatory regulatory services where government departments and agencies have a monopoly on the provision of the service, and unlike in the business world where you can choose not to deal with substandard suppliers, clients who are unhappy with the services they receive have no choice but to continue dealing with the same dysfunctional service providers.

    Treasury Board has had these recommendations from your committee for nearly two years, but the first draft of their new policy ignored them. We are encouraged that the minister said they are going to include some of them. Let's hope that the second draft adopts all your recommendations.

    What we would like the committee to do is hold the government accountable--accountable to you, accountable to Parliament, and accountable to the individuals and businesses who are being asked to pay these fees.

    The government has said that a revised draft of their cost-recovery policy will be ready this summer or early fall. We would strongly urge the minister to meet with you--this committee--to hear your input before implementing that revised policy.

»  (1700)  

We also would ask the committee to instruct Treasury Board to incorporate the input of individual MPs on this subject.

    Roy Cullen, a member of this committee, recently introduced Bill C-455, which attempted to introduce a measure of transparency and parliamentary accountability to cost recovery. We believe this bill is excellent, and we completely support it. The committee should ask the government to incorporate the specific proposals of Bill C-455 in its next draft of the policy.

    Perhaps most importantly, the committee must ensure that the Treasury Board's efforts are more consistent with the government's broad objectives. Many of us were involved with Minister Rock's launching of the innovation paper, where the government recognized the key role that effective regulation can play in encouraging private sector innovation when it said the government would complete an overhaul of our business and regulatory policies to ensure that they support an innovative economy while protecting our quality of life.

    Well, this cost-recovery policy is a no-brainer. This should be a first step. This is a worthwhile and important objective. Unfortunately, we think there has been little or no focus from Treasury Board in their review of the government's cost-recovery policy. The next draft needs to reflect the government's innovation initiative.

    Thank you, Madam Chair, for your time. We'd be pleased to answer any questions.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll do the first round of questions.

    Mr. Harris, go ahead for 10 minutes. Mr. Discepola and Mr. Cullen, you'll be after that.

    I now have to excuse myself, because I'm expected in the House to speak.

    Mr. Discepola, would you take the chair, please.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

    I remember when, in 1999, all of you appeared before the committee and gave your input. I remember the report that came out of that and that went to the government with some good recommendations. In a state of what now appears to have been false security, we expected the government would act on those recommendations.

    Mr. Myers, you hit it right on the nose when you said the work from this committee was trivialized--and it is most times, because the government simply does not act on the recommendations coming out of this committee. It's my fourth session on this committee, my fourth year on it, and this doesn't seem to be getting any better.

    Some of the things we talked about when the minister was here are things that she assured us, in her sincere fashion, would be looked after. Well, many of these things were in the first set of recommendations; as you pointed out in your presentation, it's two years later and we're still waiting for them to be implemented.

    I guess the answer is for the government to actually listen and act on the consultations it has with Canadians across the country in every sector. Who knows better the impact of user fees and cost recovery than you people, who represent Canadian business and consumers who are faced with user fees on a daily basis in one form or another?

    I think we can all agree that we've come to accept user fees as a way of life. But when the improved services that were promised are not delivered, that's when we start getting upset, and you've given many examples of this.

    This may sound like a mere comment; I don't know what questions to ask. We've certainly asked them all and nothing has happened. The only question I have is what more can you--and we--do to get the government to act?

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Garth Whyte: I'll try to answer first.

    First, when we arrived here, we said, “Oh, you folks again.” I think one of the things we could do is the model we have with our organization: we won't quit and we won't go away.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Good.

    Mr. Garth Whyte: I think once government knows that we're not relenting on this issue, and you haven't been relenting on it, that's the first step.

    The second is, let's keep this as a non-partisan issue. I mean, it was incredible--a really good report, unanimous support. I think that's the second big issue.

    The third issue is, when the minister was giving an historical review of this process, she forgot to mention that we co-chaired and worked with Treasury Board to write the policy. All of a sudden we're the enemy. We helped write the policy. I don't know if many of you know that. We put a lot of sweat equity into this policy.

    We've done this on regulatory reform over and over again, and we get a group of people together who all agree with the same objectives. And all of a sudden those people move on and nothing's done; and then the issue is forgotten about.

    If nothing else, we have to ensconce this into a parliamentary process so there's an annual review. The fees are listed as a part of the budget process. If Manitoba can list its fees, why can't the federal government do it in its budget process? It's now become a major revenue source. Why can't it be listed and go before parliamentary committees?

