House of Commons Hansard #178 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was microbreweries.
The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores, be read the third time and passed.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to continue with my speech on Bill C-47. As I said last Thursday, when I began my speech, I would like to give the House an overview of the situation. This bill deals with the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores.
The bill was also supposed to deal with beer. Unfortunately, when my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot looked into it, he realized that the government had excluded beer from this legislation. He put forward amendments in committee so that the issue of beer and microbreweries could be considered.
We all know what happened then; everyone has heard about it. It created quite an uproar in the House of Commons. The chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, the hon. member for London West, determined that the amendments brought forward by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot were not in order.
Because of the new criteria set out in Motion No. 2, which was tabled by the Speaker when the House resumed, when amendments are moved in committee, they cannot be brought forward again in the House at report stage or at third reading.
So we can see that the chair of a committee wields a great deal of power, even more than a minister, since a minister cannot accept or reject amendments to a bill in committee.
Everyone knows what happened. The chair received a letter from the Brewers Association of Canada recommending that beer not be included in Bill C-47. Unfortunately, her spouse sits on the taxation committee of the brewers association.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, have said—and I think it is perfectly normal—that when a person is approached directly by a family member or a close friend regarding an issue that has to do with regional development in particular, because microbreweries are most often found in the regions—that person must use his or her right to withdraw. Therefore, the member for London West, with whom it has always been a pleasure for me to work in the past, should have used her right to withdraw to give her place to someone else so that the committee could analyze the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. However, she did not do that.
That is why we said that there was the appearance of a conflict of interest and the appearance of collusion.
After taking all these factors into consideration, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, decided that the time had come to modernize this piece of legislation. At this time, we will not be able to vote in favour of Bill C-47. Why? Because microbreweries had to be included.
Microbreweries have enjoyed a nice share of the market these last few years, but it is decreasing. Why? Because they are the victims of unfair competition from large Canadian, American and also European brewers.
The excise tax for large breweries in Canada is 25 cents per hectolitre in Canadian currency, whereas it is 28 cents per hectolitre for microbreweries. In the United States, it is 24 cents.
Microbreweries there pay only 9 cents per hectolitre. We can see how unfair competition is and how it is killing our microbreweries.
As I said last week, in my area, in the Saguenay, we have a microbrewery located in Anse-Saint-Jean. Called Brasserie de l'Anse, it produces three different brands of beers: Illégal, Folie Douce and Royale. The current excise tax is extremely discriminatory for this small business in the Saguenay. As a matter of fact, seven years ago it was producing seven different brands. We can see how, through the years, because of how much money it must give the government, it has become less and less able to face the situation it is in because of the excise tax.
The amendments put forward by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot at the Standing Committee on Finance would have at least made sure there was fair competition between Canadian, American and European importers. The Standing Committee on Finance chaired by the member for London West turned them down. It is deplorable.
As we know, microbreweries make an extremely important economic contribution to regions such as mine. For the most part, it is in the regions that microbreweries have developed. This has expanded a new niche, which helps the regions develop.
With Bill C-47, we are seeing in the House of Commons something I find unfair for an industry that should have been taken into account, as my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, said last week.
It is rather deplorable to hear the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, in whose riding the brewery is located, claim to be concerned about the region's development, yet approve the decision by the member for London West and the absence of tax advantages for microbreweries. If the excise tax was lowered, as requested by the Bloc, it would help the Brasserie de l'Anse.
This is unfortunate, and I am truly disappointed by what is happening in this House. We are told to go to committee and put forward amendments. We do the work. We do it honestly. We review the bills. We try to improve them. However, I do not know what is the matter with this Liberal government. It thinks it knows is all. No matter how much we say how important something is, when the time comes to vote on the amendments, a score of Liberal members gang up and turn them down.
The government no longer shows any open-mindedness. What is going on now is beyond me. I can understand the frustration of some opposition members with the government. Enough is enough. Our role is to stand up for the interests of ordinary citizens, not those of the big shots, who have lawyers, associations and friends to help them out. We are here for the ordinary citizens. My role is to stand up for the people in L'Anse-Saint-Jean. They are the ones who create jobs for workers in the regions and who develop new expertise.
I do not know what we will have to do to bring this government to its senses. Our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot explained the situation last week. He painted the whole picture of what happened. The Standing Committee on Finance is the most important committee of the House, the one with the most power. This blunder happened in the Standing Committee on Finance, which should have the greatest sense of fairness. Such an incident cannot be ignored.
