Date: 20090702
Docket: A-521-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 224
CORAM: RICHARD
C.J.
NOËL
J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON
J.A.
IN THE MATTER OF THE USER FEES ACT, S.C. 2004, C. 6, TELECOMMUNICATIONS
ACT, S.C. 1993, C. 38 AND TELECOMMUINICATIONS FEES REGULATIONS 1995,
SOR/95-157;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION
AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION’S TELECOM DECISION CRTC 2006-71 AND TELECOM
PUBLIC NOTICE CRTC 2008-13;
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION DATED MAY 26,
2006, BY ALIANT TELECOM INC. (NOW ALIANT REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS, LP) AND BELL CANADA TO REQUEST THAT THE CANADIAN
RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REVISE THE CURRENT
REGULATIONS REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS FEES;
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY WAY OF A
REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 18.3(1) AND 28(2)
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS ACT, R.S.C. 1985, C. F-7, AND SECTION 14 OF THE CRTC
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RULES OF PROCEDURE, SOR/79-554.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RICHARD C.J.
[1]
This is a
reference brought by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC) pursuant to subsections 18.3(1) and 28(2) of the Federal
Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 and section 14 of the CRTC
Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, S.O.R./79-554 for this Court’s
opinion on a question of law with respect to the application of the User
Fees Act, S.C. 2004, c. 6 to proposed changes to the Telecommunications
Fees Regulations, 1995, S.O.R./95-157 (Fees Regulations). Aliant Telecom
Inc. (now Bell Aliant Regional Communications, LP) and Bell Canada (collectively, Bell) and Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers)
have also made submissions in this proceeding.
[2]
In Telecom
Public Notice CRTC 2008-13, the CRTC described the issue to be resolved in this
reference as follows:
Issues to be resolved
20. The issue to be resolved is whether amending
or replacing the Fees Regulations […] would amount to fixing, increasing,
expanding the application or increasing the duration, pursuant to
subsection 4(1) of the User Fees Act, of a "user fee," as
defined in section 2 of the same Act.
21. As such, it must be determined whether all
essential constituent elements of a "user fee" - including that it be
for the "direct benefit or advantage" of those paying the fee - would
be present.
22. The answer to this question would affect the
process that would have to be followed in order to amend or replace the Fees
Regulations […]. As explained in more detail in the Appendix to this Public
Notice, there are two possible alternative approaches:
(a) if the telecommunications fees are not
"user fees," the Commission would have to comply with the
requirements set out in sections 68 and 69 of the Act (which set out an
obligation to pre-publish proposed fees regulations for public comment and a
requirement to secure Treasury Board approval before making regulations
following pre-publication); or
(b) if the telecommunications fees are
"user fees," in addition to complying with the requirements set out
in (a) above, the Commission would have to comply with the requirements for
implementing "user fees" set out in sections 4 and following of the User
Fees Act.
23. The answer to this question would also
affect whether the other requirements with respect to user fees in the User Fees
Act, such as the requirement to reduce the fees that fund the Commission
when performance standards are not met, would apply.
Reference Question
[3]
The
question referred to this Court is the following:
Would
amending or replacing the Telecommunications Fees Regulations, 1995,
SOR/95-157 (the “Fees Regulations”), in the manner contemplated in the
application dated 26 May 2006 by Aliant Telecom Inc. (now Bell Aliant Regional
Communications, Limited Partnership) and Bell Canada (which requested that the
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission revise the Fees
Regulations) and Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-71, and as more fully described in
the Appendix to Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-13, dated 15 October 2008,
amount to fixing, increasing, expanding the application or increasing the
duration, pursuant to subsection 4(1) of the User Fees Act, of a “user
fee,” as defined in section 2 of the same Act?
[4]
For the
reasons that follow, I would answer this question in the negative.
Background
[5]
The parties
are all agreed on the following background information.
