Lost his last election, in 2011, with 25% of the vote.
Trade March 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know, having sat in the House, that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is in fact at this time consulting with Canadians all across Canada on the whole issue of the FTAA.
For our part, the Government of Canada is looking not only to business groups but to labour groups and different provincial capitals across the country and gaining Canadians' concerns and views on where we should be taking trade into the next millennium.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was talking about numbers earlier.
I know the hon. member was in this House up until 1993. I am wondering if he could tell me what the unemployment numbers were at that time. If I remember correctly it was 11.5%. Today it is 7.8%. Could the hon. member tell us what the budget deficit was at that time? I am sure he will remember that it was at $42 billion a year. Could he also tell us what the budget deficit is today?
The hon. member talks about numbers but those are the things we had to deal with before we brought in this budget. This budget is our attempt to try to deal with those dramatic numbers.
Petitions February 18th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present petitions from a group of my constituents who are concerned about child pornography. They petition the Government of Canada to amend section 486.1 of the Criminal Code, and be enacted a specific exemption to an open court rule by excluding evidence of child enforced pornography.
Culture February 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm for the hon. member that the Government of Canada does welcome the report of SAGIT.
It provides an overview of the issues facing our cultural industries in the export area. It is also a good starting point for us to do some consultations with Canadians on these issues.
As a result the Minister of International Trade has sent this report to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade as it looks at the upcoming WTO negotiations to try to get the views of Canadians across the country on this very important industry.
Agriculture February 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that I do not agree with the premise of his question.
The hon. member should know that we do not comment on interim reports. The final report is the final report. We will wait for that report to come out.
Freshwater Exports December 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does not support the bulk shipment of water. The government will serve notice on December 10 of its intent to submit a claim under the NAFTA.
As the hon. member knows, there is a 90 day waiting period for consultations. After those consultations and after our consultations with the province of British Columbia, I am sure the hon. member will further support the government's position.
Forestry December 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada shares B.C.'s concern about this misinformation.
The Government of Canada through its consulates and with working with the provinces in the industry has been putting forward internationally very strong arguments against this. We will continue to fight on behalf of B.C. forestry workers.
International Trade November 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in fact the United States government has not yet started an investigation. If it does proceed, the Government of Canada is confident that U.S. authorities will find no factual basis to these allegations, just as they have done in the past.
In 1987, 1993 and 1997 our cattle exports were investigated by the United States. They found no basis for any trade action against Canada at that time.
If they do decide to go forward, the Canadian government will work with the cattle industry and the provinces to defend our interests.
Points Of Order November 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order at the first opportunity so that I may conform to your dictum suggested in the House in your ruling of October 16, 1995 when you said “It is the duty of every member of the House to be vigilant in regard to section 53 of the Constitution Act and to scrutinize bills no matter where they originate”.
Mr. Speaker, section 53 of the Constitution Act as you are aware, states that bills for “appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing a tax or impost shall originate in the House of Commons”.
I respectfully submit that Bill S-13, an act to incorporate and to establish an industry levy to provide for the anti-smoking youth foundation, while not a bill that appropriates any part of the public revenue requiring a royal recommendation, is nevertheless a bill that imposes a tax or an impost and accordingly should have been originated in this House.
Bourinot on page 491 of his fourth edition reminds us that:
As a general rule, public bills may originate in either house; but whenever they... involve directly or indirectly the levying or appropriation of any tax upon the people, they must be initiated in the popular branch, in accordance with law and English constitutional practice.
With respect to this practice, Bourinot points out that it is now a fixed principle of constitutional government that all propositions for the imposition of taxes should emanate from the ministries.
Our standing orders provide that in order to introduce legislation that imposes a tax or an impost there must first be a notice of ways and means followed by the adoption of the motion and only a minister of the crown may do so.
Clause 36 of Bill S-13 requires those who manufacture, produce or import tobacco products to pay a levy. Historically in Canada tobacco has been taxed by means of legislation preceded by a ways and means motion that provides for “that it is expedient to impose, levy and collect on tobacco and cigars manufactured in Canada”. So reads the Commons Journal of 1918, page 233 and so reads the act based on that ways and means motion, an act to amend the Inland Revenue Act 1918, C.28,2.1.
In fact, going back even earlier in Canada's history, the Inland Revenue Act of 1883, section 248 uses the same language, i.e., “on tobacco and cigars manufactured within the Dominion of Canada, there shall be imposed, levied, collected the following duties of excise”.