If there were not something fishy, the Prime Minister would not have reacted the way he did when my colleague and my leader exposed during the question period last week what happened in the Standing Committee on Finance. I can accuse some people of being sexist, but I am not, and I do not think my colleagues are. This was not a gender issue, but a fairness issue.
It was in order to be able to say that we had done a good job.
Today, the government has not done a good job on Bill C-47. The opposition parties, my colleague in particular, wanted to do a good job because it was important. Since 1997, we have been thinking that there would finally be changes to this excise tax.
Yet, in the most important area—and the Brewers Association of Canada said they represented microbreweries, these small businesses for whom we need to show a little compassion, and who need to be taken into consideration—this very association recommended to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance not to include the excise tax on beer in Bill C-47.
As far as I am concerned, enough is enough. The government will have to withdraw the bill, go back to square one as my colleague asked, and include an industry that is extremely important for Quebec and for all of Canada.
Thirty-eight microbreweries in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba have closed their doors. They created employment. In the past, the regions depended on big business to survive. Today, it is not the biggest businesses that are creating employment; it is small and medium size businesses that are creating employment; it is small and medium size businesses that are fuelling growth in our regions. Shutting these employment generating companies down is an affront to the regions, to the people who live there, to the people who want to take charge of the economic survival of their communities, which are important to them.
As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot said, Bill C-47 contained some good provisions. Unfortunately, it did not have the essential elements it needed. When we fail to do the essential in everything we do in our life, we need to step back and ask ourselves, “What have I done that is not right?”
I urge this government to withdraw this bill and redraft it, so that people can benefit from what this bill really should contain, support for microbreweries.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to have you turn the floor over to me in a major debate.
I have a question for my eminent colleague from Jonquière, who adroitly and boldly pointed out the shortcomings in Bill C-47, which is still before us. How did things end up like this and how could this situation be avoided in the future?
We put forward amendments at the Standing Committee on Finance in order to change Bill C-47 in a manner truly in line with the spirit and the letter of the bill. What was not in line was what the Liberals did, which was to remove one of the items in the excise bill.
How could this be avoided? In a departure from the past, the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, like all committee chairs since Motion No. 2 was put forward by the government, now has the extraordinary power to reject our amendments. This may well be the end of the road because we have no other recourse at report or third reading stage.
First, should the ethics code for holders of public office not be reinforced and, second, committee chairs included in this amended code? Third, should the occupations of spouses and even dependants not also be considered in a conflict of interest case such as the one before us concerning the microbrewery amendments rejected by the member for London West, who is also the wife of one of the seven directors of John Labatt Ltd.? Should this code of ethics not be reinforced and committee chairs considered holders of public office?
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot. I believe that, yes, the more conditions there are imposed, the more equity there will be within this House of Commons. Let us not forget that the number of women in positions of command will be increasing, both in the government sector and in the private sector. There will also be men.
On the other side of this House, they boast of transparency. With the powers Motion No. 2 confers upon the chair of a committee, I believe the code of ethics should include chairs of committees, their spouses and anyone within their close circle who could influence decisions. I am not saying that this would be a good thing sometimes and a bad thing sometimes but there must be evidence of transparency.
According to a poll carried out last week, 70% of Canadians felt that politicians were not to be trusted. This government, being in power, must tell Canadians “Okay. You say we are not to be trusted, so we will take steps to make things clearer and to be more transparent”.
That is the solution. It is one of the solutions that must be advanced so there will finally be some worthwhile debates here in the House of Commons.
Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was a bit surprised to hear the comments of the member opposite about the issue of conflict of interest with beer when in fact in Bill C-47 the words beer or brewery do not appear at all.
For the member's information, in February 1997 when the discussion paper was originally released, the suggestion was made at that time that we would not include beer because of specific concerns that the brewing industry had. The brewing industry in fact indicated to the government that we should move ahead with Bill C-47 and that, for the record, we look at beer separately. That is currently what the department is doing and the department will come back with specific recommendations which may then come in the form of legislation.
Unfortunately, my friends from the Bloc did not listen when we presented this to the committee originally, they did not listen during committee and they are still not listening. In fact, they are not listening because it does not fit what they want to say. There is no conflict because beer is not in the bill. Therefore, it is very difficult to amend legislation about something which is not there.