[6]
The CRTC
is responsible for regulating the provision of telecommunications services in
accordance with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives listed in
section 7 of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993.
[7]
Pursuant
to subsection 68(1) of the Telecommunications Act and subject to the
approval of the Treasury Board, the CRTC may make regulations prescribing fees
(Telecom Fees) for the purpose of recovering all or a portion of its costs that
the CRTC determines to be attributable to its responsibilities under the Telecommunications
Act. The current regulations have been in force since April 1, 1995.
[8]
Under the
current regulations, only tariff-filing Canadian carriers are required to pay
Telecom Fees (Fees Regulations, section 3). “Canadian carrier” is defined in
subsection 2(1) of the Telecommunications Act as a telecommunications
common carrier that is subject to the legislative authority of Parliament. The
amount paid by each of these carriers is based on its operating revenue
relative to the aggregate of operating revenues for all of these carriers (Fees
Regulations, section 4).
[9]
Canada’s telecommunications industry
also includes many telecommunications service providers (TSPs) that do not pay
fees, either because they are not Canadian carriers or because they are not
required to file tariffs.
[10]
On May 26,
2006, Bell filed an application
requesting that the CRTC revise the Fees Regulations in order to require the
Telecom Fees to be payable by all TSPs based on each TSP’s total Canadian
telecommunications service revenue (CTSR). Bell also submitted that changes to the Fees
Regulations should be considered in the context of the User Fees Act.
[11]
On
November 6, 2006, in response to Bell’s
application, the CRTC issued Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-71. In its decision,
the CRTC concluded that it would be appropriate for every TSP with annual CTSRs
equal to or greater than $10 million to pay annual Telecom Fees, based on its
operating revenue as a percentage of the revenue of all such TSPs. It is
important to note that the proposed changes would not, in themselves, increase
the CRTC’s revenues, but simply would broaden the base of fee-payers and change
the basis upon which telecommunications revenues are to be assessed.
[12]
In this
decision, the CRTC stated that it intended to commence the necessary process to
draft the required changes to the Fees Regulations (Telecom Decision CRTC
2006-71, at paragraphs 48-49). The CRTC did not consider the applicability of
the User Fees Act to the amendment process.
[13]
During
inter-departmental deliberations that followed the issuance of Telecom Decision
CRTC 2006-71, the CRTC received conflicting legal opinions with respect to the
application of the User Fees Act to the proposed amendments. As a
result, the CRTC stated in Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-13 that it had
reopened Decision 2006-71. In addition, the public notice stated that the CRTC
would refer the question of law cited above to this Court. Pending the outcome
of this proceeding, the CRTC stayed its review of the proposed amendments
(Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-13, at paragraph 25).
Issue
[14]
As
described above in the reference question, the only issue in determining
whether the User Fees Act applies to the proposed amendments to the Fees
Regulations is whether the Telecom Fees are user fees as defined in section 2
of the User Fees Act.
|
"user fee" means a fee, charge
or levy for a product, regulatory process, authorization, permit or licence,
facility, or for a service that is provided only by a regulating authority,
that is fixed pursuant to the authority of an Act of Parliament and which
results in a direct benefit or advantage to the person paying the fee.
|
« frais d'utilisation » Frais
ou droits exigés pour un produit, la fourniture de procédés réglementaires,
la mise à disposition d'une installation, la prestation d'un service fourni
exclusivement par l'organisme de réglementation ou la délivrance d'une
autorisation, d'un permis ou d'une licence, établis sous le régime d'une loi
fédérale et qui entraînent un avantage direct pour la personne qui les paye.
|
[15]
Section 2
also defines the following terms found in the definition of user fee:
|
"direct benefit or advantage"
means a benefit to the client paying the user fee with that benefit being
either unique to that client or distinct from and greater than benefits that
could also accrue to any other person or business as a result of that user
fee being paid.
