Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance

Issue 1 - Evidence, February 18, 2004

OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 18, 2004

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-212, An Act respecting user fees, met this day at 6:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Lowell Murray ( Chairman ) in the Chair.

[ English ]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have before us Bill C-212, an act respecting user fees. As you will recall, this bill was before us last fall. Two meetings of this committee were held on it, on October 28 and November 4, under the chairmanship of the acting chairman, Senator Day.

We have two witnesses tonight. The first is the President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Reg Alcock. The sponsor of bill, Mr. Roy Cullen, MP, will follow him after which I will ask you whether and how you want to proceed.

Mr. Alcock has been a member of the House of Commons since 1993, has served as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and perhaps even more noteworthy as chairman of various House of Commons committees, including the fairly new Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in the last session. Since December 12, he has been President of the Treasury Board and Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Those events are recent enough for us to congratulate you and welcome you for the first time as minister and wish you well in your important new responsibilities.

I may say we got along very well with your predecessor, Madam Robillard, and with the officials from Treasury Board, always, we have had a very good relationship with them and I am sure that will continue.

Anyway, I will invite the minister to make an opening statement on Bill C-212, and then I will open the floor for questions and comments.

Hon. Reg Alcock, President of the Treasury Board: Senator Murray. I wish to apologize for being late to arrive here. I was involved in a matter of privilege in the House and we just concluded it and I came straight away here, with a detour to the ninth floor.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak. It is a little bit unusual that I should be coming to speak about a bill, which you have not had presented by the presenter of the bill. This is fundamentally a private member's bill and not a government bill. However, It was felt that given there had been work done on this bill prior to prorogation, and you had some experience with it, that I might want to clarify some process items and some of the feelings of the Treasury Board on this.

I cannot resist the opportunity to actually do a side commercial. I realize you will not take other questions, but I just want to say one thing. Those of us who serve in the House of Commons are constantly told by members of the media, academics and others, that if only we could do the rigorous detailed work of this committee we would rise to a higher bar. You have a reputation for actually taking this stuff seriously. Senator Murray knows, and I have spoken to him on other occasions, because I have a deep interest in the mechanics, structure and operations of government. I would at some point like to come before the committee to talk about the expenditure review process, the new committee of cabinet and the work we are doing there. Frankly, I would like to engage this committee in this work because it has substantive information on managing change in large organizations.

We have a bill here that was proposed by a private member in the House of Commons. That Private Member had done a great deal of work both with people in the communities of interest around this and with his colleagues and was able to convince colleagues in the House to support this bill. It came forward. It is fair to say that my predecessor in the Treasury Board and staff in the Treasury Board had some substantive concerns in respect of this bill. Perhaps ``substantive'' may be too strong a word; there were some changes in the wording that concerned them. It is a bold step, right? Although having parliamentary oversight of increases in expenditure sounds kind of like no taxation without representation, but it sort of fits in that area.

When I became the president, I was approached by Mr. Cullen with his bill and asked to look at some of the concerns. I met with staff of the Treasury Board, who I must say have been fantastic. They have done an absolutely superb job of addressing both Mr. Culllen's concerns and theirs. I believe they have arrived at a point where there is greater comfort both in terms of the Treasury Board and Mr. Cullen on some of the amendments that will be potentially put forward and discussed here.

There may be an item or two, shall we say, where the consensus is not as strong as we might like, but in that instance, I would hand that job to you. Where there is a weakness in that consensus this committee has enormous strengths and knowledge, and I would ask you to help us solve those problems.

In principle, I support this bill. I applaud Mr. Cullen for the work he has done. I applaud the community for the work they have done on this. A lot of time and energy and thought has gone into this. It is a strong departure from past practice in this area.

I also want to offer my congratulations to Mylène Bouzigon and Ruth Dantzer, who are senior staff from the Treasury Board. They have laboured long and hard on this with their colleagues to sort out the implications of this bill: What are its implications? How does this affect us? We want to have some sense of where we are going before we pass new law. They are satisfied that this bill is moving into place that will be quite acceptable.

I am not presenting the bill. Normally I would come here and say this is the bill, but it is not my bill. It is Mr. Cullen's bill. However, I wanted to offer you some comfort that we have been engaged in this. We think it is an interesting approach and we are prepared to support it subject to certain amendments that will come forward here that I think you will hear from Mr. Cullen and some honourable senators.

The Chairman: Do I take it that this prepared statement of which you have read none, is to be included and as taken as read?

Mr. Alcock: We should table it, Mr. Chairman, and you can read it when you are ready.

The Chairman: It is fairly short and I think with agreement it can be included in the proceedings at this stage. In particular, I invite the attention of colleagues to page 2, where the minister lists, in six bullets, some of the issues still to be resolved and over to page 3. A former, now deceased senator, by the name of Allister Grosart who had spent a lifetime in politics and had been the national director of the Tory party where he received a lot of mail always told me that if I received a lengthy letter, or dissertation, the thing to do was always to look at the second last paragraph because that is where they told you what they want.

Honourable senators might want to look at the second last paragraph where Mr. Alcock has indicated that the government is favourably disposed and although the issues raised need further scrutiny and discussion, he is optimistic they can be successfully addressed through amendments. That is the nub of it I think.

Mr. Alcock: I think, Senator Murray, you have captured it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Senator Comeau: When Mr. Cullen was before us, I raised the issue of relating to the fact that when these fee structures were deemed to be deposited in the House that they would only be referred to the House of Commons and that the Senate was not to have any dealings with whatever those fee structures might be. My comment at the time was that even though we do not need the work, it might have been proper to have those reports deemed to be reported to the Senate as well.

Have you, as minister, given any thought to this? I would suggest it is something that might have been worth looking at.

Mr. Alcock: Mr. Cullen and I had a brief conversation about this earlier this week. Mr. Chairman, I beg your indulgence and appreciate your assistance, frankly, with that letter, because I have been, as you can imagine, a little preoccupied, otherwise.

In respect of this issue, I do not believe there is any intention to do any disservice or discredit to the Senate at all, sir. It might be useful if the Senate could give us some advice on the role they would like to play.

The concern is that there is a procedure here to table these fee increases with the various committees and allow them a period of time, and if they choose not to proceed then it is deemed passed. We might table it at exactly the same time in the Senate so the Senate can be prepared to look at it also. If that was felt an appropriate remedy I do not think we have a problem with that. Does that answer your question?

