Preston Manning

[Cigarette Smuggling, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

Most of us believe that only a small number of Mohawks are actively engaged in the smuggling operations on these reserves and that the majority of the residents resent and oppose the presence of these operations.

Has the government attempted to communicate and consult with rank and file members on those reserves to enlist their support for reasserting the supremacy of Canadian laws against smuggling, against money laundering and the illegal importation and storage of arms?

[Cigarette Smuggling, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday the Prime Minister acknowledged that the cigarette smuggling problem is most serious in Ontario and Quebec. The commissioner of the RCMP confirmed that over 70 per cent of smuggled Canadian cigarettes pass through the three Mohawk reserves between Cornwall and Montreal.

Is the government prepared to acknowledge today to the House that the successful implementation of its action plan on smuggling will require not only a national effort, but a special and concentrated effort to re-establish the supremacy of Canadian law on those three Indian reserves?

[Cigarette Smuggling, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer. I have a further supplementary for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's announcement today was not quite clear on all of the additional costs that will be incurred by the RCMP, the customs branch, the ministry of health, the justice department and so on to implement the various aspects of the government's action plan on smuggling.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the total implementation costs will be on an annual basis and can he table a detailed breakdown of that cost?

[Cigarette Smuggling, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister on the revenue side.

The Prime Minister said that the proposed tax cuts in connection with the action plan on smuggling will reduce federal revenues in the fiscal year 1994-95 by approximately $300 million. This figure is obviously based on certain assumptions about provincial participation.

Could the Prime Minister tell the House what the total loss in federal and provincial tax revenue would be if all provinces participated in the plan to the same extent as Quebec?

[Cigarette Smuggling, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister announced today the government's action plan on smuggling but the plan was not accompanied by a detailed breakdown of the costs of this program to the Canadian taxpayer.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what the net cost of this program will be on an annual basis and is he willing to table in the House the detailed cost breakdown of this program?

[Tobacco Products, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the government for its response to, as the Prime Minister said, a very complex problem and also to thank the government for the briefing provided to us earlier today on the details.

Our understanding of the government's program is that it consists really of four components: first, a stronger enforcement of the laws against smuggling; second, a stronger anti-smoking educational campaign to be financed by a surtax on tobacco company profits; third, an export tax on tobacco exports; and, fourth, the reduction of federal taxes on cigarettes consumed in Canada.

Our initial response to this program is this. First, we commend the government on its program but want to point out one missing element in the presentation the Prime Minister made this morning and in the briefing package presented to us. That is a detailed estimate of the cost of the program. How much is it going to cost? Who is going to pick up the tab?

Our understanding in going through the material is that the net impact of the tax changes is in the vicinity of about $300 million a year. It is my understanding that the implementation of the other parts of the package are probably in the vicinity of about $150 million per year. Therefore we are talking about a package of about half a billion dollars net cost per year.

I would like to encourage the Prime Minister and the finance minister that when these programs are presented to the House, no matter what their merits, that they be accompanied by a more detailed presentation of the cost implications because of the financial situation that the government is in.

We find ourselves in support of about three-quarters of the government's program, three of the four major items. We find ourselves supportive of stronger enforcement of the laws against smuggling, supportive of the stronger anti-smoking educational campaign and supportive of the concept of reinstating the export tax on tobacco exports.

I do have to tell the government that the majority of our members believe the majority of their constituents are not convinced at this point in time of the wisdom and viabilityof the

fourth point in the government's program, namely the reduction in federal taxes on cigarettes consumed in Canada.

We share the concern of many of the health groups that tax reduction will encourage smoking. We recognize this proposal is not yet supported by a majority of the provinces which is necessary to affect the differential between the price of cigarettes in the United States and in Canada.

We question the reduction is really sufficient, particularly without full provincial co-operation to deter smuggling activity. We assume the revenues lost through the tax reduction will be compensated through tax increases in other areas. We would very much like to know what those tax increases are and who will be paying them.

We recognize that the tobacco tax issue is becoming, as the Prime Minister said, more than a tax issue. It is becoming a justice issue. It is becoming a social issue. It is becoming an aboriginal issue. It is becoming an issue of interprovincial relations, but at the root of it is overspending that leads to overtaxation in the first place and all these side issues.

We believe the House and the government have yet to deal with the root of the problem which is the overspending. We expect and hope that will be dealt with in the budget presentation in a couple of weeks.

The Reform caucus will be reviewing the government's program in detail tomorrow morning and we hope to have further contributions in the days ahead.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question. He hits on a very pertinent point. I believe this free vote convention that we have suggested covers that common ground. It gives the members the freedom to kill a bill or a portion of a bill, but when they do that it reverts back to asking the House if it wanted to kill this bill or this portion of a bill, or did it actually want to kill the entire administration because it has no confidence it it.

That free vote convention covers that common ground. It gives the members this individual capacity to kill an individual piece of legislation but ultimately also makes them accountable for the entire administration and it accountable to them. I thought this free vote convention we are proposing endeavoured to cover that common ground.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, two or three points. I thank the member for his question. First of all, on recall if you set these safeguards high enough and strongly enough you can ensure that the instrument is not abused so it is not accessibly costly.

On the second point, I would ask the members to consider the cost of having an unacceptable member of Parliament who will not or cannot represent your views. That is the cost you have to offset against the cost a removal mechanism.

The third point I would make is the member made reference, and other members in this House have done this, to the famous speech by Edmund Burke in which he said that he owed his constituents his conscience, not his vote. This is the most articulate expression, the trusteeship theory of representation. It predated the existence of parties. The other thing the members should remember is that Edmund Burke was never elected again in the electoral district of Bristol.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I should make clear to the member that I am not talking about turning members of Parliament into a voting machine where all they do is go home on the weekend, count noses on an issue and come back here and stick up their hands or not. I am not talking about that.

I agree with the member that there are lots of issues where the relationship between the member and his constituents has to be one of dialogue. The constituents may think this way and we go to them and say that we think differently because we have had this experience and have been exposed to this debate from others in the House.

My experience has been that if our constituents think that we will defer to their judgment if push came to shove they will often defer to ours. However, if they think we are going to do what we want to do or what our party wants to do regardless of what they think, then that is where we lose them.

I agree with the member there has to be dialogue, but I do think if push comes to shove the constituents ought to have the final say.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the member's question is yes, up to a point. But just having freer debate or freer discussion in my view is not enough. It has to be carried that one step further where if, as a result of the discussion here, one comes to a conclusion somewhat different than one's party or one's constituents come to, that one would have the freedom to exercise it.

Certainly this greater freedom of debate and expression is a step in the right direction, but to cap it off there has to be some application to the voting as well as the speaking.