Joe Jordan

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to ward off a firestorm I want to say that I have three cases of beer in my basement so I may be accused of being in a conflict of interest with the bill. Last time I checked, they were worth more than my Nortel stock.

I will do something a little different, and that is I will talk about the bill. I listened to the hon. member's speech. I am not saying that the microbrewing industry is not an important sector in Canada. He talked about using the microbrewery taxation process as an instrument for regional development. I would certainly suggest to him that the brewing industry has been used in the past for regional development. Coors brewery in Golden, Colorado can produce enough beer in one week, independent of taste, to satisfy the Canadian consumption for a year. Our country has regional breweries which have been very successful. The microbrewing industry is coming into vogue. Independent of all that, that is not what the bill deals with.

We referred this legislation to the committee at second reading, which meant that the House gave agreement in principle to the contents of the bill.To somehow suggest that we could add to the scope and scale of the bill something that was not in it intentionally is a clear violation of the House.

If the Bloc has an issue, it is a procedural one. I do not think it will get far with it . If it is really concerned about the country's microbrewing industry, I do not think this particular strategy will be very successful. Members of the Bloc may want to pick up the phone and talk to the microbreweries because I do not think they would find support even in the sector. It is an interesting strategy that is unfolding but it is not particularly helpful on any front that I can see.

I want to talk about the bill and specifically about the taxation on cigarettes. Mr. Speaker, you would be as interested in this as I am because you are close to the issue as an MP in a border community.

I can remember years ago when the smuggling of cigarettes was an epidemic. It was not only the issue of smuggling but it was a lot of the actions that surround the smuggling. It was an extremely lucrative business. There are a number of actions which seem to surround illegal businesses that are lucrative. Certainly in my area the St. Lawrence was a very dangerous place for a boater to be.

I can remember previous debates on this bill. The member for Elk Island tried to paint the picture that the government did not know what it was doing on cigarette taxes; that it put them up, put them down and put them up again. If he were to examine the situation we were faced with, he would have seen that New York, Michigan and other border states did not tax cigarettes to the same level we did.

The other thing we have to concern ourselves with is that taxation on cigarettes is not solely federal jurisdiction. The federal government cannot act unilaterally. We have to act in concert and in agreement with the provinces. We are balancing a number of interests here.

At the time, with the Canadian dollar where it was and the level of taxation on Canadian cigarettes when they were exported to New York, Vermont and Michigan, the government wanted to do the prudent thing. We had two choices. We could drastically increase expenditures into policing the activity or attack it at the source, which is the economics, and reduce the economic incentive to smuggle cigarettes. That involved a reduction in the taxation. We said at the time that it was a temporary measure.

We now have a situation where the Canadian dollar does not lend itself to getting involved in smuggling cigarettes. Also in some cases the tobacco taxes in New York, Michigan and Vermont are higher than they are in Canada. I think that issue has been put to bed temporarily.

The other advantage to cigarette taxation is an attempt to put in place a disincentive for young people to buy cigarettes. The more expensive cigarettes are, the harder it is for someone to smoke that first cigarette or begin to smoke cigarettes. There is a lot of competition for young people's dollars these days. If we can take cigarettes off the table and not get people started smoking, we are doing society a great benefit.

We cannot simply rely on the economics alone. If we look at research into youth smoking we see a number of reasons that young people take up the habit. One group of young people smoke because they are trying to look adult. Another group smoke because they want to give the image that they are rebelling. Another group is simply highly susceptible to peer pressure. The fourth group, which is quite disturbing, consists of young women who are under the impression that tobacco is an appetite suppressant. Faced with a bombardment of media that tries to portray a certain body type, they take up smoking in an attempt to control their weight.

Government has to realize that we cannot send the same message to all four groups. We cannot come out with an advertising strategy that says smoking is bad because that is exactly why the group doing it to rebel takes up smoking. We are reinforcing the wrong behaviours.

We must take a step back. We have moved on the cost of cigarettes, and that is a positive step. We must also move on very targeted campaigns aimed at the specific reasons that young people smoke. We must put the dollars on the table, which the government is certainly committed to doing, to undertake campaigns that will back up and support the tax policy, which is clearly designed as a disincentive, with positive marketing that addresses the root causes of young people taking up smoking. It will pay dividends down the road in decreased health costs.

