House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.
Paul MacKlin Liberal Northumberland, ON
Mr. Speaker, what is Canada Customs and Revenue Agency doing to ensure that its workforce continues to be representative of the four employment equity designated groups now that it is a separate employer?
Sophia Leung LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, our agency is committed to have a workforce which reflects all Canadian people. We will have full representation of all designated groups, such as disabled, visible minorities, women and aboriginals. We are proud to meet that target.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in a reincarnation of Captain Canada, or is it now captain alligator, has said that he will wage a Brazilian aircraft war by fighting fire with fire. What about our farmers who only receive one-third of the subsidy received by U.S. farmers?
The government is not willing to match agriculture subsidies throughout the U.S. but gives this multinational corporation, Bombardier, whatever it takes. Where is the fire to fight fire for our Canadian farmers?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member ought to check with his deputy leader, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who was quick to praise a federal loan to Haley Industries, a subcontractor of Bombardier, located in her riding.
At the same time, this government has provided over $500 million in additional funding for farmers in outright grants. If the member wants to praise the industry in the deputy leader of the opposition's riding, then he ought to accept the validity of support for Bombardier and for our farmers.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, this concerns the steady erosion of the shipbuilding industry in this country and the devastating loss of shipyard workers' jobs.
I commend the minister for facilitating an important collaboration between the shipbuilders and the shipyard workers in this country. He now is in receipt of an excellent report breaking through with solid recommendations for what we need to do to advance our shipbuilding industry.
When can Canadians expect a detailed response and, more important, concrete action from the government to enhance the shipbuilding industry?
Shipbuilding IndustryOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, first, may I thank the member for her question and agree with her that the report indeed is an excellent report in that it departed from the traditional approach vis-à-vis shipbuilding. It has made no request, no claim and no argument for the notion that we can maintain the industry by maintaining the basis of subsidies for shipbuilding.
Instead, it has built its report upon the belief that an innovative shipbuilding industry, taking those skill sets, those shipyards and finding the niches where it can be successful, is what government, the private sectors and the unions working together ought to achieve.
We are working on the report and we expect a response in the weeks ahead.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Claudio Mansilla, Minister of Foreign Trade and Investment of the Republic of Bolivia.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would also like to draw the attention of all hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Tony Knowles, Governor of the State of Alaska.
John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader the usual Thursday question, the business for the rest of the week and the business next week.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debate on the Bloc opposition motion.
On Friday we would like to commence consideration at report stage and third reading of Bill S-24, the Kanesatake legislation. We would then take up the report stage of Bill C-11 on immigration, followed, if there is any time, with the report stage of Bill C-25, the Farm Credit Corporation legislation.
When we return on Monday, we will commence debate at report stage and third reading of Bill S-17, the patent legislation.
On Tuesday, we will proceed with third reading of Bill C-11.
On Wednesday, we will take up report stage and third reading of Bill S-16, the money laundering legislation, followed by report stage of Bill C-25 if necessary.
I know all members have been reading with attention the report of the commission, chaired by the hon. Ed Lumley, on compensation which was tabled earlier this week. I hope to continue consultations next week and would hope that we could find a way to deal with these issues at that time in relation to the report provided to us by Commissioner Lumley and others.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Today the Chair heard submissions on a point of order raised by the government House leader in relation to Bill S-15, a bill that has now received first reading in the House. At the request of certain hon. members, the matter was deferred until today for two hon. members to make submissions. The hon. House leader for the opposition perhaps could give the Chair the benefit of his advice on this point.
John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, the two questions raised with respect to Bill S-15 are in regard to the need for a royal recommendation and whether the levy described in the bill is a tax.
The fundamental purpose of the requirement for a royal recommendation is to limit the authority for appropriating money from the consolidated revenue fund to the government.
In section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, appropriation is defined to mean any authority of parliament to pay money out of the consolidated revenue fund. The consolidated revenue fund is defined to mean the aggregate of all public moneys that are on the deposit of the credit of the receiver general. Only ministers can obtain the necessary approval from the governor general for a royal recommendation to appropriate these funds. The constitution stipulates that bills requiring or processing a royal recommendation must originate in the House of Commons.
With respect to Bill S-15, the money raised through the levy is to be collected by the Canadian tobacco industry. Therefore I see no requirement for a royal recommendation for the bill.
The second question has to do with whether or not the levy established through the bill constitutes a tax. In plain language of the bill, the bill speaks in terms of a levy rather than a tax. The purpose of the levy, as stated in the bill, is to meet an industry purpose beneficial to the industry, although the industry purpose also has public benefit.
The levy is imposed exclusively on tobacco products of whatever description and is to be spent in pursuit of the goals listed in the bill. Consequently, what is being proposed is a levy, not a tax.
Erskine May describes two criteria by which a bill proposing a levy is exempt from the financial procedures, including the adoption of a ways and means resolution that would normally apply to bills imposing a tax. The first criterion is that the levy must be for industry purposes. The second is that the funds collected must not form any part of government revenue.