Senator Comeau: Yes, that would answer the question quite well.

Again, it is not that we need the work, we have enough on our plates that we do not need any more. However, it is just something we should keep in mind just in case we want to do it.

The second concern, which I raised previously, has to do with the question of the cost to establish some kind of body to deal with disputes between the users and government. Has Treasury Board done any kind of calculation as to cost on this?

I do not wish to belabour this point, but there has been some concern in the past about the cost calculations of government. If I should mention gun control, I am only doing so in passing. We must be mind of this and if there is a cost attached to this it would be nice to know beforehand so that we can be critical down the road when the cost overruns do come in.

Mr. Alcock: After I have consulted this committee on how we address the correction of a proper financial information system, I suspect you will no longer need to be critical of us for cost overruns.

In the meantime, however, as I am working at solving the $62 million per year cost of the gun registry, with the total cost being some $814 million as an example of veracity, this is essentially a shared service. It is cost recovery.

I do not want to speak for Mr. Cullen. However, we currently provide resources to drive the policy that sets fees, that is — the resources that exist within the departments. I think it is Mr. Cullen's view that the industry would also carry some of those costs.

Senator Comeau: That answers my question. There would be no additional costs to the taxpayer other than the regular service that Treasury Board officials do on a regular basis any way.

Mr. Alcock: If you were also concerned about the $65,000 boondoggle, I would be prepared to talk to you about that, too.

Senator Comeau: That would be a good subject for a future meeting.

Senator Ringuette: I have gone through the presentation of the minister and the elements he has flagged in regard to things to be discussed and amended within this bill. I certainly concur with the issues that the minister has flagged. My intention, later on at this meeting, is to bring forward amendments to deal with the issues that have been flagged by the minister, as well as those raised in previous discussion in the Senate on this bill.

I understand Senator Comeau's concerns in regard to the minister's report and the implications for the Senate. I will present to the committee amendments to the bill to deal with those issues.

The Chairman: You might want to distribute those now, Senator Ringuette.

I may ask the committee whether, with leave, they would like to go to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill tonight, after we have heard from Mr. Cullen.

Minister, you said in your written statement that one of the issues to be resolved includes the definitions of ``minister'' and ``regulating authority'' to ensure that the bill excludes Crown corporations and other non-governmental organizations. There are two matters here. I see in the bill that Mr. Cullen would apply the act to all fees, et cetera, including those fixed by a department within the meaning of section 2 of the Financial Administration Act. There are others. Mr. Cullen is not at the table, but I think he has a list of agencies and departments that would be covered by this bill. Are you familiar with that list, minister?

Mr. Alcock: I am.

The Chairman: Are you comfortable with it?

Mr. Alcock: Yes.

Because of the nature of this, when Mr. Cullen comes to speak to you, Ms. Bouzigon will be here to answer any questions that might come up.

Frankly, the goal is to build upon an initiative that arose from private members of the House of Commons to provide as much expert opinion as we can about this as to the concerns as well as other matters, and then to leave it to the wisdom of this committee to make those final decisions.

The Chairman: To come back to the organizations to which it will be applicable, one of the organizations that complained in the past about the bill was NavCan. You are familiar with them. They complained on the basis that they are a private sector company and should not be touched. What is the view of the government on that?

Mr. Alcock: That has been discussed with Mr. Cullen and there will be an amendment to remove them from the list.

The Chairman: We will talk to him about it, then.

Mr. Alcock: Might I make one final comment, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Alcock: I wish to repeat what I said at the beginning: A great deal of work needs to be done to deal with some of the problems of trying to manage a large and very complex system. I will be asking this committee to help us by getting involved with pieces of this and providing advice, not only in respect of the oversight of legislation, but I should like to put some other question before you as well.

Legislation needs to be a living thing. We are going down a new road here. I think some people have some apprehension about it. However, is it not true that good decisions are made by wise people based on the experience they have, and experience is derived from making bad decisions? In this process, if we find that there is a problem, if there is a fix that is needed along the way, I am not shy about coming back and doing it. This establishes a new process. It sets a new bar for Parliament and its involvement in the important area of fee setting. It does set something that is new for the departments in that there are penalties involved here if they do not meet the standards they set for themselves. That is a departure from the past. All of us will be interested to see how this plays out. We may want to come back to look at this after we have had a few years of experience with it.

The Chairman: That is fair enough.

I might say that we are in touch with your office now trying to arrange an early meeting with you, under the rubric of the Main Estimates that will be tabled a few weeks from now. The matters I wish to discuss with you include the expenditure review process, which you have already mentioned, the controllership, the changes in the financial supervision, and, the changes in the overall responsibilities for the public service. What is left with Treasury Board? What has gone to the Department of Public Works and Government Services? What is this new agency in Privy Council? Last fall, we passed the new public service bill. We are all very interested in this area.

Mr. Alcock: I would welcome that, Mr. Chairman. I will be here as soon as it is possible to arrange such a meeting. I welcome such a discussion.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We will see you then.

Thanks also to the officials.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen, sponsor of this bill, appeared before the committee last fall, honourable senators, when the bill was before us. Thus, you know him. He has been a member of the House of Commons since 1996. He has been Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and, of considerable interest to this committee, he has been chair of the Subcommittee on Public Service Renewal of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, as well as chair of the Standing Committee on Finance in the House of Commons.

Mr. Cullen, you have heard the minister and you have had the opportunity to speak to him. I believe that you are familiar with the amendments that Senator Ringuette will be proposing.

Senator Ringuette, have you circulated those amendments?

Senator Ringuette: They are being printed for everyone right now in both official languages.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Roy Cullen, M.P., Etobicoke North: Thank you, honourable senators. I am very pleased to be with you this evening.

[ English ]

I would like to thank Senator Ringuette for sponsoring the bill in the Senate and than you for taking the time to go through this private member's bill. On a previous visit here, I took you through the bill, so I do not think it is necessary to go through all the details of the bill again.

[ Translation ]

This evening I would especially like to emphasize the main objectives of Bill C-212.

[ English ]

I would like to go over some of the main principles and then discuss some of the issues that the President of the Treasury Board has raised and how we might respond to them.

I would like to thank the President of the Treasury Board for making a real effort to work with me. I believe that the amendments before you will improve and enhance the bill and that they address some of the concerns that you raised when I was last here.