The same wording continues to this day. In the Revised Statutes of Canada 1985 in chapter E-14, the Excise Act, section 200, duties of excise, states “there shall be imposed, levied and collected on tobacco and cigars manufactured in Canada”.
As Shakespeare said, what's in a name, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. That is in the case of Bill S-13 it may be demonstrated that a levy is in fact a tax.
During the debate in the other place in support of the procedural acceptability of the bill, the sponsor of Bill S-13 relied particularly on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, which was adopted by this parliament in 1997. Bill C-32 imposes a levy on persons who manufacture blank tapes in Canada or imports them and arranges for the distribution of these levies to groups, including those representing authors and performers.
While Bill C-32 may not have been preceded by a ways and means motion, it was yet introduced by a minister of the crown. Furthermore, the summary of Bill C-32, now chapter 24 of the Statues of Canada for 1997, points out that the enactment in effect provides among other things a regime to protect performers' performances to conform to an international convention, and establishes a remuneration regime in relation to the private copying of musical works, performers' performances and sound recordings.
In other words Bill C-32 comes within the exception set out in May's Parliamentary Practice , 22nd edition, at page 779 where it states “Levies upon an industry for purposes beneficial to that industry are regarded as not covered by the rules of financial procedure and so do not require authorization by a ways and means resolution”.
The sponsor in the other place relied considerably upon the 21st edition of May's Parliamentary Practice in support of his position. The 22nd edition of May notes at page 779 “Modern legislation frequently makes provision for the imposition of other types of fees or payments which, although not taxes in a strict sense, have enough of the characteristics of taxation to require to be treated as `charges upon the people' and therefore to be authorized by a ways and means resolution moved by a minister of the crown.
He also goes on to say “This distinction between the types of payments which are or are not covered by the rules of financial procedure is not always straightforward in practice”.
In particular May suggests “Where payment is imposed in order to meet the cost of enforcing a new regulatory scheme which is for the general benefit”—and I highlight general benefit—“rather than for the benefit of the industry”. That is on pages 779-80. Such a regime is one that requires the use of financial procedures.
Section 3 of Bill S-13 says the purpose of the act is “reducing the rise of tobacco products by young persons throughout Canada”. While the section refers to that being an industry objective, there is nothing more fundamentally public than matters of health, in particular the health of our young Canadians.
In the case of Bill S-13, the smoking public would be the real recipient of any benefit, not the tobacco industry. The purpose is a public purpose. That is its pith and substance. It is a public purpose. As the summary of Bill S-13 states, the mandate is to reduce the use of tobacco by young persons in Canada. In fact, the new title of the bill endorses the public purpose. Accordingly, Bill S-13 does not come within the exception mentioned above.
In fact, Bill S-13 is not unlike the reference in the 22nd edition of May to the case of the merchant shipping bill, 1973-74 which imposed an obligation on importers of oil to contribute to an international fund for the compensation for oil pollution damage, which required a ways and means resolution, even though the contributions were not to pass through the consolidated revenue fund. The levies to be raised by Bill S-13 are also not destined for the consolidated revenue fund.
In effect the levy to be imposed by Bill S-13 smacks of a tax. It represents the imposition of levies, charges or fees which are akin to taxation in their effect and characteristics and thus are subject to a ways and means resolution. That can be found on page 777 of May.
Apart from the public policy of permitting a group or an industry to raise money either through a public tax, levy or impost for a benefit that flows to the public, as opposed merely to the industry, Bill S-13 would also not only breach the historical constitutional convention that only the crown may impose a charge upon the people, but it would also fly in the face of the House of Commons jealously guarding its role in parliament. As Bourinot reminds us, such measures “must be initiated in the popular branch”.
The history of raising public revenue from the tobacco industry in Canada shows clearly that it was done by means of imposing a levy of excise under the aegis of the financial procedures in our standing orders. This is not the case for Bill S-13. Accordingly this bill should not remain on the Order Paper.
Forestry November 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is very concerned about any misinformation campaign on Canadian forestry practices being waged by any group or government.
I also want to make it very clear that sustainable forest management is a very high priority for the Government of Canada. We enforce our forest practice codes to the letter. Our missions and consulates around the world are standing up for the Canadian forest industry, the workers, the producers and the governments, and I think they are doing a good job.