Erskine May includes examples of bills from the United Kingdom which were regarded as levies, as well as those which failed to meet either or both of these two criteria.
There are recent Canadian experiences, as well. In this parliament we have the example of Bill C-27 which imposes a levy on the nuclear industry. The government felt it necessary to attach a royal recommendation to the bill and adopted a ways and means motion prior to its introduction.
In support of Bill S-15, we have the example of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, which was considered in the 35th parliament. Bill C-32 imposed a levy on the sale of blank tapes to be distributed to artists and artist groups as a form of royalty. Bill C-32 did not have a royal recommendation and the bill was not preceded by a ways and means resolution.
In Speaker Parent's ruling of December 2, 1998, regarding Bill S-13, the predecessor to Bill S-15, he cited the following:
The levy was of benefit to that industry since it permitted the audio duplication of copyright material for private use. This would enhance the market for blank audio tapes. The levy on the tapes was designated to raise funds by which owners of copyright material would be compensated for losses caused by private duplication of that material. The link between the benefit to the industry and the levy being imposed seems clear in that case.
To make a comparison of Bill C-32 to Bill S-13, the Speaker went on to say of Bill S-13:
Surely the lack of credibility referred to here is a function of our common sense understanding of the self-interest of the tobacco industry, namely, that as a commercial enterprise its primary goal is to expand its markets and thereby to increase profits. Young people would constitute the future growth potential for the industry's market. How could it be to the benefit of the industry to reduce smoking among the very people who would constitute its growth market? It is this implausible proposition that underlies the credibility problem to which the bill refers.
With all due respect to Speaker Parent, he may have been a competent school teacher and a respected speaker of the House but that did not qualify him as a director of marketing for a tobacco company.
I, myself, do not pretend to guess at the marketing strategy of those corporations. If the fate of the bill hinges on whether the levy is a benefit to the industry or not, we should get that answer from the tobacco industry itself.
The claim that the bill is not beneficial to the industry is false. The industry has been asking for this very bill. It has been running ads in support of Bill S-15. I have a copy here and I will give a copy to you, Mr. Speaker, at the end of my comments. At the end of the ad it states:
Imperial Tobacco and JTI MacDonald strongly support Bill S-15. We believe that it is consistent with our companies' view that underage people should not smoke and that the decision to do so should be an informed one made only by adults. We commend those who have worked so hard to help bring Bill S-15 towards reality and reaffirm our support for the Bill and the Foundation it would create.
There you have it, Mr. Speaker. The industry clearly supports the bill. If we go back and consider Speaker Parent's suggestion that common sense prevail, it is common sense that Bill S-15 is beneficial to the tobacco industry since it is going to great lengths and spending large sums of money on these ads promoting the bill.
The other weakness in the argument of Speaker Parent in this is when he said:
How could it be to the benefit of the industry to reduce smoking among the very people who would constitute its growth market?
Mr. Robert Parker, chairman and chief executive officer of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, stated before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on April 1, 1997, the following:
The manufacturers agree that youth should not smoke, period.
Don Brown, past chairman, president and CEO of Imperial Tobacco and chair of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, made similar comments regarding youth smoking to the Vancouver Board of Trade on October 1, 1998. He said “We believe children should not smoke—”.
Finally, Speaker Parent, in his ruling, overlooked the fact that selling cigarettes to minors is against the law. He was suggesting that breaking the law is a common sense marketing strategy.
In the event the Speaker is sympathetic to the point of view of the government House leader, I offer another alternative, and this will be my last point.
In our rules there are exemptions regarding financial matters. Standing Order 80(1) states:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
Standing Order 80(2) states:
In order to expedite the business of Parliament, the House will not insist on the privilege claimed—.
The standing order describes these circumstances as, and I quote:
—penalties thereby imposed are only to punish or prevent crimes and offences—
The purpose and the benefit of Bill S-15 would be to prevent young people from smoking. Since this is considered an offence, it would meet the criteria of Standing Order 80(2). I would think that the government and all members of the House would not, in this instance, insist on its financial privileges. Bill S-15 is aimed at significantly reducing underage smoking in Canada. What better reason is there than that.
Finally, the Senate Speaker, in his ruling of April 2, 1998 on Bill S-13 said that it was his view that, and I quote:
—matters are presumed to be in order except where the contrary is clearly established by the case. This presumption suggests to me that the best policy for a Speaker is to interpret the rules in favour of debate.
In this case I would argue that we should give the benefit of the doubt to the receivability of Bill S-15 and allow for debate and a decision by the House on a very important issue for the young children of this country.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my gratitude to the Chair for deferring this matter in order to hear my brief submission, as well as the submission of my learned friend.
I will be focusing in on procedural, as opposed to legal or constitutional arguments, which is where I believe the focus should be on this particular point.
The issues at play are very important and very complex. They go to the very pith and substance of responsible government. The sad part is that it is the failure of the government to act responsibly that has given rise to this bill.