I would like to thank also the Treasury Board staff, Ms. Ruth Dantzer and Ms. Mylène Bouzigon, and also the minister's staff, for working closely with me to try to reach some consensus on what would be needed from the government's perspective to move this bill forward.

We have a new Prime Minister and a new government, and I must say working with the new President of the Treasury Board has been particularly refreshing. It is no secret that previously the Treasury Board staff were not terribly excited about my bill.

The Chairman: I think they were excited, but not favourably.

Mr. Cullen: That would be an understatement, yes.

It has been refreshing working with the new President, and with some of the new thinking that is emerging on how to deal with issues such as this.

I thought I would remind honourable senators of the various issues that bill is intended to address. These include the need to link user fees with the ability of a department or agency to meet agreed-upon performance standards; the need for greater stakeholder participation in the fee-setting process; the requirement for more comprehensive stakeholder impact and competitiveness analysis when new user fees or fee increases are contemplated; the goal of increased transparency with respect to why fees are applicable; what fees are charged; what costs are identified as recoverable; what private benefits are being conferred; and whether performance standards are being met.

There is also the need for user fees to be internationally competitive. Finally, there is the need for more parliamentary oversight when user fees are introduced or changed.

[ Translation ]

There is a great need for a dispute settlement mechanism so as to deal with the complaints or grievances of those paying user fees; and there is also a need for an annual report showing all the user fees in effect.

[ English ]

I brought my bill forward because I felt that user fees, while not taxes, are getting close to being taxes, and they are being priced by monopolies. If the whole system were working fine, then my bill would not have been required. In 2000, the Finance Committee of the House of Commons conducted a major review. We came up with some very broad, far-sweeping recommendations. To be frank, I felt frustrated with the lack of progress by the government on the issues. I was motivated to prepare a private member's bill to deal with that.

The bill, as the minister mentioned, has passed the House of Commons at all three stages unanimously. I was as astounded as anyone else because it is not an inconsequential bill, if I can be immodest; but it shows the level of support in the House of Commons.

I know that many senators have expressed much interest and support for this bill as well.

Frankly, I am up against timelines. Many of you know the rules. Let us suppose, for example, that this bill would have the support of the Senate, with amendments. You may have some of your own amendments, I do not know, and you may not like the amendments that have been worked out by myself with Senator Ringuette and the Treasury Board. Let us assume for the moment that an accommodation can be reached there. The bill would go back to the House of Commons for two hours' of debate. It goes to the bottom of the Order Paper and I can trade it up, and then it comes back for another hour. So, with an election that is being written about ad nauseam, possibly in the spring, once Parliament is dissolved my bill is history, as they say. I would have to start from scratch in the House of Commons. I have been working on this for three years. It is not really a concern of yours, but I wanted to mention it because timelines are absolutely critical.

I have been working with the President of the Treasury Board and his staff to try to accommodate some of the concerns that they have raised. I should say that some of those concerns have been raised here as well. I will not go into the details of all the amendments because I know in the House of Commons you will be ruled out of order because the amendments have not been tabled yet. I know in our House we can talk conceptually about the amendments.

The Chairman: Feel free to describe them.

Mr. Cullen: I will do that, with your permission.

By way of example, there was some concern that the scope of the bill applied to Crown corporations. I know that there were many Crown corporations distressed by that. My first bill had Crown corporations within its scope. When I made amendments in the House of Commons, based on the feedback I had, I removed Crown corporations, so the trail was there for someone who wanted to see that I had taken Crown corporations out of the bill. Nonetheless, I suppose the language was still somewhat ambiguous. With the advice of the Treasury Board, we have language that would tie basically the scope of the bill to those departments and agencies that fall within schedules within the Financial Administration Act — in other words, the close-in departments and close-in agencies, and they are described in these various schedules, which I do have, Mr. Chairman. They are Schedules I, I.1, and II.

The Chairman: Are they to be part of the bill? They are schedules from the Financial Administration Act (FAA).

Mr. Cullen: They are schedules from the FAA, but the amendment we would propose describes the scope of those. It describes which agencies and departments would fall within the scope of the bill, and they are Schedules I, I.1 and II of the FAA. There is a big wad of paper here that describes them. The coverage of the bill would go up to here, to put it in those terms, and outside the scope of the bill would be these.

For example, NAV CANADA would be outside the scope. Crown corporations such as the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), Export Development Canada (EDC) and the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) would fall outside the scope of the bill.

My earlier thinking was that Crown corporations, because they are meant to be commercially oriented, perhaps could not be included in the scope of the bill. My concern was that departments or agencies that might try to get particularly creative and not want to meet the tests of my bill might be inclined or motivated to set up various agencies or non-arm's-length organizations to escape the provisions of the bill.

However, I certainly can live with excluding Crown corporations from the bill.

The Chairman: NAV CANADA is not a Crown corporation.

Mr. Cullen: No.

The Chairman: What is the rationale for excluding it?

Mr. Cullen: In fact, in my judgment, they were never really meant to be included within the scope of the bill.

The Chairman: Why?

Mr. Cullen: That is a very good question. I met with representatives from NAV CANADA. In fact, they are sitting here behind us. I had asked them if they consider themselves a monopoly. I hope that I am representing the meeting correctly and I hope they will correct me if I am wrong. They told me that they are a monopoly. I explained on of the principles of my bill is to protect users from monopoly pricing. I asked if they agreed with the provision that fees should be competitive and they should be recovering defined costs; that private benefits should be conferred; that there should be performance standards; that there should be a way of resolving disputes. They agreed with all those principles. At that point, I asked them what concerns they have about my bill. They said that they have a different dispute-resolving process through the Canadian Transportation Agency.

That made some sense. I asked them for a letter from the airline industry — you may have been copied with that — showing that the airline industry did not need the protection of my bill. I think the airline industry, through the Canadian Aviation Transportation Authority, have given us letters to suggest that they do not need the protection of Bill C-212. That is one example.

The Chairman: Are they unique? This is essentially a private-sector company that has been granted power — I presume by legislation — to charge fees. Is that right? They are a monopoly set up and established under legislation.

Ms. Bouzigon, is NAV CANADA unique in that sense? Can you think of other private sector companies that are in the same position?

