Recognizing that the focus is on the constitutionality of
the provision itself and not the statute, the provision cannot be
divorced from its context. The appellant acknowledges that the
direct tax imposed by the TTA is constitutionally valid: see
Bomberry v. Ontario (Minister of Revenue) (1989), 70 O.R. (2d)
662,  O.J. No. 989 (Div. Ct.), at pp. 665-66 O.R.; and
Atlantic Smoke Shops, Ltd. v. Conlon,  J.C.J. No. 1, 
4 D.L.R. 81 (P.C.). The collection of the tax from wholesalers
rather than retailers does not transform it into an ultra vires
indirect tax: Bomberry, at pp. 665-66 O.R. Nor does the enforcement process for the collection of the tax have the effect of taxing
parties who are part of the collection process: Hill v. Ontario
(Minister of Revenue) (1985), 50 O.R. (2d) 765,  O.J.
No. 2540 (H.C.J.).
 The pith and substance of the TTA is plainly the imposition of a tax on the consumption of tobacco. This is direct taxation within the province and falls squarely within provincial
jurisdiction under s. 922. The elaborate marking regime, the registration and permitting system and the collection machinery
are all designed to serve that end. This is the purpose and effect
of the legislation.
 What, then, is the pith and substance of the impugned
 Section 12(1) provides that the minister may demand
information from any person for the purpose of determining
their suitability to be a collector of taxes, an exporter or registered importer of tobacco products or their suitability to hold
a permit to engage in certain functions under the TTA, such as
marking or stamping cigarettes and fine cut tobacco, manufacturing tear tape, and purchasing and selling unmarked
cigarettes or UFCT. Subsection 12(2) requires the minister to
demand security from some 12 classes of persons, including collectors of taxes, importers, exporters of tobacco and holders of
permits under the TTA, such as permits to mark or stamp cigarettes or fine cut tobacco and holders of permits to purchase or
sell unmarked cigarettes.
 The security is plainly intended to provide a source of
funds for any assessment made by the minister for taxes, interest or penalties in the event of a contravention of the TTA. This,
in turn, ensures compliance with the statute.
 In my view, having regard to the scheme and purpose of
the TTA as a whole, and the context of the impugned provision,
it is in pith and substance a provision in furtherance of the legislative scheme to ensure the integrity of the machinery for collection of the tax. As the Divisional Court observed, at para. 42: