Rose-Marie Ur

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-71 respecting the tobacco act.

If enacted one of the amendments would oblige the Minister of Health to lay before the House of Commons any proposed regulations under sections 7, 14, 17, 33 or 42 of the act. At that time an appropriate committee would be struck to conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to the House.

At the end of the 30 sitting days following the day on which the proposed regulation was laid before the House, the governor in council could make a regulation under any of the aforementioned sections only if the House of Commons has not concurred in any report from a committee respecting the proposed regulation, in which case the regulation may be made in the form laid, or the House of Commons has concurred in a report from a committee approving the proposed regulation or an amended version of it, in which case the governor in council may only make the regulation in the form concurred in.

As members will know, regulations are subordinate laws made pursuant to the authority of statutory provisions called enabling powers. The authority to make regulations is usually delegated to the governor in council, cabinet, but it may also be delegated to one or more individuals or to an independent agency. Ideally these powers are used to make the detailed rules that support the statutory provisions.

While there are a few particular cases in which parliamentary review of regulations before they are made is provided for, this process is a relatively rare exception to the general rule. In general the normal legislative process gives Parliament the role of setting out the principles of law in detailed provisions appropriate for inclusion in the statute and determining the scope and nature of the enabling power which authorizes an elaboration of these provisions by even more detailed supporting rules.

The making of this subordinate law is then left to government ideally in consultation with the primary stakeholders and with some input from the general public. What then are the exceptions to the general regulation making process?

The best example is section 116(2) of the Criminal Code which has required since 1992 that all regulations made pursuant to enabling power under part III of the code, the gun control laws, be

laid before Parliament for a review by committee prior to their enactment. A requirement that all regulations made pursuant to this enabling power undergo such a review is a precondition to exercise of the power to make the subordinate laws. Thus we see in section 118 of the Firearms Act a procedure for parliamentary review of proposed regulations before they are made.

Opportunity should be given to the House of Commons to scrutinize and amend, if deemed necessary, any regulations proposed by the minister under the said section.

While I acknowledge the general necessity and appropriateness of executive regulation making in the great majority of cases, I would argue that there are very good reasons regulation making powers in Bill C-71 must be subject to full democratic accountability which is only possible through Parliament.

We must first examine the context in which Bill C-71 was drafted. Essentially the bill represents a response by the Minister of Health to the last year's decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-MacDonald versus the Attorney General of Canada.

Members will recall that in the September 21, 1995 decision a majority of the court ruled the government had failed to demonstrate that the restraints in the Tobacco Products Control Act regarding advertising, promotion and labelling were reasonable, justified restrictions on the freedom of expression and consequently struck down most of the provisions of the act.

In its ruling the Supreme Court has also been helpful through its suggestions of a number of options which the federal government might use in future legislation. In particular, the court mentioned such options as a partial ban on advertising which would allow information and brand preference advertising, a ban on lifestyle advertising, measures to prohibit advertising aimed at children and adolescence, and health labelling requirements with the source of the labelling.

All these options have been incorporated in Bill C-71. Bill C-71 represents a conscientious attempt to respond to the guidance offered by the Supreme Court of Canada. At the same time we must remember that tobacco continues to be a legal product. The producers and retailers of this legal product continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms afforded to them by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Should we not then take advantage of every opportunity available to us as parliamentarians to ensure that any regulations proposed under the bill are scrutinized in detail and in public by a committee which would presumably invite all stakeholders to state their case pro or con on any proposed regulations? I certainly think so.

A public process would go a long way toward legitimizing any proposed regulations precisely because it would allow stakeholders the opportunity to propose in public improvements to the regulations. This public scrutiny of proposed regulations could very well lessen the possibility of court challenges against legislation.

Let us not forget the Tobacco Products Control Act was challenged in court almost as soon as it was proclaimed into law in 1988, taking another seven years before the case finally ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada. Do we really want a repeat of this process, especially when we consider that a number of tobacco companies have already been making threatening noises about further court action against the proposed legislation?

It seems to me we have a golden opportunity to correct flaws which existed not only in the substance of the previous legislation-and here I am referring to both the Tobacco Products Control Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act-but in the process as well.

No member of the House would welcome more court challenges to Canada's tobacco legislation. We want it to work. By inviting all stakeholders to participate in the regulation making process, I am convinced we will have created a forum whereby regulations will be made through negotiation rather than intimidation.

I will now say a few words about the actual scope of the enabling power of Bill C-71. In so doing I will argue that taken together they expand regulation making powers far beyond what may be believed as their legitimate scope and must therefore be subject to full democratic accountability, which is possible in Parliament.

The five sections I have mentioned provide for the enabling power to make regulations in the first five parts of the bill which deal with tobacco product standards: access to tobacco products, labelling, promotion and enforcement. Each section begins with the phrase "the governor in council may make regulations", followed by a number of relatively detailed subsections that enumerate the specific areas in which regulations can be made. So far so good.