"regulating authority" means a
department, agency, board, commission, or any other body mentioned in
Schedule I, I.1 or II to the Financial Administration Act that has the
power to fix a user fee under the authority of an Act of Parliament. Where
the Act gives that power to the Governor in Council or a Minister, it means
the body proposing the user fee.
|
« avantage direct » Avantage
pour le client payant les frais d'utilisation qui est soit propre à ce
client, soit distinct des avantages — tout en leur étant supérieur — que
pourrait aussi recevoir toute autre personne ou entreprise du fait du
paiement de ces frais.
« organisme de
réglementation » Ministère, agence, conseil, office, commission ou
tout autre organisme qui est mentionné à l'annexe I, I.1 ou II de la Loi
sur la gestion des finances publiques, qui a le pouvoir, en vertu d'une
loi fédérale, d'établir des frais d'utilisation. Lorsque la loi donne le
pouvoir d'établir les frais au gouverneur en conseil ou à un ministre,
l'expression s'entend de l'organisme qui les propose.
|
Position of the CRTC
[16]
The CRTC submits that
the Telecom
Fees do not meet the required elements of the definition of user fees under the
User Fees Act. Specifically, the Fees are not for a “product,
regulatory process, authorization, permit or licence, facility, or for a service
that is provided only by a regulating authority”. The CRTC asserts that unlike
user fees, which are imposed
by the government for the use of specific government services or facilities,
the Telecom Fees are regulatory charges that are calculated to recover the
entire cost of regulating the Canadian telecommunications industry.
[17]
Further, the CRTC
submits that the
statutory definition of user fee clearly requires there to be a direct
nexus between the quantum charged to each fee-payer and the benefits received
by that fee-payer. With respect to the Telecom Fees, the CRTC asserts that
there is no such relationship between the amount paid by a particular fee-payer
and the benefits received by that fee-payer. In fact, the CRTC submits that it
is possible that a particular fee-payer could receive fewer benefits than a
non-fee-payer depending upon the outcome of a particular CRTC decision or
activity. This is because there are many different parties, and not just TSPs,
that participate in CRTC proceedings, including both small and large telephone
companies, public interest interveners, business associations, government
authorities, and internet service providers.
Position
of Bell
[18]
Bell submits that the Telecom Fees are user
fees within the meaning of the User Fees Act since the CRTC provides
services, including dispute adjudication, regulatory processes, authorizations,
and licenses. Furthermore, Bell asserts that fee-payers do receive a
direct benefit or advantage – namely, access to a variety of regulatory
services and processes. This benefit is “unique” to each TSP, since each TSP
is different.
[19]
Bell disagrees with the CRTC’s submission
that the User Fees Act requires there to be a nexus between the quantum
of fees paid by a TSP and the benefit received by that TSP. In any case, Bell submits that there is a nexus under the amended fee
structure, since the TSP’s fee, based on its operating revenue, is used as a
proxy for the ability of that TSP to acquire economic gain from its
participation in the telecommunications industry. In Bell’s view, the fact that those TSPs whose operating revenues
are less than $10 million will not pay fees is simply a de minimis
exemption, introduced by the CRTC for reasons of administrative expediency.
Position
of Rogers
[20]
Rogers agrees with Bell that the Telecom Fees are user fees within the meaning of
the User Fees Act and concurs substantially with Bell’s submissions. Additionally, Rogers submits that the fact that the CRTC “bundles” its fees to
recover the costs of several regulatory processes or services should not take
it outside the ambit of the User Fees Act. Rogers cautions that to interpret the Act as applying only to
individualized fees would encourage regulatory authorities to avoid the
application of the Act by bundling fees for multiple regulatory processes. It
asserts that this is contrary to the purpose of the Act, which is to provide
transparency.
Analysis
[21]
To answer the
question referred to this Court, it is important to keep in mind Driedger’s
modern principle of statutory interpretation, namely:
Today there is only one
principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their
entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the
scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
Sullivan on the
Construction of Statutes, 5th ed. (Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis Canada, 2008) at p. 1.