    We put a lot of stock into your committee. We deal with these committees. We deal with MPs. If there's a role for MPs in committees, it's to review fees and regulations, if nothing else. If we don't entrench it into a real process, it's all lost. If we leave it just with Treasury Board, it'll be lost.

    It's not that they're not trying to do a good job; that's not the issue. The champions leave, the people who know the issues leave, and we lose the issue. And this is too important to let that happen.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Well, there are some new faces on the government side since 1999. We're happy to see that and we're happy to hear of their commitments.

    I'm sure you'll find that the opposition will never fail to try to hold the government accountable for the way they run this country, so you can certainly count on us. I think if we have a combination, working with some of the sincere folks on the other side of the table, maybe we'll get some results. I would encourage them. I know Mr. Cullen and Mr. Wilfert, and the rest of the members, really want to see this thing work. We know that they're going to be working on their ministers and the Treasury Board president just as hard as they can. I know that they'll probably all make that commitment to you today and give us some new hope.

    Certainly, speaking for our party, and I'm sure the rest of the opposition, we're going to be working on the government as hard as we can to get them to simply come through with what the right thing is, and that's to be responsible, and transparent, and open in this cost-recovery issue.

    That's all I have to say.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you.

[Translation]

    You have ten minutes, Ms. Picard.

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your presentation.

    I have a comment, rather than a question. I agree completely with Mr. Harris. I'm truly distressed by these situations. This is not the first committee on which I have served since being elected in 1993. This is unfortunate because all of the witnesses and all committee members put a great deal of effort and energy into producing reports and making recommendations and often, these recommendations are relegated to some dusty shelf. We get the feeling that we are working in a vacuum and that we are powerless.

    I sympathize with you, but we too are disappointed. We wonder what we're even doing here and what the witnesses are doing here if we disregard their comments. Through the media which is present here today...These particular proceedings are being televised. When the public is genuinely informed about what goes on here and the media is on hand to record everything, then that's when we see some movement.

    I trust that all committee members acted in good faith and put a considerable amount of effort into this report and you can count on us to continue exerting pressure, I hope that Treasury Board will listen to reason and will go along with your coalition's recommendations and with the report drawn up by committee members. Thank you very much for coming here.

»  (1710)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Fine then. Are there any comments? No. Great.

    Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

[English]

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your presentations.

    I am somewhat at a loss for words as well, because although the issues are complex on the one hand, I think the picture that's been painted in terms of how to move forward is fairly clear. I was really staggered...although it sort of stacks up with what I've been hearing about the length of time it takes to approve drug submissions. The Department of Health is one of the slowest agencies in the world for reviewing new biotherapeutic products, and it actually got worse from 1999 to 2000.

    Certainly a company in my riding, Bayer, and another company in my riding, BASF--they deal mostly on the agricultural side--say to me quite clearly that they'd pay the fees if they could get the results. Of course, clearly there is a limit to the fees they're willing to pay, because they're competing in a market that is highly competitive. For a lot of these products it's a case of who is the first mover into the market. If you're there late, you might as well not be there at all.

    Now, we're talking about jobs, economic growth, and development, so I found that quite staggering. Then I looked at that list I mentioned when the minister was here, about the user fee programs, comparing ourselves with Australia, the U.K., and the United States. In the list for us, the Canadian experience, it says that the fees for the therapeutic products program are not linked with performance. Then it goes on to say that TPP, the therapeutic products program, “publishes performance targets and strives to meet them”.

    Well, isn't that great; it strives to meet them. I just find that sloppy. If you're in the business of setting fees, you have a monopoly situation, and I think there has to be some consequence for the departments that set fees or that put fees in motion when standards aren't met. That's something we're going to have to really push for.

    If anyone wants to comment on that as we go along, that's fine, but I have a specific question for Garth Whyte about the MERX situation, about going from $5 to $30 a month. This is the way that small businesses get into the government contracting network, deciding what they're going to bid on and what they're not going to bid on. That's a fairly hefty increase.

    If the government...and the minister responsible is also a member of the Treasury Board, I think coincidentally. If that department had followed the Treasury Board process, what would have been done differently in this case? Did they apply any of those processes that are in the government policy as written?

    Mr. Garth Whyte: To be fair, the minister's been great. We met with Minister Boudria, and this was the hand that had been dealt him.

    But first, there would have been more consultation. Here we are, part of e-business Team Canada. We've been working with the government. We are part of the business gateway announcement. We're part of the government online initiative that's been going on for many years. We've been asked to increase awareness among our members about using the net: get on the net, get in there, and get into the e-business world.

