header image
The world according to David Graham

Topics

acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  2. January 17th, 2020
  3. January 16th, 2020
  4. January 15th, 2020
  5. January 14th, 2020
  6. January 13th, 2020
  7. January 12th, 2020
  8. January 11th, 2020
  9. January 10th, 2020
  10. January 9th, 2020
  11. January 8th, 2020
  12. January 7th, 2020
  13. January 6th, 2020
  14. January 5th, 2020
  15. January 4th, 2020
  16. January 3rd, 2020
  17. January 2nd, 2020
  18. January 1st, 2020
  19. December 31st, 2019
  20. December 30th, 2019
  21. December 29th, 2019
  22. December 28th, 2019
  23. December 27th, 2019
  24. December 26th, 2019
  25. December 24th, 2019
  26. December 6th, 2019
  27. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  28. Next steps
  29. On what electoral reform reforms
  30. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  31. older entries...

2016-04-22 13:46 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Alcoholic drinks, Excise taxes, Government revenues, Legal services, Protectionism, Second reading, Trade agreements, Trade barriers,

Accords commerciaux, Barrières commerciales, Boissons alcoolisées, Deuxième lecture, Organisation mondiale du commerce, Projets de loi émanant des députés, Protectionnisme, Recettes du gouvernement, Services juridiques

Mr. Speaker, the member says he has no pecuniary interest in the bill. I am just curious as to whether the member ever drinks spirits. If he pays for his own alcohol, he may indeed have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of this bill, but I will leave that between him and his bartender.

This is not an issue that comes up often in my riding. I am not sure whether small issues like the potential revenue loss to the government and the bigger issues like the impact of this law on international agreements outweighs the perceived advantages to domestic drinkers of spirits or to the industry that exports some 70% of our domestically produced product.

Has the sponsor of the bill obtained a legal opinion or does he possess only a personal opinion when he says the bill is not likely to face a WTO challenge

Monsieur le Président, le député dit qu'il n'a aucun intérêt pécuniaire dans le projet de loi. Je suis juste curieux de savoir s'il lui arrive de boire des spiritueux. S'il paye son propre alcool, il pourrait effectivement avoir un intérêt pécuniaire dans l'issue de ce projet de loi, mais je le laisse régler cela avec son barman.

Ce n'est pas un problème qui se pose souvent dans ma circonscription. Je me demande si les petits enjeux comme la perte de recettes potentielle pour le gouvernement et les plus grands enjeux comme les répercussions de cette mesure législative sur les accords internationaux l'emportent sur les avantages perçus pour les buveurs canadiens de spiritueux ou pour l'industrie qui exporte environ 70 % de la production canadienne.

Le parrain du projet de loi a-t-il obtenu un avis juridique ou est-ce seulement une opinion personnelle lorsqu'il dit qu'il est peu probable que l'OMC conteste le projet de loi?

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 15:26 on April 22, 2016

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

2016-04-21 17:01 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2016-04-22 14:19 House intervention / intervention en chambre

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2001-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.