[22]
All parties are in
agreement that, to be a “user fee”, the fee, charge or levy must be:
(a)
for a product,
regulatory process, authorization, permit or licence, facility, or for a
service that is provided only by a regulatory authority;
(b)
that is fixed
pursuant to the authority of an Act of Parliament; and
(c)
which results in a
direct benefit or advantage to the person paying the fee.
[23]
All parties also
agree that the CRTC is a regulatory authority within the meaning of the User
Fees Act and that the Telecom Fees are fixed pursuant to the authority of
an Act of Parliament, the Telecommunications Act.
Relevant
Jurisprudence
[24]
In its submissions,
the CRTC asserted that the Supreme Court of Canada decisions of Westbank
First Nation v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1999] 3 S.C.R.
134 (Westbank) and 620 Connaught Ltd. v. Canada (A.G.), 2008 SCC
7, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 131 (Connaught) were relevant to the interpretation
of the term “user fee”. In both these cases, the Court had to characterize the
fees at issue as taxes or regulatory charges in order to determine whether they
were ultra vires the authority of the imposing body.
[25]
While neither of
these cases considered the User Fees Act, I note that in Westbank
Gonthier J. characterized government levies as belonging to one of three
categories: taxes, regulatory charges, or user fees, which are a subset of
regulatory charges. He stated (at paragraph 30):
Although in today’s
regulatory environment, many charges will have elements of taxation and
elements of regulation, the central task for the court is to determine whether
the levy’s primary purpose is, in pith and substance: (1) to tax, i.e. , to
raise revenue for general purposes; (2) to finance or constitute a regulatory
scheme, i.e., to be a regulatory charge or to be ancillary or adhesive to a
regulatory scheme; or (3) to charge for services directly rendered, i.e., to be
a user fee.
[26]
In Telus
Communications Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 409, 344 N.R. 219 (Telus),
this Court reviewed the CRTC’s assessment of Telus’ Telecom Fees. While
Rothstein J.A. (as he then was) referred to the Telecom Fees as “user fees”
throughout the decision, he expressly declined to apply the User Fees Act
to the Telecom Fees since it was unnecessary to dispose of the appeal.
[27]
While these decisions
provide a useful background, the issue to be resolved in this reference is whether
the Telecom Fees are user fees within the meaning of section 2 of the User
Fees Act. I note that no party before this Court has asserted that there
are no longer the three types of government levies described in Westbank,
such that the User Fees Act would apply to all government levies that
are not taxes.
Statutory
Framework
[28]
In determining
whether the Telecom Fees are “user fees”, one must have regard to the
telecommunications objectives and the CRTC’s powers provided in the Telecommunications
Act.
[29]
The CRTC is
entrusted, pursuant to section 7 of the Telecommunications Act, with the
following objectives:
|
(a) to facilitate the orderly development
throughout Canada of a telecommunications system that serves to safeguard,
enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions;
(b) to render reliable and affordable
telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both
urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada;
(c) to enhance the efficiency and
competitiveness, at the national and international levels, of Canadian
telecommunications;
(d) to promote the ownership and control of
Canadian carriers by Canadians;
(e) to promote the use of Canadian
transmission facilities for telecommunications within Canada and between Canada and points outside Canada;
(f) to foster increased reliance on market
forces for the provision of telecommunications services and to ensure that
regulation, where required, is efficient and effective;
(g) to stimulate research and development in Canada in the field of telecommunications and to encourage
innovation in the provision of telecommunications services;
(h) to respond to the economic and social
requirements of users of telecommunications services; and
(i) to contribute to the protection of the
privacy of persons.