    Well, the biggest application is procurement. There's $100 billion worth of goods and services that can be sold to government all the way through. Now, the way to access that is through the net, and there's only one provider, basically, which is MERX. The fee was $5, so we were going to cut a deal with MERX to get a deal with our membership, to say, okay, we have 103,000 members, and let's use MERX. All of a sudden the fee has gone up to $30. We put a hold on it, and then we found out there was no consultation.

    So let's go down the list. Let's use this as a case study. It's brand new. There was no consultation. It was sole-sourced. We have other members and people who say they could deliver this service, but they didn't get a chance to bid on it. Our members aren't aware of it, but just to look, they're not going to go, some of them. So the people we're trying to encourage....

    You can see how it ripples down on the innovation side. We don't know where to go to appeal. It's conflicting with the government's initiatives on government online, innovation, e-business, and the whole agenda we've been working on. This shuts it down just on one issue. They're dealing with the Bank of Montreal, which owns MERX. They're going to kill me when I say this, but you know about bank fees. They say that it's not a big deal, 30 bucks a month. Well, it is to a small firm that's bidding on a $2,000, $3,000, or $4,000 contract, and you want to ease them in.

    In Atlantic Canada it's impacting on the economy. We came here and presented and talked about small and medium-sized enterprises, 75% of which have fewer than five employees. They've helped buck up the economy. SMEs are 50% of the GDP, and all of a sudden, with many of them we're having a hard time getting out there to get them on the net.

    So here' s an example of where they didn't look at the economic impacts. There was no consultation, the fee was arbitrarily increased, and we have no appeal process. But the minister, who was here today, was telling you that the policy is working quite well.

»  (1715)  

    Mr. Roy Cullen: I think it's an example of how the policy isn't working. In my view, it also highlights the need for some kind of independent assessment, where the stakeholder groups feel some legitimate need for review.

    On some of these issues, there is a large grey area around the public and private good; what cost is; how competitive the fees are in relation to other jurisdictions; and what the impact on businesses is of moving these fees up. I don't know how one can do these if there's not some sort of an appeal mechanism, which has a certain....

    I know the minister would be well qualified and well intentioned in a certain sense, but competing interests are involved here. I think we should push for some mechanism to deal with this more effectively.

    Mr. Garth Whyte: There's one other point. We have not run into a member of Parliament or a minister who doesn't think it's a good idea to fix this. Why? Because you're the folks we appeal to. You're the only ones we can go to when we have a problem on fees. We have to go to our member of Parliament or the minister. Do you want to continuously hold the can on issues like this, over and over and over again?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Ms. Szkotnicki, then Mr. Myers.

    Ms. Jean Szkotnicki: I want to follow up on Mr. Cullen's comments regarding performance standards. I think what you need to be looking at, and what we, as the BCCR, need to be looking at in the second draft that Treasury Board is bringing out in a couple weeks, is some consequences for not meeting performance standards.

    We talked about how the devil's in the details. Indeed, implementation will be part of the problem. Even when there were performance standards identified for programs, what happened when they were not met? Nothing. We just saw review times lag.

    In our case, with the vet drug program, when I submitted a new submission it didn't even get picked up for review for four years. Even though my fees were paid, and had to be paid to keep it in the queue, it didn't get picked up and no work was being done on it for four years.

    So I think you need to look for consequences for not meeting performance standards.

    I also want to follow up on the comment regarding the appeal mechanism. It was good to hear the Treasury Board saying the buck was going to end with them, as identified through Mr. Harris' questioning, and that Treasury Board will take responsibility. But I would point out that some members of the BCCR have tried to meet with the minister to talk about our concerns on the cost-recovery programs we're involved with, and we have been declined a meeting on each occasion. Likewise, we've been declined, or we had no response, rather, to our request for a meeting with the secretary of Treasury Board.

    So it's interesting; there's some commitment. We're cautiously optimistic on some of the things we've heard today, but “cautiously” optimistic is the word for the day. A lot more work needs to be done, and the devil is in the details of implementation.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Mr. Myers, please.

    Mr. Jayson Myers: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can respond to Mr. Cullen's point about linking fees to service standards. This was really the heart or the driving principle behind cost recovery in the first place. It wasn't simply to ensure there were service standards that would be met if fees were paid. There was an assumption that the fees being raised were going into actually improving the service, that there would be more effective and efficient regulation, and that there would be resources the fees would fund to make this whole system work better.

