The federal government’s aggressive embrace of cost recovery and user fees is really a hidden tax grab, the Reform party finance critic told the House of Commons last week.
And Medicine Hat MP Monte Solberg used some agricultural examples to make his point that this “taxation without representation” is hurting Canadian business.
IBP Lakeside Packers, of Brooks, Alta., is facing ever-higher costs from government charges, he said.
“It is having a terrible time contending with large increases in user fees which the government has slapped on them, while trying to remain competitive in what is a global marketplace,” said Solberg. “They have to compete with the Americans and others around the world. These fees make it extraordinarily difficult for them to do this.”
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
The Alberta MP spoke during debate on a proposal he offered that before any government user fee could be increased or a new one added, a Commons committee would have to review it and Parliament endorse it.
He said it was in line with a proposal from the auditor general in 1993 that Parliament should have more control over user fees.
Although supported by other opposition MPs, the proposal was rejected and ridiculed by the governing Liberals.
They argued that with thousands of user fees, including the price of firewood in national parks, the idea of parliamentary scrutiny of each one would be impossible.
“This would make the implementation of user programs virtually impossible,” complained Ontario Liberal Ovid Jackson, parliamentary secretary to the treasury board president.
He said he had checked with several departments, including Agriculture Canada. “All indicated that it would do significant harm to their ability to implement changes to their programs as scheduled under program review, leading to significant delays and compliance needs.”
He also said it would make user fees and government charges too political. “Fee setting would become an adversarial political process, with the House committees becoming a target for intensive lobbying from various interest groups.”
In a way, that was Solberg’s point.
While he said Reform believes those benefiting from a service should help pay for it, the present system gives government too much power to raise fees without control, even if their cumulative impact hurts the industry.
There should be political scrutiny, since many agricultural groups argue that fees are aimed at raising revenues for the government and not just covering costs.
Solberg said that from farm chemical costs to an immigration head tax, user fees collected by federal, provincial and municipal governments accounted for $23 billion annually, “more than Canadians pay toward the hated GST.”