Ms. Mylène Bouzigon, Senior General Counsel, Legal Services Branch, Treasury Board of Canada: I cannot think of others. I am not a specialist in Crown corporations. There are various provisions out there. NAV CANADA has an elaborate regime set out in its legislation. There are various methods and approaches taken in relation to various other organizations. The Nuclear Safety Board, which would be covered by the proposed legislation, has certain provisions in its legislation. There is an infinite variety of approaches to that.

Mr. Cullen: Looking at Crown corporations and agencies in my work in this area, there is a range of close-in and further-out. NAV CANADA is quite far out there. My intention in the bill was never to cover federally regulated industries. I had companies like Bell Canada concerned that my bill might apply to them. That was never my intent. This language clearly exempts them from the bill.

Recently, there has been a great deal of contention relating to fees charged by agencies such as the airport authorities. The current bill would not deal with them on the grounds they are quite arm's-length from the government. In all these things, you have to set a point that determines how far you will go in the scheme of things relating to Crown corporations and agencies. There is a bit of a grey area there. These amendments have clarified that these agencies and corporations are defined in schedules I, I.1, and II under the Financial Administration Act.

I am happy to share this list with you so you can see for yourself which Crown corporations, agencies and departments would be covered and which would not be covered under this particular provision.

Senator Comeau: Will those schedules become a part of the bill? Under your amendment, of course, the bill would identify those schedules?

Mr. Cullen: No, they will not be a part of the bill but they will be referenced in the bill. It goes back to the Financial Administration Act and those Crowns and agencies that are set out by schedule to that act. It will not form part of this bill but it will be referenced back to that.

Senator Comeau: In other words, we can actually go back from the bill to the schedules, without the schedules necessarily being part of the bill. I do not think we need that at all.

Mr. Cullen: Absolutely.

Senator Comeau: I am referring to this because, if we find that the bill does work much better than everyone's expectations and if NAV CANADA were to suddenly ask to be part of it because of the positive response, could the bill be amended down the road under the schedules?

Ms. Bouzigon: If I may, senator, the schedules to the Financial Administration Act can be amended by Order in Council, except that in order to fit into one of schedules, certain conditions must be met.

Senator Comeau: Hold on now. Order in Council?

Ms. Bouzigon: I refer to amending the schedules of the Financial Administration Act, not this bill.

Senator Comeau: Yes, but I refer to the bill itself.

Ms. Bouzigon: The bill itself can always be amended to add other criteria than those proposed and that are in the schedules.

Senator Comeau: It could be done fairly simply?

Mr. Cullen: Yes.

Ms. Bouzigon: It would be as simple as any legislative amendment.

Mr. Cullen: You could do it yourselves. The bill will refer to the Crown agencies and departments, as defined clearly by the Financial Administration Act Schedules I, I.1 and II.

The Chairman: Are you taking us through these amendments? Do you have a copy of these amendments in front of you?

Mr. Cullen: I do have a copy, yes. I was going to deal with them generally but if you want to get into more detail, that is fine.

The Chairman: Are you familiar with these amendments?

Ms. Bouzigon: Yes, sir. I am just not sure which ones have been put forward at this time.

The Chairman: There is nothing formally before us but we all have copies of the amendments that Senator Ringuette has brought.

Mr. Cullen: That is the whole package, yes.

Senator Oliver: Have the stakeholders also seen a copy of those?

Mr. Cullen: I have shared the amendments, yes, with the Business Coalition on Cost Recovery. There is one amendment that I would like to address. It is a little bit contentious.

The Chairman: Go ahead. Which one is that?

Mr. Cullen: Shall we just go through them one by one?

The first one is the one we have just been discussing. We reduce the scope of the bill to make it clear that it does not include Crown corporations and that it is limited to Schedules I, I.1 or II of the Financial Administration Act.

Senator Oliver: Are you on page one? Are you talking about replacing line 17 on page one?

Mr. Cullen: Yes.

Mr. Cullen: I did ask that legal counsel be here with me. Some of amendments have been described by the staff and President of the Treasury Board as drafting-type clauses. I am quite happy with them but they are quite technical.

The amendment at page two states that Bill C-212, in clause 2, should be amended by replacing lines 25 to 28. I thought I had dealt with this issue in my bill but then we got different legislative counsel advice. The Treasury Board officials said this clause was not clear enough. My bill was never intended to deal with fees, services or products where the consumers have a choice.

For example, to access a federal park, you must pay a fee; you have no choice. However, you have a choice as to whether you take in your own firewood or buy it there. My bill was never meant to cover firewood. It was meant to only apply to those products or services where Canadians do not have a choice. You do not have a choice to get a drug approved in Canada. You do not have a choice to get a passport. This language clarifies that.

On the third page, there is a motion to amend clause 3 by replacing lines 1 to 9.

Ms. Bouzigon: This corresponds with another amendment that we have already seen. It defines regulating authority to address the issue we have discussed previously about excluding Crown corporations. It simplifies the wording whereby, rather than referring to a fee fixed by A, B, C and D, it just says ``all user fees.''

The Chairman: Honourable senators, is this understood? Move on, then.

Mr. Cullen: The next one is a little more contentious. I have been trying to work with the minister and the department, but we are not there yet. I do not know if you, or this committee, or the Senate, have other ideas, but let me give you the background.

The point has been raised — and it was raised with senators the last time I was here — that the bill could become litigious. It could end up taking the government to court on a range of things. I understand that concern. The government has come up with an amendment that says a new user fee or user fee increase cannot be introduced unless a number of criteria are met. These include a consultation process, a private benefit conferred, an independent dispute resolution mechanism, performance standards, et cetera.

The government was concerned that someone might challenge each one individually. For example, they would A, and possibly have that defeated in court. Then they would move to B and tie up the whole thing forever. I understand that concern. However, they have come up with language — I am not certain we can improve upon it — that causes me some concern. The language says that ``no user fee is invalid by reason only that the requirements of this act were not met.'' That concerns me somewhat.

The minister and the department, they came back with some additional wording that they put into clause 4, which basically re-emphasizes both the need for a performance standard and the need for an independent dispute resolution mechanism. My concern is that a deputy minister or the head of an agency felt uncomfortable setting a performance standard or did not really want to set up a very meaningful independent resolution mechanism, might feel that the wording of the bill with these amendments might provide a way to get around the provisions the bill.