Each of these subsections is detailed enough to satisfy the principle that regulations should only be made in areas that have been sufficiently defined. However-and here is where alarm bells go off in the minds of all members of the House-each of these sections concludes with the subsection "the governor in council may make regulations generally for carrying out the purposes of this part".

In and of itself this catch-all phrase represents sufficient reason to demand that all regulations proposed under the bill be brought under the scrutiny of the parliamentary committee. When we consider that the purpose of the first five parts of Bill C-71 is to introduce a number of restrictions in areas of product content, access, labelling, promotion and enforcement, surely all types of regulations to be made in these invasive periods should be spelled out clearly in enabling power. Unfortunately they are not and the reason is simply that each of these sections contains a subsection which gives the governor in council a virtual carte blanche to propose any regulation at all.

How does one define the phrase "generally for carrying out the purpose of this part"? No one can because the options are practically endless. If few people today seriously dispute the legitimacy of executive law making, concerns linger over the extent of these law making powers in the manner of their exercise. The perception is that the regulation making process is not fully compatible with the values of democratic and open government. Whereas statutes are enacted by elected representatives in a public forum, regulations will be characterized as the handiwork of appointed officials who remain unaccountable to Parliament or to the public.

I point out this final observation to my colleagues. Since regulations have the force of law, the process by which they are made must be one that maximizes opportunities for the citizens to participate in their making. Since the legislation which preceded Bill C-71 has been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada as a transgression against the freedom of expression, the least we can do as legislators is to ensure that reasonable constraints be put in place to check any potential abuse within the regulation making process of the bill.

[Women's Institute, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone knew about the day to day concerns and hardships of farm women, Adelaide Hoodless did. She was born on a farm near Brantford, Ontario, in 1857, one of 12 children.

Throughout her life she maintained her close connection with the Farmers' Institute. In 1897, at a meeting in Stoney Creek, Ms. Hoodless proposed the organization of a sister group to the Farmers' Institute and a few days later formed the first Women's Institute. The idea spread rapidly and by the early 1900s there were many chapters right across Canada.

The designated day for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Women's Institute in Ontario was February 19, the day Ms. Hoodless was made honorary president 100 years ago in Stoney Creek.

Women's Institutes in the riding of Lambton-Middlesex and in the rest of Canada should be very proud of their achievements. I take this opportunity to extend my heartiest congratulations.

[Pest Management Regulatory Agency, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

What assurances could the parliamentary secretary give that the minister will pay attention to the many concerns voiced by Canada's farmers and farm organizations and will make changes to cost recovery and Pest Management Regulatory Agency proposals?

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to provide some clarification on the Canada pension plan.

There have been numerous statements made that the Canada pension plan is a tax and not a pension. In my opinion when I pay my taxes I do not expect any funds back over x number of years. Presently as the CPP sits it is a pension and in due time whether it be through disability or retirement people expect to have a return for their funds invested.

Could the hon. member clarify his position that it is a tax and not a pension?

[Citizenship Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, during 1997 Canadians from coast to coast to coast will be celebrating a special milestone in the history of this country.

January 1, 1997 marked the 50th anniversary of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Prior to the passage of this important legislation, legally there was no such thing as a Canadian.

The inspiration behind the drafting of the Citizenship Act is a story worth telling. In February 1945 cabinet minister Paul Martin Senior visited a military cemetery in Dieppe, France. Struck by the varied ethnic origins of the soldiers' names on the gravestones, Mr. Martin concluded that the one thing that united them all was that they were Canadians.

With the blessing of Prime Minister King, Mr. Martin drafted a Canadian Citizenship Act and presented it to the House of Commons in 1946 where it was passed with overwhelming support.

This 50th anniversary is an opportunity to think about how precious our Canadian citizenship is and a chance for all Canadians to reflect with pride on how much we-

[Petitions, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table petitions signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding areas, each of which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners request that the House of Commons enact legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union for life of one woman and one man to each other to the exclusion of all others.

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is hard to have peripheral vision but I too was standing when my hon. colleague was standing, and I thank the hon. member for letting me speak.

I do not want to take up valuable House time with further justification of restructured, harmonized federal-provincial sales tax. The facts have been clearly and convincingly addressed by my colleagues regarding Bill C-70.

The HST will eliminate hidden taxes that inflate prices and hurt exports. It is a simpler, more transparent system for consumers and business. An integrated approach makes possible a lower overall sales tax rate.

What I want to focus on today is an aspect of this legislation that has too often been attacked by those who place partisan politics and narrow regionalisms ahead of clear objective thought.

This issue is a decision by the government to provide a formula for short term adjustment assistance to provinces when they face significant structural costs to participate in the new system. Under this system adjustment assistance becomes available to the provinces that experience a revenue shortfall in excess of 5 per cent of their current retail sales tax receipts because they moved to a single harmonized sales tax system.

For qualifying provinces, in this case Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the formula means that the federal government will provide full compensation for the revenue shortfall. That is the shortfall over 5 per cent of the current retail sales tax in one year, the same full compensation for the shortfalls in year two, half the amount of the shortfalls in year three, and 25 per cent of the provincial revenue shortfalls in year four.