|
a)
favoriser le développement ordonné des télécommunications partout au Canada
en un système qui contribue à sauvegarder, enrichir et renforcer la structure
sociale et économique du Canada et de ses régions;
b)
permettre l’accès aux Canadiens dans toutes les régions — rurales ou urbaines
— du Canada à des services de télécommunication sûrs, abordables et de
qualité;
c)
accroître l’efficacité et la compétitivité, sur les plans national et
international, des télécommunications canadiennes;
d)
promouvoir l’accession à la propriété des entreprises canadiennes, et à leur
contrôle, par des Canadiens;
e)
promouvoir l’utilisation d’installations de transmission canadiennes pour les
télécommunications à l’intérieur du Canada et à destination ou en provenance
de l’étranger;
f)
favoriser le libre jeu du marché en ce qui concerne la fourniture de services
de télécommunication et assurer l’efficacité de la réglementation, dans le
cas où celle-ci est nécessaire;
g)
stimuler la recherche et le développement au Canada dans le domaine des
télécommunications ainsi que l’innovation en ce qui touche la fourniture de
services dans ce domaine;
h)
satisfaire les exigences économiques et sociales des usagers des services de
télécommunication;
i)
contribuer à la protection de la vie privée des personnes.
|
[30]
It is common ground
that the Telecom Fees pay for the activities that the CRTC determines to be
attributable to its telecommunications activities, including carrying out the
above objectives. In order to fulfill its mandate, the Telecommunications
Act gives the CRTC broad powers to provide several different regulatory
processes, services, and licences. For example, the CRTC may:
·
by order, exempt any
class of Canadian carriers from the application of the Telecommunications
Act and to determine compliance with any condition of such an exemption
order (section 9);
·
issue, suspend, or
revoke international telecommunications service licences and establish or amend
conditions for these licences (sections 16.3 & 16.4);
·
approve, amend, or
disallow the filing of a tariff by a Canadian carrier (section 26);
·
impose conditions for
the offering and provision of any telecommunications service by a Canadian
carrier (section 24);
·
approve agreements or
arrangements between Canadian carriers with respect to the interchange of
telecommunications by means of their facilities, the management or operation of
either or both of their facilities and the apportionment of rates or revenues
between carriers (section 29);
·
require a Canadian
carrier to submit periodic reports relating to any information that the CRTC
considers to be necessary for the administration of the Telecommunications
Act (paragraph 37(1)(b));
·
order a Canadian
carrier to connect any of its telecommunications facilities to any other
telecommunications facilities (section 40);
·
on application by an
interested party, inquire into and make a determination in respect of anything
prohibited, required or permitted to be done under Part II of the Telecommunications
Act (except in relation to submarine cables), Part III, or Part IV (section
48);
·
refrain in whole or
in part and conditionally or unconditionally from exercising the powers
referred to under sections 24, 25, 27, 29, and 31 of the Telecommunications
Act (section 34); and
·
generally determine
any matter and make any order relating to the rates, tariffs or
telecommunications services of Canadian carriers (section 32(g)).
[31]
The exercise of the
CRTC’s powers related to telecommunications services, licences, and regulatory
processes may provide benefits or advantages to non-fee-payers. In the past,
the CRTC has exercised its powers to:
·
establish a 50%
discount for Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) users on
long-distance calls for hearing or speech-impaired subscribers (Order CRTC
2000-17 (19 January 2000));
·
require telephone
companies to, on request, provide billing statements and bill inserts in
alternative format to subscribers who are blind (“Extending the availability of
alternative formats to consumers who are blind” (8 March 2002), Telecom
Decision CRTC 2002-13);
·
require access to pay
telephones, including implementing an upgrade program for certain pay
telephones to grant access to persons with disabilities (“Access to pay
telephone service” (15 July 2004), Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-47);
·
allow public
authorities to use the numbers and addresses in 9-1-1 databases to improve the
effectiveness of telephone-based emergency public alerting systems (“Use of
E9-1-1 information for the purpose of providing an enhanced community
notification service” (28 February 2007), Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-13); and
·
establish a National
“Do Not Call” List (“Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules framework and the
National Do Not Call List” (3 July 2007), Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-48).