I do not know what the solution is; therefore, I will turn to your good wisdom on this. We have not been able to come up with language that accommodates this yet. The whole essence of my bill says that there are consequences if a department or agency does not meet the performance standard: their user fee will be reduced.

If I read this bill with the proposed amendment, I am concerned that the department or agency would claim that, despite their best effort, they were unable to come up with a performance standard and that they have been struggling in an attempt to set up an independent dispute resolution mechanism. That report is tabled in the House of Commons and in the Senate, and then witnesses could be called. However, in terms of the bill, this language says that, notwithstanding the fact that they have neither come up with a performance standard nor established an independent dispute resolution mechanism, they can still proceed with the user fee.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen, forgive me, but what I see here is that, notwithstanding the fact that the House of Commons has passed a resolution revoking it or reducing it, the fee is still valid. Does that mean they keep collecting it, notwithstanding a resolution revoking it or reducing it on the part of Parliament?

Mr. Cullen: We can come to that question as well.

The Chairman: Let me ask the official here.

Ms. Bouzigon: This issue goes to the nature of what is done by the bill. With the amendments that you have before you, the bill contains very strong provisions and parliamentary oversight with process to committee, clear direction as to what has to be put before the House committee, and clear direction as to not only what must be put before the committee but also how and what must be contained in relation to the various elements described by Mr. Cullen. It also provides a process for review and then referral to the House.

Even with the proposed amendments, the bill does not make that process controllable by the courts. That is what we want to avoid in the view of what we have been instructed to work on by Treasury Board officials. That was the objective, namely, to strengthen the role of Parliament on oversight of the proposal for fees.

The Chairman: What is the meaning of the word ``invalid'' in this? I thought at least part of this bill was to allow Parliament, if it wished, under certain circumstances, to reduce or revoke a user fee. Is that not part of the intent of the bill after a committee has recommended that to the Houses, let us say?

Mr. Cullen: Let me go back over some of the history of the bill. When I first started my bill, I used the phrase ``tabled in Parliament.'' I then got into this big debate with legislative counsel who said it had to be more specific. I then talked to some senators who said that they did not think they need a role for the Senate. You could have the report tabled in the Senate and the House of Commons at the same time. I have no difficulty with that myself.

The Chairman: That is not the issue I am raising.

Mr. Cullen: I know. I am coming to that. In the first bill that was drafted prior to my amendments in House of Commons, there was a veto power by the House of Commons committee and the House. If the House of Commons committee did not think the user fee has met all the tests and that it should not proceed, the only way the government could proceed would be to raise a motion in the House of Commons and defeat the recommendation of the chamber. I ran into huge opposition with that on the government side and with other academics in this area who were talking about how this would impact what they call the ``machinery of government'' and that it would rob ministers of their ability to make decisions about these sorts of matters. Faced with that opposition, I amended the bill in the House of Commons.

The last time I was here, I talked about the fact that the bill is less centred on the House of Commons because the user fee proposal would go to the House, the committee could report that they do not thing it is a very good user fee and does not meet all these tests, however that decision would not be binding on the House or the government.

However, because I took away the veto power, I inserted a clause, which has been adopted by the House of Commons, which says that if a department or agency does not meet a performance standard, the fee is reduced. That is right in the act that is presented to you. In lieu of a veto power of the Parliament, there is an automatic reduction in the user fee if the performance standards by the department or agencies are not met.

We have an amendment here that is more specific about how that would trigger in, but that is the saw-off that we made.

The Chairman: It refers to possible revocation of the fee in the amendment.

Mr. Cullen: Yes. If a new fee was tabled in the House of Commons and the Senate, for example, let us say the House of Commons referred it to the Fisheries Committee because it was a fisheries fee. The Fisheries Committee reported back to the House that they did not think the fee met the criteria spelled out. There had not been adequate consultation, it did not define costs clearly enough, there was no dispute mechanism, there were no private benefits conferred and so on. The committee might recommend that the fee be revoked or stopped, but it does not have a veto power. That is where it would end.

The Chairman: What do you mean? In this amendment, you are talking of the possibility that the House of Commons had passed a resolution approving the revocation of the fee. That means its elimination, I think.

Senator Comeau: No user fee is invalid.

The Chairman: How can that be?

Senator Comeau: That is his problem.

Mr. Cullen: That is my problem with the language, senator, because it basically says that notwithstanding the fact that the House of Commons and the Senate have said that the fee does not meet the test, there is nothing to stop a deputy minister or the head of an agency to implement the fee regardless.

Senator Comeau: Your bill is neutered.

The Chairman: Madam Bouzigon, what do you have to say for yourself now?

Ms. Bouzigon: I would submit that the wording might be unfortunate, and legislative drafters might come up with better ideas how to improve it.

Senator Oliver: It is contradictory, it is not fair and it does not do what you say it does.

Ms. Bouzigon: Our understanding was that the intent is to provide a parliamentary oversight process. There is an expectation that the committee, with its power to summon witnesses, including ministers and deputy ministers of departments involved, has the proper authority and the wherewithal to pronounce itself and have an influence on whether a fee proposal should be modified. The intent, as far as I could determine and as Mr. Cullen has expressed, that the proposal in legislation was to give parliamentarians a role in the process of setting fees and not leaving it to the entire discretion, if we want, of the administration. The bill does that.

The clause adds to the bill a confirmation that it will be up to Parliament or the House to decide and not the courts. This being said —

The Chairman: I do not see that. I am sorry. The bill contemplates that Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate, I suppose, would be able to revoke a user fee. This amendment suggests that even if it does so, the agency can continue collecting it.

Senator Downe: On that point, Mr. Cullen, as a supporter of the bill, do you support this amendment, or would you like a change?

Mr. Cullen: I support all the amendments, but I have some difficulty with this one, and we have not been able to reach an accommodation.

The problem I am up against is time. If honourable senators have improved wording, the trade-off then would be, as the president has indicated to me, that if it is adopted in the Senate and goes back to the House, the government will support it in the House of Commons, but it may be contingent on these amendments.

I do not know if it is contingent on every single amendment, but that is the challenge I am up against. If some of these amendments are changed, I would have to ask the president whether he would still support the bill back in the House of Commons. If it is adopted by the Senate with amendment here and goes back to the House of Commons and the government does not support it, I think —

The Chairman: I would hate to be in a position of having to defend this amendment in the Senate, much less the House of Commons.