This is a short term measure designed for the period of significant transition these provinces will be going through. It will end after four years, providing the provinces with sufficient time to adjust to the harmonized system.

It is important to note this is truly a joint program, not a one way gift. Under this formula there is near equal sharing between the federal government and qualifying provinces of the adjustment costs harmonization will entail over the four years.

Over the four year period the total adjustment assistance under the harmonization agreement with the three Atlantic provinces will be $960 million. I remind the House of what the finance minister has emphasized. This spending has been incorporated into our financial planning and will not jeopardize the federal deficit targets we have set out.

Some Canadians have asked why provinces cannot phase in full harmonization over several years, thereby eliminating the need for assistance. This approach has been tried in Quebec over the last six years. Unfortunately the result runs counter to making the new simpler for business. While it allows the provinces greater fiscal flexibility, the business community, especially small business, has made it clear that it prefers a one step approach to harmonization rather than the approach taken by Quebec.

The Quebec approach resulted in significant complexity and compliance costs for business. It meant adjusting to a new system and new rates in each of the transaction years. This greatly reduced the economic benefits of harmonization for the province as a whole. Because of Quebec's experience the three participating provinces have chosen to move to a single tax system all at once on April 1, 1997.

I am disappointed that some Canadians have attacked the entire concept of this adjustment assistance for a harmonized sales tax. They have a mindset that ignores history, misreads the present and lacks vision for the future.

Canadian history makes clear that government has played an essential role in our economic evolution and adjustments. Some examples of this role are tax and land grant support for the national railway system, negotiation of our Autopact, development of the St. Lawrence Seaway, megaprojects from Lloydminster to Hibernia, special tax conditions for oil and gas, research and development and small businesses. The list is long and honourable.

Many of these government actions and investments respond to opportunities but there is also a long and proud list of federal assistance for sectors and regions that face economic difficulties and dislocations or that must confront core structural change.

Equalization payments are an essential part of our constitutional framework. They recognize that all of Canada is stronger as a society and as a marketplace when we help less affluent provinces provide a basic level of public support and service.

In 1972 when the federal government instituted the income tax reform, every single province received adjustment assistance which totalled more than $2.7 billion over a seven year period. More recently the federal government has provided assistance to

farmers following the collapse of world grain prices. It is now providing compensation for the elimination of the Crow rate.

We have provided bottom line support for the maritime fishers who were confronted with the tragedy of the decimation of fish stocks. We shared equally in the cost of solving the tobacco smuggling problem in Ontario and Quebec.

These actions were neither charity nor partisan politics. These were actions of fairness, equality and the principles this country was built on. They are an essential reflection of the contract Canadians have struck with themselves, a nation building contract that says a critical role for government is to help when help is truly needed and where it can be truly effective. That takes me to the present.

Today we have to manage the commitment to assistance with more vigour, innovation and insight than ever before.

The world of global competition for trade, for investment, business opportunities and jobs demands that government remain constant and conscientious of the bottom line. A government that squanders resources imposed on the nation, the cost of high deficit, high taxes and high interests, these are job killers, future killers, hope destroyers.

It is this same challenging competitive environment that demands government continue to play a role in helping citizens, sectors and regions to meet their global challenge. It has to be a role in applying methods that work with today's resources in ways that will deliver effective, efficient advantage for future success and economic benefit. That is exactly what the government is doing with adjustment assistance for sales tax harmonization.

As a member from the province of Ontario, I believe it is a shame that the Harris government at Queen's Park has missed this opportunity to get onboard with Canada's harmonized sales tax. Let us not forget that on June 7, 1995 during Ontario's election campaign, Premier Harris said he was prepared to work with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance toward a simpler unified tax, that it seems ludicrous to have two different taxes, two bureaucracies to collect it and more paperwork.

Regrettably the Ontario Tories are now arguing that harmonization would shift taxes from businesses to consumers. They have also claimed that adjustment assistance is a bribe to other provinces. As I have just shown, it is nothing of that sort, and indeed Ontario regularly benefits from adjustment assistance of various kinds paid to Ontario such as stabilization payments each year.

The door is still open for Ontario to join this new harmonized federal-provincial sales tax. The advantages for business would be tremendous. Ontario is Canada's major manufacturer and exporter and since harmonization means improved competitiveness that means more jobs. I am convinced that no province would benefit more from harmonization than Ontario. The longer Ontario waits to harmonize, the more business and consumer loss will be.

If we work together through the format in the approach our government has set, the result will be a tax system that makes it stronger, that helps deliver more jobs and is fairer to all of us. I support the compensation formula this legislation provides and that is why I urge all hon. members to put aside political grandstanding and join the government in supporting this legislation.

[Petitions, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table petitions signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding areas, which have been duly certified by the clerk of petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners request that the House of Commons enact legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union for life of one woman and one man to each other to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding areas which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners request that the House of Commons enact legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union for life of one woman and one man to each other to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding areas which is duly certified by the clerk of petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners request that the House of Commons enact legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to each other to the exclusion of all others.