With the Romanow commission in full flight, we are certainly looking at the sustainability and the costs of the health care system. Anything we can do to prevent rising health costs down the road is something we need to take a very serious look at.

I think the bill has wide support, including from the brewing industry. It seems to be a bit of a tempest in a teapot to focus on that industry. I think this is a very logical framework for the taxation of these controlled substances in the country. I will have absolutely no problem supporting the government on the legislation. It is a good step forward.

[An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you seek unanimous consent to see the clock at 6.30 p.m. so we can proceed to the late show.

[National Horse of Canada Act, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that we suspend until 12 noon.

[Pest Control Products Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you seek it you will find consent to see the clock as 6.30 p.m.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you because these issues are not easy issues to preside over. I think you have allowed a certain amount of latitude as we are trying to work through this issue.

I feel I need to point out a couple of key points. One is that the issue of hearing this today was not a decision by the government. It was a decision by the Speaker. If opposition members have a problem with that I suggest they take it up with the Speaker's office. I brought this issue on February 28 because under the rules of the House I had an obligation to bring it to the House at the earliest opportunity and that is what I determined to be my earliest opportunity. I would ask if the issue of timing could be addressed in the ruling, because it has been brought up numerous times that this issue somehow was not raised properly. I think if we could clear that up it would go a long way to moving this discussion forward.

Second, in no way and at no time did I ever try to imply that opposition members could not do their job. My entire point deals with the language that they used, not their right to do their job.

I would conclude by reading one paragraph from Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , at page 254. I think this is demonstrated and reinforced by the fact that the opposition was not allowed to read the press release here. It states:

Language spoken during a Parliamentary proceeding that impugns the integrity of members would be unparliamentary and a breach of order contrary to the Standing Orders. But not a breach of privilege.

If it is spoken in the House.

Spoken outside the House by a Member the same language reflecting on the Member's Parliamentary capacity would be considered contempt of the House.

That was the issue I was raising. I think it is a very narrow and simple issue. The opposition members have confirmed they made the statement.

Mr. Speaker, the ruling is in your hands and I look forward to your judgment.

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the member were to review the transcript and look at the point of privilege I raised he would see that it was a very specific issue. The issue was that the language that was being used on the question of privilege one was allowed in making the charge before the Speaker by using phrases like deliberately misled when making the charge.

My question of privilege pointed out, and I backed it up with transcript evidence, that it continued outside this place, that is the use of words and phrases like, lied and deliberately misled, which were unparliamentary. My question of privilege dealt with the issue of whether a member of the House can say outside the House what the member is not allowed to say inside the House. It is as simple as that. The re-arguing of the issue that was before the committee does not have any relevance to the point of privilege.

As far as I am concerned the issue is very straightforward. If it cannot be said in here members cannot say it outside the House. That is the issue, Mr. Speaker, that you need to rule on.

[Ten Cent Coin, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate today on the motion of the hon. member for South Shore.

It is sometimes easy to dismiss cultural symbols as benign. However anyone who listened to the hon. gentleman's speech understands the Bluenose is an important symbol. It holds a great deal of importance especially in Atlantic Canada in terms of the pride its people feel about the accomplishments of the vessel. We on this side have no argument with that.

This is the first occasion I have had to speak to the motion on behalf of the Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations. As most members know, the minister's new mandate is broad and diverse. It includes the Royal Canadian Mint, the crown corporation central to the substance of the motion.

The intent of the motion is to permanently restore the schooner Bluenose to the Canadian ten cent coin as an uninterrupted commemoration of our seafaring and fisheries heritage. We have amended the motion appropriately to reflect the passage of time. However I want to shed light on the debate. I will take a few minutes to accurately reflect the events surrounding the substance of the motion, as did the hon. member.

Two years ago the government approved the use of a new design on the ten cent coin to celebrate the 2001 International Year of Volunteers. As an eastern Ontario MP even I received petitions from people concerning the fact that the schooner image on the dime had changed. My understanding is that the commemorative issue dime was a one year thing. However perhaps the message was not communicated as strongly or appropriately as it should have been. I was taken aback by the substance and quantity of contacts and correspondence I got regarding the issue.