Senator Downe: I share Mr. Cullen's concern on time, but I am concerned that this would, in effect, gut your bill because I heard your earlier comment that it robs the minister's ability to make certain decisions, and we heard the President of the Treasury Board earlier talking about the dawning of a bright new day. Maybe they could take some of that decision power away from ministers and reflect your concerns in amendment.

Mr. Cullen: Thank you.

The Chairman: Let us move on. I do not think we will settle anything. Sorry, did you want to add anything to that, Mr. Cullen?

Mr. Cullen: No, if there is wording that can be accommodated, that improves that —

Senator Oliver: Is the Treasury Board prepared to have this amendment withdrawn because the language itself is contradictory? It does not make any sense, and if it were withdrawn that would be one way of resolving the problem.

The Chairman: I do not think the official can answer to that.

Senator Oliver: We can ask her.

Mr. Cullen: Candidly, time is of the essence. Just to be clear, the president stressed that he does not want the bill to be bogging everyone down in litigation. I understand that. I told him that I understand that and that I can accommodate him, however I am very concerned about this language that basically says notwithstanding the fact that it does not meet any of these tests, you can still proceed with the user fee. If there is any way through your crafting that you can come up with something that meets that, I would be grateful.

The Chairman: Let us move along then. We are not passing these amendments or doing anything with them. We are just getting an explanation.

Mr. Cullen: Bill C-212 on clause 4 has a couple of things. There had been some concern that my bill was not clear enough on how this independent dispute resolution mechanism would work. This clause sets it out in the bill. An advisory panel would be set up. Earlier, someone asked about costs. This advisory panel would have the ability to decide on the costs, and if it was a frivolous complaint, then the advisory panel could say the costs go to the user.

Senator Comeau: You are now changing it from an independent dispute settlement to an advisory panel. Is that not quite a shift?

Mr. Cullen: No, senator. I cannot recall which clause it is, but the front end of the bill talks about an independent dispute settlement mechanism. This discusses the means and the methods of doing that.

Senator Comeau: Fine.

Mr. Cullen: This amendment also covers how one would compare a user fee with a major trading partner because sometimes it will be relevant. This puts in the word ``relevant trading partner.'' If there is no user fee in Timbuktu or whatever, or it is not an issue, you would not have to compare the user fee in Canada with the user fee in Europe, for example, if that was not an issue. Therefore, it inserts the word ``relevant.''

The next page proposes an amendment after line 25. These sub-clauses contain more details as to how the process might work. You could study that. My judgment in bringing forward the bill was that I did not think I would have to go into all this detail; that it could be set by regulation. However, the way the bill is structured now, you do not really need regulations, so that has an advantage, too.

Senator Oliver: I wanted to go back to the independent advisory panel. One of the things the minister said in his remarks is the need for ``a new clause detailing procedures for establishing the independent body that will provide advice and recommendations when stakeholders disagree with the fee proposal.'' In several other places in his testimony, he talked about stakeholders. This is supposed to be a stakeholder-friendly bill.

Where is it in this bill where the so-called ``independent body'' is spelled out in detail, and in it, do the stakeholders have a majority on this independent panel? If it is not in this bill, will there be some guidelines or something detailing the role and the powers of the stakeholders? I do not see it.

Mr. Cullen: The way that I saw it working, and I think that is reflected in this language here, is if there is a complaint that is received, then —

Senator Oliver: How many people would be on the advisory panel, and what percentage of them will be stakeholders?

Mr. Cullen: It says that the regulating authority and the complainant must each select one member to sit on the panel, and those members must select a third member. Therefore, you have the government —

Senator Oliver: The third person could or could not be a stakeholder.

Mr. Cullen: The complainant would be a stakeholder, you would think. If it is a marine fee or something and they are not happy with the way the government is handling this fee, he or she would choose someone to be on the panel and the government would choose someone on the panel, and the two of them would select a third person.

Senator Oliver: Are you satisfied yourself that this is stakeholder-friendly?

Mr. Cullen: Yes, I think it is. Having reviewed some of these amendments or all of these with the Business Coalition on Cost Recovery, which is the main stakeholder group, I think they are comfortable with this language.

Senator Oliver: That is what I wanted to hear.

Senator Comeau: You are changing it from an independent dispute resolution group to an advisory panel, which is quite a leap. Who are they advising?

Mr. Cullen: Senator, from the start, I never saw the panel as having a binding impact on the government. This wording aligns with my original thinking. At the front of the bill, there is mention of an independent dispute resolution mechanism. This embodies more the mechanism.

Senator Comeau: Your original intent was to have, rather than a dispute resolution group, an advisory panel.

Mr. Cullen: Yes. Perhaps the wording is bad but I never imagined that the recommendation of an advisory panel could be binding on the government.

Senator Comeau: I accept your intent.

Mr. Cullen: Yes, that was my intent.

The Chairman: We will move on.

Mr. Cullen: In clause 5 we have: ``be amended by replacing line 27 with the following: for user fee referred to ``it.'' I think this is quite technical.

Ms. Bouzigon: It accompanies the change to the definition of ``user fees.''

The Chairman: Now we get to a rather interesting and substantive amendment concerning this automatic reduction of the user fee.

Mr. Cullen: This reflects the clause in the bill that says: ``if a performance target is not met by greater than 10 per cent, the user fee is reduced accordingly.'' This amendment speaks to how that would actually be implemented. In this process I have also been working with Treasury Board and members of Parliament on how to make the Estimates process more meaningful for parliamentarians, as well as the planning and priorities documents that are tabled. Those documents will contain a section that speaks to user fees, to what extent they have raised user fees and to what extent the department has met performance targets. This simply means that in a report, which could be an Estimates report or a plans and priorities document, the agency or department will be required to report how well they did against their performance targets. If they have missed it by 10 per cent, then the reduced fee applies from the day on which the annual report for the fiscal year is tabled under subsection 8(1) until the day on which the next annual report is tabled. It provides the mechanics of how that would work. If, in the next report, the department were able to meet its performance targets, then the user fee would be increased to where it was before.

The Chairman: The perfect score would be 100 per cent.

Senator Oliver: The worst score would be 50 per cent.

The Chairman: If you had 85 per cent then you would be fined or your fee would be reduced.