* * *
[32]
Clearly, the Telecom
Fees pay for many regulatory processes and services that do not offer a benefit
or advantage to the fee-payer, let alone a “direct benefit or advantage”. Some
may even adversely affect a fee-payer. However, as noted by the CRTC in its
submissions, the fee-payer is still required to pay its share of the costs of
the CRTC’s annual telecommunications activities. I note as well that these
regulatory processes and services are not simply incidental or collateral to
those services or processes that offer a benefit or advantages to fee-payers.
[33]
This is not to
suggest that a fee-payer must be guaranteed a benefit in order for a government
levy to be a user fee within the meaning of the User Fees Act. However,
in my view, the Telecommunications Act sets out a complex regulatory
scheme, rather than the regulatory processes or services contemplated by the User
Fees Act.
[34]
Rogers’ suggests that
if this Court adopts the definition of “user fee” advanced by the CRTC, this
could encourage regulating authorities to “bundle” fees set to recover the
costs of more than one regulatory process in an effort to avoid the application
of the User Fees Act. However, no party suggested that the CRTC was
attempting to avoid the application of the User Fees Act to the proposed
Telecom Fees. Further, Parliament granted to the CRTC not only the authority
to administer discrete regulatory processes, but also the broad authority to
manage the telecommunications industry in Canada and to implement the telecommunications
objectives listed in section 7 of the Telecommunications Act.
[35]
This Court’s
attention was also drawn to the legislative summary accompanying the User
Fees Act. It states:
This enactment provides
for parliamentary scrutiny and approval of user fees set by regulating
authorities. It also provides for greater transparency in the cost recovery
and fee setting activities of those authorities, by requiring them to engage in
a participatory consultation with clients and other service users before
introducing or amending those fees.
[36]
While the Telecom
Fees are not subject to the scrutiny of Parliament, the Treasury Board must
approve the Fees Regulations, pursuant to subsection 68(1) of the Telecommunications
Act. Given the nature of the Treasury Board as a statutory cabinet
committee, the additional oversight envisaged by the User Fees Act was
not intended to apply to the Fees Regulations. With respect to the legislative
purpose of transparency, subsection 69(1) of the Telecommunications Act
requires that the proposed regulations be published in the Canada Gazette
and that “a reasonable opportunity shall be given to interested persons to make
representations to the Commission with respect to the proposed regulations”.
Conclusion
[37]
Accordingly, I would answer
the reference question as follows:
Would
amending or replacing the Telecommunications Fees Regulations, 1995,
SOR/95-157 (the “Fees Regulations”), in the manner contemplated in the
application dated 26 May 2006 by Aliant Telecom Inc. (now Bell Aliant Regional
Communications, Limited Partnership) and Bell Canada (which requested that the
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission revise the Fees
Regulations) and Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-71, and as more fully described in
the Appendix to Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-13, dated 15 October 2008,
amount to fixing, increasing, expanding the application or increasing the
duration, pursuant to subsection 4(1) of the User Fees Act, of a “user
fee,” as defined in section 2 of the same Act?
Answer: No.
“John D. Richard”
“I agree
Marc Noël J.A.”
“I agree
Carolyn
Layden-Stevenson J.A.”
Appendix
Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38.
|
68. (1)
The Commission may, with the approval of the Treasury Board, make regulations
prescribing fees, and respecting their calculation and payment, for the
purpose of recovering all or a portion of the costs that the Commission
determines to be attributable to its responsibilities under this Act or any special
Act.
(2) Fees required to be paid under this
section constitute a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada and may be recovered in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
69. (1)
Any regulations proposed to be made under section 67 or 68 shall be published
in the Canada Gazette at least sixty days before their proposed
effective date, and a reasonable opportunity shall be given to interested
persons to make representations to the Commission with respect to the
proposed regulations.