    I suppose the other way of getting around this issue of services and linking services and fees is the question of where these fees go. To what extent do these fees go into a general revenue fund? To what extent are these fees being used in particular departments to fund departmental efforts or spending? This seems to be a governance very much within Treasury Board's responsibility. It also seems some of these questions can be asked of the minister. Where do these fees go, and are they being spent in the best possible way to actually improve the services companies and individual Canadians are paying fees for?

»  (1720)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you, Mr. Myers.

    Mr. Pillitteri, please.

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Gentlemen, I recall when cost recovery was implemented. We argued, I think, for the first year about the amount of the costs. We were trying to refine it to see what really was part of the cost that was to be passed on.

    Being in agriculture, we have the minor use policy, especially in horticulture and viticulture where we have such a small component here in Canada. Sometimes it is almost impossible to be competitive with other products coming in from the States. Most of the time, by the time we get a product registered in Canada, it's almost non-effective, because specifically in fungicides and insecticides they have developed what you call resistance to it. Therefore, the minor use--and for these companies that apply, it can take on average over one year and sometimes as much as four years--is no longer viable even to use, and is costlier than in the United States. Most of the time, we're not even able to use it when we do get it registered because already it's non-effective.

    There were recommendations more than a couple of years ago about this review, and they say it's working. I don't see it working.

    I can't quite figure this. I know that I was elected as a legislator--most of us in here were--but we're not elected to hold the can for them. What can we actually do to turn this around in order to make whoever's responsible for it...? What can we do except make recommendations time and time again and try to...?

    I personally believe we should have accepted some of the studies and some of the research that was done by other countries. If we are eating products that are sprayed with chemicals that we're not able to use but are imported into Canada, onto our kitchen table, and yet we cannot use their research or recognize their technology, we have to reinvent the wheel and spend four or five years in order for it to become useful.

    There's not only a cost factor here; it also puts us very much at a disadvantage in terms of being competitive or even supplying our own fruit market within our own country.

    Garth, if I may, what can we do to expedite? By the way, when you talk about days--how long it takes--that includes only working days, not days when we're not working.

    Mr. Garth Whyte: First off, I think it's really important for you to recognize that you've done a lot already. Maybe we don't say it enough, but we said it in our report, and we thanked you. We want to say that. You wrote a great report. You called the minister here. That was important. We think that helped delay the policy and got them to revisit it, because there was a spotlight put on that policy. So there's a big thank you at this end from us.

    I think the other is to keep pushing. How does this help innovation? Not only can you not get the product for what you're doing in your agriculture, but the people doing the research and development aren't going to do it here in Canada. They're going to do it elsewhere because they can get it approved much faster.

    I don't know; I come up with pie-in-the-sky, Pollyannaish ideas. Roy Cullen came up with a private member's bill. Monte Solberg had a private member's bill. We've watched many parties come up with private member's bills. Wouldn't it be nice if an all-party private member's bill came forward saying there should be more parliamentary accountability on fees? Wouldn't it be nice?

    I mean, you have our support. Wouldn't that be nice to do? I can't see Treasury Board having all the answers. Even after all they say, that this is what they're going to do in their policy, we still have trust that we need a parliamentary process. We need part of an estimates process.

    Many of you may not remember, but we used to be critical of the budget process because we couldn't read the numbers. This is many, many elections back. Now things are required. There are less arguments about the numbers and the estimates. Well, with fees, it's a blank slate. I don't see why the committee can't require, for instance, a list of the fees; tell us how much revenue is being generated. That's a first step, to keep putting it in the spotlight.

    I'll let my colleague speak, but I really do think should get a tip of the hat. You've done a lot already. This committee has done a lot.

»  (1725)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Mr. Myers.

    Mr. Jayson Myers: Just to agree with what Garth has said, I think this committee has done a fantastic job to spotlight this issue. We really would recommend that you take a look at bringing forth a piece of legislation that would have unanimous consent.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Unfortunately, private members' business is done through a random lottery system, so even if we had--

    An hon. member: We could all put in only one topic.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Yes, well, we'd have to put in maybe 50 or 60 similar bills.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: We could write the legislation right here.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): One minute; Mr. Pillitteri is not finished yet.

    Mr. Gary Pillitteri: The last comment is, possibly what we could do more is make sure we bring the minister back here year after year after year until, somehow, maybe we'll get it right; then maybe it will go through some understanding of the bureaucrats.

    Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Maybe not year after year after year; maybe quarter after quarter after quarter.