I would ask the member to explain to us how we can amend legislation about a commodity which is in fact not even in the legislation.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the parliamentary secretary is truly deplorable and very mean. Initially, the beer sector was covered by the bill and by the excise tax. The Brewers Association of Canada wrote to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance to suggest that the beer issue be set aside, which is what was done.
I do not know under which minister's authority this parliamentary secretary is working, but I hope it is not the Minister of Finance. If this is the case, I see that he does not understand anything and this is because he probably does not follow what is going on in the Standing Committee on Finance.
My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot does good work. He carefully analyzes everything that concerns finance. My colleague wanted everything to be transparent. He was right to ask for transparency but the Liberals did not want it.
The member should not say that the issue will be discussed elsewhere. On the contrary, it should have been and must be discussed during consideration of Bill C-47.
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON
Mr. Speaker, the only transparency I see here is the ignorance on the other side of the House. I cannot believe for one moment that the member on the other side of the House, who is not even on the committee, would make the suggestion that it was somehow only decided at the last moment that beer would not be in the bill. In fact, as I said, from the review back in February 1997, as discussions went forward it was decided that it would not be part of the bill. It was made very clear at the beginning that it was not part of the bill. If the member had read it, she would know that.
Although she is getting her cues from her colleague, unfortunately they are the wrong cues. Again, the only transparency is the lack of understanding of the members on the other side with regard to this issue. It is disappointing because, again, we have made this very clear from day one and I would have expected more. However, that may be, I guess, the nature of what the Bloc says.
The question again to the member is this: Can the member cite for me anywhere in the bill where she sees the words beer or brewery?
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the statement by the parliamentary secretary of I do not know what.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Personally, I have always been very honest and I will not allow this individual to question my honesty or the honesty of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.
Initially, in 1997, when it was decided to review the Excise Tax Act, the beer sector was part of the review. However, following a letter of the Brewers Association of Canada asking the chair of the Standing Finance Committee not to include beer, this is precisely what happened. I am not imagining things. This is the truth. If there is another truth it is not part of Bill C-47. Beer was supposed to be covered by Bill C-47 but it is not.
The parliamentary secretary should go back to square one and tell the government to include beer in Bill C-47. This would satisfy us and allow us to hold a dispassionate debate.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to first pay tribute to the chair of the finance committee, the member for London West, a person with integrity, a commitment to public office, an understanding of the issues and an unequivocal sincerity and who has been putting in endless hours, days, months and years trying to serve her constituents and the people who have elected her. To hear some of my colleagues trying to remotely question the appearance, or the lack of, or whatever they are trying to put before the House, I find totally unacceptable and it certainly does not represent the views of anyone outside of the one or two members who have raised this question.
I also would like to pay tribute to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member for Oak Ridges, for his hard work on this legislation and his diligence, as well as his commitment to ensure that Canadian laws are meeting the objectives that they were set out for. I also would like to congratulate him for being so open to consultation, suggestions and ideas, and I also want to commend him for the way he has carried the bill through the committee and through all the different processes that bills have to go through.
Just for the record, so that my colleague will realize that she and my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois who asked the question were wrong when they made the statement that microbreweries are in fact part of the bill, the reality of it is that the bill does not make any mention in any way, shape or form of microbreweries or nanobreweries. In fact, they are simply not part of the bill. What this legislation does is look at the overall federal framework for taxation of alcohol and tobacco products. It tries to bring that up to date and to put in place a mechanism that reflects the reality of the day. As well, it tries to address some of the issues that need to be addressed.
Specifically, I want to quote from the bill some of the things that the legislation deals with. First, one of the key features of this legislation deals with:
(a) the continued imposition of a production levy on spirits, tobacco products and raw leaf tobacco and the replacement of the existing excise levy on sales of wine with a production levy at an equivalent rate;--
In this part of the bill there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of microbreweries or breweries in general.
The second aspect of it deals with:
(b) the replacement of the excise duty and excise tax on tobacco products other than cigars with a single excise duty;--
at the equivalent of the existing combined rate. Here again there is absolutely no mention of breweries, micro or otherwise.
The third aspect of this legislation deals with:
(c) the introduction of excise warehouses to allow for the deferral of the payment of the production levy on domestic and imported spirits and wine to the time of sale to the retailer;--
Once again there is absolutely no mention of brewers in this section of the legislation.
