Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege concerning the Minister of Health's non-enforcement of the Tobacco Act pending the passage of Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act.
Documents from the minister's office demonstrate that the minister will not be enforcing certain measures in the Tobacco Act which comes into effect tomorrow, October 1, and will instead be enforcing the provisions of Bill C-42, which is still before the House at second reading.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find the minister's presumption that Bill C-42 will pass, and his acting as if it has already passed, is a contempt of this House. I would hope that based on my presentation you will allow me to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The standing orders require that I raise this at the earliest possible opportunity. I point out that this is the eve of October 1 and therefore the earliest possible time when this matter could be raised.
There are provisions in the Tobacco Act regarding the ability of tobacco companies to sponsor public events that come into force on October 1. The measures in Bill C-42 supersede those measures, but there is no way that Bill C-42 will be enacted by tomorrow.
Through his careless handling of this file, and introducing Bill C-42 at such a late date that there is no physical possibility of meeting the legislated deadline in the Tobacco Act, the minister has left this House and the concerned members of the public in a difficult quandary.
As of tomorrow, the new restrictions on tobacco sponsorship under the Tobacco Act will have the force of law. However, the government says that it will administer the Tobacco Act after October 1 as if Bill C-42 has passed.
Let me quote from a briefing document from the Minister of Health's office which briefs the minister on how to answer questions on Bill C-42. The question is “What happens if the act is not in force by October 1, 1998 even if it is deemed to come into force on that date?” The answer is “Given that my intentions are now known it would be appropriate for the department to administer the legislation as if the amendment was in effect as of October 1, 1998”. Mr. Speaker, I appended a copy of this document to the notice of this point of privilege that I delivered to your office earlier today.
For the Minister of Health to administer the Tobacco Act from tomorrow as if Bill C-42 had passed this House is in my opinion a clear contempt of this House. When the Minister for International Trade earlier this year announced the formation of a Canada-China parliamentary association as if the House had created one when in fact it had not, you ruled, Mr. Speaker, on April 23, 1998:
In announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group and thereby prejudging a decision which has yet to be taken, the minister clearly overreached his authority. I am somewhat disappointed that a minister of the crown in acting with such haste may have prejudiced the very outcome that he wished to bring about. Such disregard for the administrative competence of parliament does nothing to enhance its prestige on the international stage.
Members have expressed their frustration over other announcements by the government which appear to bypass the authority of the House. As I have been reminded, this may have taken place on more than one occasion during this parliament.
The evidence shows that in the case of Bill C-42 this has happened again. Some might wish to argue that the government routinely collects new taxes announced in budgets before legislation passes through parliament and that this situation is comparable.
However there is no comparison. There is no reasonable alternative to collecting taxes once they are announced, for the obvious reason that individuals would take action to avoid them in the interval between the announcement and their enactment.
The time constraints surrounding Bill C-42 could have been to the contrary entirely avoidable. The government obviously knew that the October 1 deadline was in place and it had the opportunity to introduce amendments in a timely manner.
It is only through the carelessness of the government that we are now in a position of having to take the minister's intention as having the force of law. If this practice were condoned and the published intention of a minister were to have the force of law on a routine basis, there would be no point in having parliament at all.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to find that this constitutes a prima facie case of privilege and allow me to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.