    Mr. Harris, please.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Having been part of this conversation and listened to your presentations, having seen the evidence and watched my colleagues nodding their heads as we're discussing the lack of management by and for the government on this issue, I ask, what can we do? As was pointed out, a private member's bill goes into the lottery and may not surface for awhile, but what we could do, if we were committed to it, is as a committee recognize that we all seem to agree on this thing. Why don't we let one of the government members--Mr. Cullen is probably the most appropriate--take the lead on this thing? Why doesn't this committee, in a very public way, all pledge our support--every single party--by way of a document or an endorsement Mr. Cullen can take, and march down to the press theatre in the basement in a very public display and call on the minister and the government to act on the recommendations that were put forward two years ago by the finance committee, and anything else we can think of in the meantime that they should act on, to get this thing working, and, given the agreement and the validity of these recommendations, just enact the Nike slogan: “Just do it”?

    Let me make a motion. Can I make a motion?

»  (1730)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): It's out of order. You have to give us enough notice, as Mr. Loubier did.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Okay. I'll give you notice of motion, then.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you.

    Does it warrant comment? Go ahead.

    Ms. Jean Szkotnicki: Yes, I just wanted to comment on the private member's bill concept. Apparently, if you can get 100 signatures on a private member's bill, it is automatically moved forward.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): It's still a very long procedure, and it's subject to much scrutiny. We would be much better off....

    But I think we're getting off topic. The minister has undertaken to come back within two or three weeks, as she said in her testimony. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Let's see what she comes up with and then take a course of action appropriate at that time.

    Mr. Richard Harris: Why don't we be proactive and just put a little pressure--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Not through private members' initiatives. I don't think that's appropriate.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: I think the old system of getting 100 signatures has been scrubbed now.

    I think it's a great idea; my preference would be to see how the minister responds with the next draft, but there's nothing precluding this committee from writing legislation, as I understand it--nothing. And if it's the will of the committee, we could use my bill as a starting point and improve on it.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Mr. Wilfert, last questioning, please.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I had asked the minister when we could expect the second draft, and she said in a couple of weeks. I would hope that she will come back well armed--I'm sure she will--realizing that a number of the recommendations that were made two years ago were not implemented and that they need to be addressed. Hopefully they will be, in the next two weeks.

    It is very frustrating, and I understand.... In my days in municipal politics, once in a while I would put scissors on the dais to indicate that I wanted to cut through the red tape of things that I felt were very bureaucratic and did not make a lot of sense. In fact, it was difficult sometimes when the bureaucrats couldn't really explain the policy that was before us and why we were obviously looking at changing it.

    On the MERX, the subscription fee issue of the 600%, I had a couple of constituents call me on that. Of course, I had no idea. They said it was $5 to $30, and when you look at that, that doesn't seem to be a lot. However, I asked two questions to them: What was the rationale for the increase, what were you told; and did they do an impact assessment of it?

    The constituents said, those are two excellent questions; unfortunately, we don't know who to call, because we can't get through.

    The policy itself, as I then found out, was in contradiction to what the government policy was if you're trying to encourage small and medium-sized business to do certain things.

    Time is money. We always say that. We want to make information available. The Government of Canada has phenomenal programs. We generate more information than anyone I've ever seen, and some of the material is outstanding--except, as I've always said, most people don't know about it or don't know how to get access to it.

    So I would hope the minister will come back and address a couple of those, but particularly this issue of the rationale and the impact assessment, because to me that's extremely important. We want to cut through it; we want to put the scissors on the table, and we do want to make sure that you, as the people using it, understand why. You haven't said to us that you don't want to pay. You just want to know what the policy is, how the policy came about, the rationale, and whether you're getting value for the dollar.

    If you're getting value for the dollar, I understand that. Even though I still gripe about Highway 407, as I was saying to Nick, I use it. I don't like to pay, but the fact is, I use it because it's a convenience, and I'm getting something for that, which is that I'm saving some time.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): Thank you.

    Are there any closing comments? Shall I give you a last word? No.

    I hope you'll keep in touch after the minister does report--within two or three weeks, I hope--and give us your feedback. I think you've given us the rationale for continuing. Our report has to be acted upon, and we'll try to push through whatever we can, but your feedback will be important after the minister comes back and gives us her set of recommendations.

    I was particularly concerned, when I heard her say that everything seems to be going well, and cost recovery as well, to note your concerns. So we have to be on top of it, and your presence here has certainly given us a lot of input. We want to thank you again.

    Mr. Whyte, you're welcome as often as you want to be here.

    Mr. Garth Whyte: Thank you very much.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Nick Discepola): The meeting is adjourned.