The ruling of Speaker Parent dealt with the content of Bill S-13. Bill S-15, we are told, was drafted to answer some of the procedural objections raised by the Chair. This bill of course we know originated in the Senate. Others have also addressed that point and supporting material has been filed with the Chair.
Speaker Parent's ruling seemed to reject, based on a common sense approach or standard, that the industry could not possibly want something that would hurt its own cause. Yet there is a clear indication that the industry does in fact want this scenario and has asked for it on previous occasions.
The logic seems to be that the industry was possibly in the process of hurting itself, yet the Speaker seemed to think this was implausible. Following that logic, if the industry was in favour of causing harm to children this would be illegal. We very much need to look at what the industry has said in this instance.
The government House leader has suggested that the levy proposed in the bill amounts to a tax and therefore a burden on the people. However there is proof that it is not a tax. If one examines in detail the provisions of the bill one will find that it is not a tax.
Let us look closely. The charge is made not on the population at large but is placed on the industry itself with the proceeds directed specifically and narrowly. The proceeds are to be used completely outside the process of government and, I hasten to add, for a positive benefit: the promotion of health and healthy living of young Canadians. The proceeds are not to be used by the government but are for private use.
There is a precedent for this situation. It is dealt with on page 763 of the 18th edition of Erskine May. At this point I must recognize that Speaker Parent resorted to precedent from the 22nd edition of May.
There is a corollary issue surrounding the issue of competing editions of this volume and the degree to which the house of commons at Westminster continues to indirectly legislate this parliament, but that is best left for another time. I will return to my friendly 18th edition of May where I find compelling precedents that outnumber the modest rule of the 22nd edition.
Speaking of instances where levies have been treated as matters outside the ways and means rules, Erskine May cites 10 instances of bills which oppose levies and levies which have been used for purposes other than direct positive benefits to an industry. The levy can be used for other purposes. Clearly precedents exist both in the jurisdictions of Great Britain and Australia. I submit that this is the case with respect to Bill S-15. I am quoting from page 763 of Erskine May which states:
It may sometimes be difficult to define the limits of an industry, as in the Wheat Bill, 1932 (which was treated as within this rule) under which levies upon importers of flour formed a fund for making payments to growers of wheat. An even more difficult case was the Mineral Workings Bill, 1951, under which a fund fed by contributions from ironstone operators, owners and the Exchequer was set up to restore agriculture land from which iron ore had been extracted. This again was held to be a levy on the operators and owners though it involved some extension of the rule.
The royal recommendation was required on the mineral workings bill because of the contribution required from the exchequer. That was significant in the House as recorded in volume 486 of Hansard , column 1809. There was no royal recommendation required in the instance of the wheat bill. Both bills passed both houses without being treated as taxes.
It is my submission that Bill S-15 has nothing to do with public funds. It distinguishes itself from the traditional definition of tax because there is no reference to public funding. All money collected from the companies would go directly to the foundation and would bypass general revenue. The government would not touch it. The origins and arrivals would not evolve around the government or the public purse. It would in no way impact in terms of a revenue generating source.
Further, it distinguishes itself from any traditional definition of tax because there is no reference to public funding. If one were to look at it from a Canadian analogy or perspective, perhaps one should ask if it would be proper to originate a private bill in the Senate which established an enterprise such as a railroad, a church or an international bridge. In that legislation the enterprises were given the duty to carry out certain objectives and in return the right to make enforceable charges upon their clientele.
That is the situation that applies in this instance. There is a willing customer and a willing vendor seeking the right to carry out an enterprise under the authority of the Parliament of Canada.
The Speaker knows that private members' bills can and indeed regularly originate in the Senate. All sorts of special conditions and powers are granted to those private situations. When a bill arrives here from the Senate, the House does not look into the question of how the Senate views the bill. It arrives here not as a Senate public bill or a Senate private bill, but rather as a bill passed by the Senate to which the concurrence of the House of Commons is requested.
If the House is to restrict the right of the Senate to send us private bills which contain financial powers for the applicants, there will be a significant problem for canals and international bridges that levy tolls and for churches and other bodies established under the authority of the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I thank you again for facilitating my contribution to this procedural issue. As you have said, it is an important issue for the public to understand. The political issue is not one over which you have any influence. You are acting as referee on questions of compliance within the rules of the Chamber. All members understand and appreciate your duties in that regard.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I thank all hon. members for their interventions on this point. The Chair will take the matter under advisement, as I indicated yesterday, and will get back to the House at the first opportunity.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I wonder if there would be consent to put forward two committee travel authorizations at this time, one dealing with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the other dealing with the subcommittee on international trade.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Is the House prepared to deal with these two motions at this time?
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That seven (7) members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and three (3) staff persons of the Committee be authorized to travel to Regina, Saskatchewan, to attend the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees from September 16 to 18, 2001.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, in relation to its examination of Softwood Lumber, six (6) members of the Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the necessary staff be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., for a period of two (2) days with travel taking place at some time during the period of June 1 to July 31, 2001.