Mr. Cullen: Yes, by 15 per cent.

The Chairman: Or by 5 per cent.

Mr. Cullen: If the standard is 100 per cent then and you made 85 per cent then you would have been over the threshold of 10 per cent so your fee would have been reduced by 15 per cent. In measurement, 10 per cent one way or the other is fine but beyond 10 per cent and my bill says there are consequences. This gives effect to how that will work in practice.

The Chairman: Shall we move on?

Mr. Cullen: I have been working with the minister and the department on clause 6. I had 40 sitting days and I heard the arguments of the department that 40 sitting days translates into many weeks and months. They had suggested 15 and in the last day or two, I was trying to increase it to 20 or 25. Obviously, they have not seen the wisdom of that. I am concerned with 15 sitting days. Some of my colleagues in the House of Commons indicated that it is too difficult to turn it around in 15 days because of other commitments to proposed legislation and various studies. When a user fee issue is dropped on them, they might have trouble with it, but they cannot get to it. So, within 15 days it is reported back as if everything is fine. Frankly, I think 15 days is a little tight. I would be happier with 20 or 25 days but it is not a deal breaker for me.

The Chairman: Colleagues, are there any further questions for Mr. Cullen or Ms. Bouzigon?

Mr. Cullen: This is the report the department or agency would have to make. That is essentially it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cullen. Congratulations on getting this far with your bill. We will take your good advice and that of the minister to see if we can make some improvements.

I changed my own mind several times but, as always, I am in the hands of the committee. Last week, I suggested to you that after tonight, when we received the amendments, we would take a few days to mull them over so that I would wait until next Tuesday morning when we would normally meet to go into clause-by-clause, if you did not want to hear further witnesses.

Earlier tonight, I thought that because there seems to be such a consensus on the amendments, as between the government and the sponsor, perhaps we could do clause-by-clause tonight. I am now coming to the conclusion that there is at least one amendment here that —

Senator Oliver: Clause 3.1 is a problem.

The Chairman: Unless someone has some words, which I doubt, I think we had better consider this for a few days.

Senator Oliver: I concur, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ringuette: Do I understand that the proposed amendments have been tabled?

The Chairman: Tabled, they are, yes.

Senator Ringuette: Could I add three additional amendments to what you have already received?

The Chairman: Will you distribute them?

Senator Ringuette: Yes. I have copies.

Senator Oliver: Will they add some light to Clause 3.1?

Senator Ringuette: They will add to the discussions in respect of the reports tabled in the Senate. These amendments will deal with that. It is proposed that clause 4(2) of Bill C-212 be amended by replacing line three with the following: ``Commons and the Senate;'' that Clause 8(1) be amended by replacing line 21 with the following: ``Before the House of Commons and the Senate;'' and that Clause 8(2) be amended at line 27 with the following: ``Be referred by the House and the Senate to the committee.'' That would allow the Senate, if it wants, to refer the issue or the report to the Finance Committee, and for us to deal with it, if the Senate deems to have it done.

Senator Oliver: Did you refer to section 6 as well, where there are two references to the House of Commons?

Senator Ringuette: No, I did not.

Senator Oliver: You are going to leave that as the House of Commons only?

Senator Ringuette: To review?

Senator Comeau: It is fairly well standard.

Senator Ringuette: Yes, I think so.

I think that in the ability to have tabled in the Senate the reports of the Minister dealing with all the user fees, the standards, the increases and so forth, that really provides for the Senate to decide whether the Finance Committee should be looking into the issues or not, depending on —

Senator Oliver: It is Mr. Cullen's 40-day problem though. It is 15 now, and if it were to go to the Senate, at least one committee of Parliament might have a chance to do it. Otherwise, the deeming provision comes into effect.

Senator Ringuette: I think we must not set aside the possibility that the committee of the House can strike a subcommittee to deal with any issue. Therefore, the time frame of 15 days can very well be met in regard to striking a subcommittee to deal with the issue and report back to the committee.

I understand that there is a need to restrain the time allocation to deal with that, so we could be going into one budget year and still be dealing with the user fee of the past budget year. There is a need to have some time constraint in order to have some discipline.

One of the objectives of this bill is to have discipline in regard to this particular issue — discipline coming from the departments and the people who establish those user fees in regard to standards, cost recovery and so forth. On the other hand, we need to have some discipline in the House of Commons and in the committees to deal with those issues, and not postpone and postpone and postpone.

I agree with the minister that we need to be disciplined about this if we want it to work. I believe that everyone on Parliament Hill wants this to work. If we see down the road that some time frames are impossible to meet, then perhaps we can review it and make amendments. From the start, it has to be a question of discipline in order to meet the objectives. If everyone is disciplined about it and if, with my proposed amendments, the Senate wishes to review and investigate the issue and the bill and how the process is achieving its goal, then by tabling the reports in the Senate, we have the flexibility to do so.

Senator Comeau: In reference to the point that Senator Oliver raised, Clause 6(1), the Senate is excluded from the question of passing, approving or rejecting resolutions. I will support excluding the Senate from that because I think it should be a House of Commons procedure.

However, with the amendments — if they are accepted — any committee can look at fees without necessarily being able to reject or change them. I especially like the example proposed by Mr. Cullen that the Fisheries Committee might want to look at user fees — I am referring to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans — without necessarily wanting to adjust them. They might pass the information on to the House of Commons, which could do whatever muscling needs to be done to change them. I have no problem with that.

The Chairman: Thank you, senator. Shall we wait until Tuesday morning for clause-by-clause study of the bill? Unless somebody has some words to solve the one or two problems that have arisen, I think we should.

Senator Comeau: I would like to take my lead from Mr. Cullen on this. He did point out that there is a time problem here. Every day that goes by — I would not like for us to be accused of delaying needlessly for another couple of days for us to find — would you prefer that we go ahead tonight?

Mr. Cullen: Thank you, senator. The problem I have is that I think, as far as the President of the Treasury Board is concerned, the clause that is causing me the problem is an important issue for him. I would be glad to wait for you to reflect on it and see if we can revise the wording, because if it gets back into the House of Commons with amendments and the government does not support them, then I am really up against a time line.

Senator Oliver: As Senator Murray said, 3(1) in its present form may not be defensible, even in the Senate.

The Chairman: Never mind the government — I do not think the members of the House of Commons will like that, if it comes before them in that form. That would be my guess.

