Mr. Chair, I challenge your ruling.
Evidence of meeting #147 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #147 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
There's a challenge of the chair's ruling.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 114)
Members, we are now at clause 114 and CPC-8.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Once you have moved that, if CPC-8 is adopted, members, just so you're aware, CPC-9 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
This is just a furtherance of our suite of amendments to the Excise Tax Act, which are seeking to give Canadians who happen to enjoy a beer or a drink of spirits a break on taxation going forward.
Conservatives will continue to oppose the excise tax increases. The escalator has caused enormous difficulties for our economy, for our spirit and beer sectors, in addition to raising the cost of alcohol at a time when Canadians could use a drink.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you MP Lawrence.
Shall CPC-8 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we're on CPC-9.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I will move that, but my comments stand.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence.
Shall CPC-9 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 114 agreed to on division)
(On clause 115)
We'll now go to clause 115 and CPC-10.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Once again, this is a reduction to the Excise Tax Act. The Conservatives continue to stand for lower taxes for Canadians.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Shall CPC-10 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 115 agreed to on division)
(On clause 116)
We're at clause 116. This is CPC-11.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Once again, the Conservatives are looking to give Canadians a break on their taxes, and we stand alone in that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Shall CPC-11 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 116 agreed to on division)
(On clause 123)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, we're at clause 123. This is CPC-12.
Would the member like to move that?
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I will move that, but I will just let it stand for what it is.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Just so members are aware, if CPC-12 is adopted, CPC-13 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Shall CPC-12 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on CPC-13.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Once again, this is part of our suite of amendments meant to, in this case, reduce the excise tax increase to zero, giving Canadians a break with respect to taxation.
I have to get one of these eventually—right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Shall CPC-13 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 123 agreed to on division)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're at new clause 123.1, and this is BQ-1.
MP Ste-Marie, do you wish to move your amendment?
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
I'm going to move it and briefly explain it.
As I said earlier, a few years ago, Australia brought a dispute case against Canada at the World Trade Organization, the WTO, over the tax on wine. The dispute obviously concerned wine from grapes. However, in Quebec, wine from grapes is called “wine”, and we have another terminology for alcoholic beverages made from small fruits, maple syrup and honey.
Canada complied with the WTO decision and applied the tax to Canadian wine, but only to wine from grapes. When we looked into this matter in committee, we adopted an amendment to exempt apple cider and mead producers from the tax. However, we were unable to adopt an amendment to exempt from that tax—and so comply with the decision—producers of alcoholic beverages made from small fruits, such as strawberries, raspberries, blueberries and pears, for example, and producers of maple-based alcoholic beverages.
Australia's complaint obviously didn't concern all those producers, who are small local and artisanal producers who work hard to create high-quality regional products. We therefore want to support them and allow them the same privilege as the one the committee granted for apple cider and mead producers. That's the reason for this amendment.
I therefore encourage my colleagues to support this amendment unanimously.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I'd like to say that I think this is a great idea. We have a wonderful fruit winery not from my home in Jamil Jivani's riding of Durham. They do a fabulous job, and they certainly deserve a break. Because of that, Conservatives will be supporting this fantastic amendment brought by the Bloc Québécois.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence.
I do have a ruling here, and I should have jumped in right after MP Ste-Marie.
The ruling is that Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001, to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to add a new category of exempted product to a clause that is not amended by the bill.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771:
...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.
Since paragraph 134(3)(b) of the Excise Act, 2001, is not being amended by Bill C-69, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Chair, I must challenge the ruling of the chair once again. Please understand this is nothing personal; it's for the common good.