The year 2001 was the 50th anniversary of the March of Dimes. Periodically the mint will rotate symbols on the coins. In 1967 we changed the coins to reflect various aspects of Canadian culture. It is something the mint does not take lightly but it does it at times when it thinks it is appropriate.

To paraphrase the hon. member, I do not think anyone took issue with the selection of the March of Dimes as a commemorative piece. It was the displacement of the schooner that seemed to have triggered the motion. However the mint has always tried to promote traditional Canadian symbols. The maple leaf, the beaver, the schooner and the caribou which were introduced in 1937 have become icons to all Canadians as have the loon and polar bear so many years later.

Many of us still have vivid memories of the fundraising initiatives of the March of Dimes. It was a wonderful victory for volunteerism in Canada when a group of mothers raised millions of dollars to put an end for all intents and purposes to the polio epidemic that was causing such hardship among Canadian families. The commemorative coin acknowledged the hard work of the volunteers. Volunteers are critical and crucial to the fabric of our society, our health care system, our schools, sports, et cetera.

Regarding the matter before the House, the traditional schooner is one of the great symbols of Canada. I sincerely enjoyed listening to the hon. member reflect and tell stories of the Grand Banks, fishing, and the schooners. I learned things. When our national caucus went to Atlantic Canada for its summer caucus my wife almost did not come back with me because she enjoyed her time there so much. As we listen to the hon. member speak we can tell he is speaking from the heart. These symbols really are important.

Since 1937 the traditional schooner design on the ten cent circulation coin has been an icon. It is often referred to as the Bluenose . It is close to the hearts of all Canadians but particularly the people of Nova Scotia's south shore. We have had a strong representation from the hon. member about the issue as well as from certain members of the other place who feel a strong connection to the ship. It was in Nova Scotia that many such schooners were built and launched, the most famous of them being the

Bluenose.

Thanks to Heritage Minute on CBC we have all seen the final race of the Bluenose off the coast of the United States, a race it won. As the hon. member said, its racing career saw not one loss.

The schooners, long gone but not forgotten, were a central factor in establishing maritime communities such as the Bluenose home port of Lunenburg. For decades they could be seen plying their trade from the Grand Banks. The faster the schooner the quicker it could get back to port and the more it could get for its catch. That is why I am pleased to inform the House it was always the intent to return to the traditional design on the ten cent coin in 2002.

As members may have noted, until now I have been cautious in referring to the design of the traditional schooner. However for a variety of reasons the Royal Canadian Mint now refers to the design as the Bluenose . I am happy to report this will no longer be the case thanks to the Bluenose II Preservation Trust. The trust provided the Mint with valuable information that assisted it in identifying the schooner on the coin as the Bluenose . Members may think this is a small point. They may have thought it was the Bluenose all along. However these accredited steps help reinforce the importance the vessel had in Canadian history, and we take these victories where we can get them.

In 2002 the government is not only reintroducing the traditional schooner. It is officially recognizing it as the Bluenose . These actions may not appear at odds with the hon. member's motion, and for all intents and purposes they are not. The only exception I take to the motion is the rewording of permanence. The motion would take away the Mint's ability every decade or 25 years to use Canadian coins as commemorative issues, put something else on them for a year and then return to the default which in this case would be the Bluenose . This does not undermine the importance of the Bluenose . It is clear the Canadian dime is the Bluenose coin. It merely allows the Mint some flexibility.

For the reasons I outlined earlier the Mint must be given the flexibility to consider and under proper authority choose to introduce new but temporary designs for our coins. I agree with almost everything the hon. member said. I congratulate him for bringing the issue forward. However there is the issue of permanence. We must allow the Mint the flexibility to recognize groups like the March of Dimes, which incidentally is why we chose the dime.

[Privilege, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear, and I am not insensitive to the timing issue, but my read of the precedents in these sorts of issues is that I have a responsibility to bring it before the House at the earliest opportunity. I qualified that with the notion that I have absolutely no objection to this issue being dealt with at another time. Certainly the people mentioned should be present. I just felt I needed to get it in the parliamentary queue.

On the other point about the committee dealing with this, I would suggest that this is a separate question of privilege. It should be introduced in the House. That is the appropriate forum for it. The committee does not decide these issues; the House decides these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have acted appropriately by bringing it to your attention at this time and in this way.

[Privilege, February 28th, 2002]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was okay if I was quoting. I will refrain from doing it.

It states further:

“The evidence is now very clear that (the Minister of National Defence) deliberately misled the House of Commons...”, said (the member for Lakeland).

(The hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke) added, “I hope that (the Minister of National Defence) will now be willing to come forward and admit that his misleading statements were indeed intentional. Now that his explanation has been contradicted, the right thing to do would be to admit that he deliberately misled the House of Commons, and Canadians”.

I am now quoting from a CBC interview transcript with the hon. member for Lakeland. The questioner asked the hon. member for Lakeland:

We discovered yesterday it took three briefings or three reminders before the Defence Minister clicked, as it were, as to what happened and when. What does that say to you?

The hon. member for Lakeland replied:

Well, I would say what he clicked on is that the Chief of Defence Staff and Deputy Chief of Defence Staff were not going to lie for him on this issue. That's what clicked...The Minister understood things perfectly because he asked questions to clarify. So the Minister knew. He misled Parliament and Canadians through Parliament. To me, that's the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am now quoting from a transcript of February 1 of a media scrum that took place outside the House of Commons foyer. It involves the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar. The question was:

It's a pretty serious charge that the Prime Minister is lying. What evidence do you have?

The member for Portage--Lisgar stated:

--I cannot believe and I would not want the troops and their families to believe that the Prime Minister was totally unaware for over (a) week of an issue so important to Canada and internationally so important.

The next question was:

You're saying more than that, you're saying he's lying are you not?

The answer from the member for Portage--Lisgar:

I'm asserting that he was aware of this information.

Mr. Speaker, I would add that the Prime Minister had denied both in the House and in public that he was not aware and that is a direct public contradiction of the statements by the Prime Minister of Canada.

I am now quoting from another Alliance press release dated February 22. It involves a quote from the member for Portage--Lisgar:

After concealing this controversial information for eight days, the Minister then gave false information to the House of Commons about when he first learned of the event. It defies reason to suggest that this was an innocent coincidence of honest mistakes. All evidence suggests that the Minister deliberately concealed important information, first through silence, and then through false statements.

Mr. Speaker, the collection of information, and it is not an inclusive list, demonstrates that even though when a member brings a question of privilege, at that particular time and during that motion, as I am doing now, the member is allowed to use a term like misleading the House. That language is not allowed in parliament under normal circumstances and the fact that this charge has been made in the House and referred to committee I would suggest does not give licence for members to be repeating these things outside the House. That is one of the issues here.

I am quoting now from Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , second edition by Joseph Maingot, page 254, under the heading “Reflections on Members and on the House”. It states:

Language spoken during a Parliamentary proceeding that impugns the integrity of members would be unparliamentary and a breach of order contrary to the Standing Orders. But not a breach of privilege.

We find that many times in this House, Mr. Speaker, that you are required to point out to members that their language is not appropriate and in most circumstances they retract the statements. Maingot further states:

Spoken outside the House by a Member the same language reflecting on the Member's Parliamentary capacity would be considered contempt of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that members speak outside this place at their own peril.

There is certainly legal recourse that is available to the offended party. I would also suggest that in my reading of procedure, the Canadian precedents as opposed to the U.K. precedents, even if the offended member chooses the courts as a recourse, it does not preclude this issue being undertaken by the House. In my view it is an offence that would simply be corrected by a retraction and an apology by the offending members.

My final point is that I was a little uncomfortable with the timing of this question of privilege. As we are aware, this issue, the larger issue of the conflicting statements which these comments reference is before the procedure and House affairs committee. I would find no issue with putting this off until that committee has completed its work. The reason I brought it forward today was I felt I had an obligation as a member of the House to bring it to the attention of the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, should you find that I have a question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the necessary motion.