Senator Chaput: I wanted to add to the comments. This needs to be defined. We need to understand clearly. If we do not understand how it can be applied, then nobody does. If the intention is, as you said, no bogging in the utilization, then I do not believe that that is what I understand when I read this clause.

Mr. Cullen: I missed that.

Senator Chaput: We need to define the clause 3.1. If the intention is not to have any bogging, then this needs to be reworked, because that is not the message that it gives me.

Mr. Cullen: I am sympathetic to the government's notion that we do not want to have a string of litigation. However, I worry that this language is so extreme that it gives the departments or agencies an out. Therefore, I am hoping that there is some compromise here that might be feasible.

Senator Ringuette: I am not a legal mind, but my understanding of this amendment is that, regardless of what review process that is being put in place, throughout the time that process is in place and the reference to the panel as per the amendments that were tabled, the established and accepted user fees have not been eliminated. That is the way I am reading this amendment.

My reading is that the wording proposed in 3.1(1) says that if there is a complaint within the system, it does not mean that there is no user fee during the time it takes to review the process and report back to the House, the Minister and so forth.

The Chairman: In other words, that the organization or person who paid the user fee will not be able to get it back, that it is revoked only from that day forward.

Senator Ringuette: No. There is a user fee for different services and products. If there is a proposed increase and a complaint is being put forward by a stakeholder, the process requires that a panel review the user fee. The way I read this amendment, all during the time of review, et cetera, the prior user fee is not eliminated.

I support the amendment because there cannot be a time frame during which there is no user fee in place.

The Chairman: That is not the way I read it. The way I read it is that even if Parliament decides to revoke it, the government can continue to collect it. Perhaps I am reading it wrong.

Mr. Cullen: When I first looked at it, I thought it the issue was more of a timing or transitional nature, but it is not, in my judgment. Clause 4(1) of the bill sets out the ``consultation requirements.'' It says that this is what is needed to introduce a new fee or to increase a fee.

The government is concerned that someone might say that they do not think they have conducted an impact assessment, so they take that to court. If they lose that, they go to the next level, and we would have a series of litigation. I am not sure that in a practical world this would happen this way. It would have to be a big user fee.

Nonetheless, to deal with that it says that notwithstanding the fact that the fee does not meet these requirements, it is not invalid.

The Chairman: Notwithstanding the fact that Parliament has revoked it, it is not invalid. That is what the section says and I cannot imagine members of the House of Commons or the Senate agreeing with that, if that is what it means.

I think the government is trying to say that the role of Parliament in these matters should be advisory. That is not what Mr. Cullen's bill says.

Am I wrong about that?

Mr. Cullen: In fairness, the original bill had a veto power that was replaced in my amended bill with this reduction in user fees if the performance targets are not met. With this amendment, for example, if a department or agency has difficulty setting a performance standard and comes to the Senate and the House of Commons and says that after having struggled with this they cannot come up with a decent performance standard, that might be enough to enable them to continue to charge the user fee.

The Chairman: Clause 5 says:

The Committee may review a proposal for a user fee relating to a service that is regulated by the government and provided only by it and that is referred to the committee pursuant to subsection 4(4) and submit to the House of Commons a report containing its recommendation as to the appropriate user fee, subject to the provisions of section 5.1.

It continues on to the reduction of the user fee, et cetera.

You have not changed clause 5, have you?

Mr. Cullen: Through the amendments made in the House of Commons I dropped a provision that said that a minister or a head of an agency could not implement a user fee or user fee increase if the committee of the House of Commons had recommended otherwise unless the government had brought in a motion and the recommendation of the committee was defeated in the House of Commons. It had a veto power and this amended bill does not have that power. In lieu of that, I put in clause 5.1, which is a recommending power. This term is absolute. If you do not meet your performance target, the fee is reduced, period.

The Chairman: Clause 6(1) says:

The House of Commons may pass a resolution approving, rejecting or amending the recommendation made by the committee pursuant to section 5.

It seems to me that if the committee recommended that a user fee be revoked and the House of Commons passed a resolution approving that recommendation, the user fee would thereby be revoked.

Madam Bouzigon shakes her head. I think this is the issue, is it not? The government is suggesting that the role, not only of the committee but also of Parliament, should be advisory in this matter; that such a resolution would have no effect on the user fee. That is the way I read it.

Ms. Bouzigon: That is the nature of a resolution, sir. It is advisory.

Senator Comeau: The more I look at this, the more concerned I become. I find it amazing that a bill would say that, notwithstanding what the members of the House of Commons want, if the officials say this fee will go through, it will go through.

The Chairman: Ms. Bouzigon makes a good point. It is not the same as in the Estimates where you move that a certain Estimate be reduced by a certain amount of money or that the whole Estimate be removed. You can do that and there is a formal vote on it. Madam Bouzigon's point is that it is in the nature of a parliamentary resolution to say that it is our opinion that this is what should be done, that it would not have the effect of reducing or revoking the fee directly.

Senator Comeau: Unless we had the word ``bill'' or something in there.

The Chairman: I suggest that we leave it at that and think over what we want to do. You may decide to go along with this or you may not. All those who are interested in this might consider it over the next few days and work with the clerk of the committee and the legal advisers to see whether you want to propose some better wording.

Senator Downe: I would assume as well that the President of the Treasury Board and Mr. Cullen would put their minds to try to come up with wording that may be acceptable.

Mr. Cullen: We have been trying and we will continue to do so.

Senator Downe: I referenced earlier the comments that the President of the Treasury Board passed around. The words are very positive and we should try to reflect that in a resolution. It talks about returning Parliament to the centre of national debate and decision-making. One of the key elements of this commitment is an enhanced role for members of Parliament to help shape laws. It is the view of the committee, I think, that the section as proposed does not do that. There should be a resolution from the president of the Treasury Board that reflects these words.

The Chairman: The issue is whether Parliament should have the right to reduce the user fee. That is what this comes down to, and I think you will have to consider that. If a committee, and then the House itself, became irresponsible and started reducing user fees all over the place, the implications are obvious. For those revenues that agency could not make up in user fees it would have to come to Parliament, which would have an implication on taxes, et cetera. I would think that parliamentary committees and Parliament itself would be fairly prudent.

Thank you Ms. Bouzigon and Mr. Cullen.

The committee adjourned.