Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I mentioned at the top of the meeting when I was speaking to my point of order, instead of moving BQ‑4 as originally written, I will be proposing a modified version. The new amendment was sent out earlier today.
I will take a few moments to read it, and then, I will say a few words about both the form and the substance of the amendment.
I move that Bill C‑19, in clause 131, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 19 on page 106 with the following:
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to wine (a) that is produced by an individual for their personal use and that is consumed in the course of that use; or (b) that is produced from honey, apples or any other prescribed agricultural or plant product. (2) Subsection (1) applies after June 29, 2022.
Clearly, this provision could change given the amendments that may follow.
Australia took legal action against Canada regarding the excise tax on wine, wine made from grapes, to be precise. The dispute did not relate to mead or cider.
The committee heard from industry representatives about their high production costs. They said that the excise tax could limit the growth and development of their fledgling industry in the country.
The least we can do is adopt this amendment, which is in line with the settlement regarding the dispute between Canadian and Australian wine producers. It only makes sense.
As for whether the amendment is admissible, I would say that this does not create a new tax. This does not broaden the legislation's reach. It simply amends an existing measure, so I am asking the committee members to support this amendment.
Mead producers and cider makers explained to the committee the impact this legislation could have on their industry.
The problem lies in the fact that the federal government is conflating wine, cider and mead, and this amendment would fix that. As I see it, the amendment is entirely admissible.
Once again, I urge my fellow members to vote in favour of this amendment to support our cider and mead producers.