John Reynolds

[Petitions, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents in the area of Powell River, British Columbia who are asking the government to declare that Canada objects to the national missile defence program in the United States. They ask that Canada play a leadership role in banning nuclear weapons and missile flight tests in Canada.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce two petitions today.

The first petition is from constituents in West Vancouver who urge the Government of Canada to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers in Canada.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 5th, 2001]

And the private sector also. The issue of MPs' salaries has always been a contentious one. Accordingly, the Canadian Alliance will treat each vote on the bill as a free vote for our members.

The member over there can smile and laugh but that is what the House is all about; it is about integrity and making one's position and one's point with a free vote.

If members of that party over there want to talk about integrity, I would ask them to talk about the minister for multiculturalism and her integrity about flags burning in Prince George. If they want to about integrity, we will talk about that. If they want to talk about integrity, let us talk about Bill C-15 and how they will not split a bill that is very important for all Canadians. We are prepared to do that.

The government also did one thing that was not put in the report by the commission. The commission recommended that it be retroactive to April 1. The government wants it to be January 1. That is greedy and not acceptable. It should be April 1, which is our fiscal year. That would have been fine with members on this side.

It has also been the policy of the Canadian Alliance that our constituents have their say on the issue of MPs' salary increases. Accordingly, we will move at the report stage that the increase, if passed, come into force after the next general election. This fulfils our policy that voters be involved in the issue.

There is a strange twist in Bill C-28, and it is something that I think should be talked about. I have checked for precedent, including with the crucible of our parliamentary system Westminster. I can find no precedent. Bill C-28 calls for an opting in, in order to receive a salary increase. I have heard of opting out, which of course we saw in the issue of MP pensions. However Bill C-28 has an implied threat that if anyone does not sign on in 90 days, then one does not receive the salary increase.

The Prime Minister's threat of a week ago has come home to roost. It is intimidation, which I find unparliamentary. The government, obviously as instructed by the Prime Minister, is entertaining the notion of two classes of MPs. Rather than take the recorded vote as final determination on the bill, and consequently salary increases, the government is holding MPs hostage to another step in the process: sign a document within 90 days of passage of this bill indicating they are opting in or they will receive less than other colleagues.

Even the House leader said that is unacceptable. Nobody in the House should be earning any different from anybody else, yet it is in the bill.

Is this not a form of double jeopardy? It certainly is stealthy politics in an already sensitive and contentious issue. Why would the government want to add further dimension to the issue other than to embarrass certain MPs from certain parties? Passage of a bill on third reading in our parliamentary system is final determination. Does the government have the constitutional right to alter this entrenched process? That is a very good question.

The new way of determining the outcome of articles in legislation may even contravene pay equity. Does the government have the right to establish two classes of MPs? I may not be stretching the point by saying that this opting in initiative may be an affront to parliament itself.

Section 31 of the charter of rights and freedoms states that nothing in the charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority. Is the government overextending its legislative powers by the addition of this fourth step, the new opting in requirements in Bill C-28?

The nuances of opting out of something as opposed to being forced to opt into something that the majority of parliament may pass is not subtle. It is a dynamic and dramatic departure from legislative precedent and nothing but intimidation and mendacity on the part of the government.

There is an implied threat in Bill C-28 that has no place in our parliament. Politics may ensue during debate on a bill, but I do not believe that a political manipulation should be encapsulated in a bill and then foisted on MPs after passage of a bill. It is a mockery of our process and diminishes the significance of the three stages of the passing of legislation. Why have debate? We could anonymously sign on to any initiative and that would determine the outcome. Has the government become that arrogant?

In view of that clause of the bill, I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “That” with the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, since the principle of the bill contravenes the spirit of pay equity by establishing a two tier pay scheme for Members of Parliament.”

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance has repeatedly called for an independent commission to make recommendations regarding MPs' salaries. It is entrenched Canadian Alliance Party policy that the issue and process of MP salaries be transparent. The commission's work has been transparent. I commend the commissioners for their contributions to the issue.

I also commend them for making sure that in the future the Prime Minister will not appoint any more commissions to look at pay, it will be done by the people who look at the judges' salaries, which is independent. They are appointed by the judges plus judicial counsel, both sides agreeing on an independent chairperson. That is a good recommendation and I commend the commission for that.

The Canadian Alliance is pleased that the commission recommended a reduction in the accrual and contributions rate in the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

The Canadian Alliance has also promoted the concept that MPs' pensions should be more in line with the private sector. The commission has concurred and we thank them for that acknowledgement.

I know the day we got the report from the commission as house leaders, it was recommending a 2.5% accrual rate. The government had seen to make it 3%. I wish it would have stayed with the 2.5% because that was more acceptable and much closer to the public sector.

[Business Of The House, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on Monday, June 4, 2001.

[Points Of Order, May 31st, 2001]

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.

[Business Of The House, May 31st, 2001]

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.

[Points Of Order, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for your indulgence. As official opposition we did not have notice that the bill would be introduced and discussed today. I would like some time to prepare an answer to what we have heard from the government House leader so that we may represent another point of view on the issue before you decide whether or not the bill is in order.

[Business Of The House, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the usual Thursday question of the government House leader on the business for the rest of the week and the business for the week after next, after we all get the well deserved break next week to go home and spend some time with our constituents.

What can we look forward to when we return and have an opportunity to see the report from the members' services and pay commission that we expect any time? Can he tell us what we will be doing in the House?

[Fisheries, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, abalone harvesting licence holders on the west coast remain second class citizens. Unlike other licence holders in other fisheries who have been disenfranchised from their livelihood due to closures, the federal government has never initiated a buyback program for owners of now useless abalone licences.

The government's approach to disenfranchised abalone licence holders was to set up an advisory body to discuss the issue with the native fishery and coastal communities affected by the closure. This is nothing but an attempt to bury the issue in a bureaucratic maze, hoping the real disenfranchised, the abalone licence holders, would forget about the whole thing.

A year ago I asked the minister of fisheries for a meeting to discuss the issue and to date I have not been accorded the courtesy of a response to my letter. When will I get a response from the minister? When will abalone licence holders get what they deserve? When will the minister realize he is from British Columbia? These people are suffering.

I heard why do I not ask the parliamentary secretary, that he should know what the minister is doing if he is doing his job. They are not answering these questions. They should answer them and do something immediately.