(2) Proposed regulations that are modified after
publication need not be published again under subsection (1).
|
68. (1) Le Conseil peut, par règlement pris avec
l’agrément du Conseil du Trésor, imposer des droits — et en déterminer le
mode de calcul ainsi que les modalités de paiement — afin de recouvrer tout
ou partie des frais entraînés, selon lui, par l’exercice de ses pouvoirs et
fonctions dans le cadre de la présente loi ou d’une loi spéciale.
(2) Les droits payables dans le cadre du présent
article constituent une créance de Sa Majesté du chef du Canada, dont le
recouvrement peut être poursuivi à ce titre devant tout tribunal compétent.
69. (1) Les projets de règlement visés aux articles 67
et 68 sont publiés dans la Gazette du Canada au moins soixante jours
avant la date prévue pour leur entrée en vigueur, les intéressés se voyant
accorder la possibilité de présenter au Conseil leurs observations à cet
égard.
(2) Une seule publication suffit, que le
projet ait ou non été modifié.
|
User Fees Act, S.C.
2004, c. 6.
|
4. (1) Before a regulating authority fixes, increases,
expands the application of or increases the duration of a user fee, it must
(a) take reasonable measures to notify clients, and other regulating
authorities with a similar clientele of the user fee proposed to be fixed,
increased, expanded in application or increased in duration;
(b) give all clients or service users a
reasonable opportunity to provide ideas or proposals for ways to improve the
services to which the user fee relates;
(c) conduct an impact assessment to identify relevant factors, and
take into account its findings in a decision to fix or change the user fee;
(d) explain to clients clearly how the user fee is determined and
identify the cost and revenue elements of the user fee;
(e) establish an independent advisory panel to address a complaint
submitted by a client regarding the user fee or change; and
(f) establish standards which are comparable to those established by
other countries with which a comparison is relevant and against which the
performance of the regulating authority can be measured.
(2) In addition to subsection (1), the
Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a proposal
(a) explaining in respect of what service, product, regulatory
process, facility, authorization, permit or licence the user fee is being
proposed;
(b) stating the reason for any proposed change in user fee rate;
(c) including the performance standards established in accordance
with paragraph (1)(f), as well as the actual performance levels that have
been reached;
(d) giving an estimate of the total amount that the regulating
authority will collect in the first three fiscal years after the introduction
of the user fee, and identifying the costs that the user fee will cover; and
(e) describing the establishment of an independent advisory panel in
accordance with paragraph (1)(e) and describing how any complaints received
under section 4.1 were dealt with.
(3) If the amount of user fee being
proposed by the Minister pursuant to subsection (2) is higher than that
existing in a country with which a comparison referred to in paragraph (1)(f)
is relevant, the Minister must as part of the proposal being made give
reasons for the difference.
(4) Every proposal tabled under
subsection (2) is deemed referred to the Committee.
5. The Committee may review a proposal for a user fee
referred to it pursuant to subsection 4(4) and submit to the Senate or the
House of Commons, as the case may be, a report containing its recommendation
as to the appropriate user fee, subject to the provisions of section 5.1.
5.1 Where a regulating authority’s performance in a
particular fiscal year in respect of a user fee does not meet the standards
established by it for that fiscal year by a percentage greater than ten per
cent, the user fee shall be reduced by a percentage equivalent to the
unachieved performance, to a maximum of fifty per cent of the user fee. The
reduced user fee applies from the day on which the annual report for the
fiscal year is tabled under subsection 7(1) until the day on which the next
annual report is tabled.
6. (1) The Senate or the House of Commons
may pass a resolution approving, rejecting or amending the recommendation
made by the Committee pursuant to section 5.
(2) If, within twenty sitting days after the tabling
of a proposal under subsection 4(2), the Committee fails to submit a report
containing its recommendation to the Senate or the House of Commons, as the
case may be, the Committee is deemed to have submitted a report recommending
that the proposed user fee be approved.
|
4. (1) Avant d'établir ou d'augmenter les frais
d'utilisation, d'en élargir l'application ou d'en prolonger la durée
d'application, l'organisme de réglementation doit :
a) prendre des mesures raisonnables pour aviser de la décision
projetée les clients et les autres organismes de réglementation qui ont des
clients semblables;
b) donner aux clients ou aux bénéficiaires des services la
possibilité de présenter des suggestions ou des propositions sur les façons
d'améliorer les services auxquels les frais d'utilisation s'appliquent;
c) mener une étude d'impact afin de déterminer les facteurs
pertinents et prendre en considération les conclusions de cette étude dans sa
décision d'établir ou de modifier les frais d'utilisation;
d) expliquer clairement aux clients la façon dont les frais
d'utilisation sont établis et en indiquer les composantes de coût et de
recette;
e) établir un comité consultatif indépendant pour le traitement des
plaintes déposées par les clients au sujet des frais d'utilisation ou de leur
modification;
f) établir pour l'évaluation du rendement de l'organisme de
réglementation des normes comparables à celles établies par d'autres pays
avec lesquels une comparaison est pertinente.
(2) En plus des mesures exigées au
paragraphe (1), le ministre doit faire déposer devant chaque chambre du
Parlement une proposition qui contient les renseignements suivants :
a) une description du produit, du procédé réglementaire, de
l'installation, du service, de l'autorisation, du permis ou de la licence
auxquels les frais d'utilisation projetés s'appliquent;
b) les raisons de la modification proposée des frais d'utilisation;
c) les normes de rendement établies aux termes de l'alinéa (1)f)
ainsi que le niveau de rendement déjà atteint;
d) une estimation du montant total des frais d'utilisation que
l'organisme de réglementation compte percevoir au cours des trois exercices
suivant la prise d'effet des frais d'utilisation et une indication des coûts
que ces frais permettront de recouvrer;
e) une description du comité consultatif indépendant établi aux
termes de l'alinéa (1)e) et du traitement accordé aux plaintes visées à
l'article 4.1.
(3) Si le montant des frais d'utilisation
proposés par le ministre aux termes du paragraphe (2) est supérieur aux frais
d'utilisation en vigueur dans un pays avec lequel la comparaison visée à
l'alinéa (1)f) est pertinente, le ministre doit donner dans sa proposition
une justification de l'écart.
(4) Le comité est saisi d'office de toute
proposition déposée en application du paragraphe (2).
5. Le comité peut examiner une proposition reçue aux
termes du paragraphe 4(4) relative à des frais d'utilisation et présenter au
Sénat ou à la Chambre des communes, selon le cas, un rapport faisant état de
ses recommandations quant aux frais d'utilisation appropriés, sous réserve
des dispositions de l'article 5.1.
5.1 Si, pour un exercice donné, le rendement d'un
organisme de réglementation à l'égard de frais d'utilisation est inférieur
aux normes de rendement qu'il a établies pour cet exercice dans une
proportion dépassant dix pour cent, ces frais d'utilisation sont réduits d'un
pourcentage — d'au plus cinquante pour cent — équivalent à l'insuffisance du
rendement. La réduction s'applique à partir du jour où le rapport visé au
paragraphe 7(1) qui est relatif à l'exercice est déposé jusqu'au dépôt du
rapport suivant.
6. (1) Le Sénat ou la Chambre des communes peut, par
résolution, approuver, rejeter ou modifier les recommandations du comité
visées à l'article 5.
(2) Si le comité n'a pas fait rapport de
ses recommandations au Sénat ou à la Chambre des communes, selon le cas, dans
les vingt premiers jours de séance suivant le dépôt de la proposition visée
au paragraphe 4(2), il est réputé avoir présenté un rapport recommandant
l'approbation des frais d'utilisation proposés.
|
Email this Content