Another section of the legislation deals with:
(d) more comprehensive licensing requirements and new registration requirements for persons carrying on activities in relation to goods subject to duty;--
There is absolutely no mention of breweries in this section.
The legislation also deals with:
(e) explicit recognition of limited exemptions for certain goods produced by individuals for their personal use;--
There is absolutely no mention in this section of breweries.
A section of the legislation deals with introducing:
(f) tight new controls on the possession and distribution of goods on which duties have not been paid;--
Once again, for my colleagues from the Bloc, there is absolutely no mention in this section of the legislation of anything to do with breweries, micro or otherwise.
The legislation also contains:
(g) modern provisions concerning the use of spirits and wine for non-beverage purposes and the use of specially denatured alcohol;--
Again, in this section of Bill C-47 there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of breweries, micro or otherwise. Also in this legislation there are provisions in order to ensure:
(h) updated administrative provisions, including new remittance, assessment and appeal provisions that are similar to those under the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax legislation;--
Again microbreweries are not mentioned in this section of the legislation. Also there are elements that deal with:
(i) updated enforcement provisions, including new offence, penalty and collection provisions;--
Again, in this section of Bill C-47 there is no mention of breweries, micro or otherwise.
There are other provisions included in this legislation, such as the following:
the replacement of the existing provisions in the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act relating to the excise levies on spirits, wine and tobacco necessitates consequential amendments to those Acts as well as other acts, including the Budget Implementation Act, 2000, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, the Criminal Code...the Customs Tariff, the Export Act, the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, the Special Economic Measures Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
The legislation states:
This enactment also implements changes to the ships' stores provisions, which were announced by the government on September 27, 2001. These changes broaden the enabling legislation for ships' stores regulations and implement a temporary fuel tax rebate program for certain ships that, as a result of the amendments to the Ships' Stores Regulations effective June 1, 2002, will no longer qualify for ships' stores relief.
In addition:
...this enactment implements the tobacco tax increases announced by the government on November 1, 2001.
All these comments are to state to the House, for the record and for Canadians who are watching or who have watched over the past few days the incredibly unfounded allegations of my colleagues in the Bloc, that the breweries are not included in the legislation. Therefore, the attack on the chair is unwarranted and unnecessary. Frankly, it is high time for my colleagues to stand and apologize to the member for London West for the undue stress they imposed on the member, who is incredibly sincere and has an incredible level of intelligence and commitment to serve her constituency.
The legislation would do two things. It would create a provision which would ensure that the laws of Canada are enforced in a manner that is up to par with other legislation in Canada. At the same time, the legislation would create a provision for people growing tobacco or making wine in their homes and would give them the ability to use that tobacco, alcohol or wine for their own personal use without being penalized by the law. As well the legislation would bring some of the other legislation into line so that the government can continue to fulfil its commitment to the people in the industry who are trying to produce products and create jobs, therefore responding to the needs of Canadians.
Some of my colleagues might wonder whether the bill would harm in any way, shape or form those who are in different sectors. Let us take for example the people who work in the tobacco sector. There are in excess of 1,200 tobacco producers across Ontario creating over 17,000 jobs. Bill C-47 would not affect them in any way, shape or form. It would not touch them.
The legislation would not affect people in the wine and spirit producing sectors in a negative way per se. Rather, it would deal with the issue of people who operate without licences and try to sell their product on the market without proper certification. The element of enforcement exists in the legislation for that purpose.
We cannot look at Bill C-47 in isolation. It is part of the government's overall agenda of revisiting every law on the books to ensure our laws continue to respond to the needs of Canadians. When the Prime Minister was elected in 1993 one of the pledges he made to the House and to Canadians was that we would look at the way we do our job as a government. He said we would look at our mandate which is to respond to the needs of Canadians.
As we have seen, the government has done just that. First, we addressed the incredible amount of debt and deficit that existed when we came to power. It was at an all time high of over $42 billion. In no time at all the government was able to turn the corner and bring us into a surplus situation that has enabled us to not only pay down the debt but to support the programs Canadians feel strongly about such as health care, education and other issues that affect them.
Bill C-47 is part of the overall government agenda of trying to bring our laws into the 21st century so our industries can do well. My colleagues in the opposition consistently attack the government about where we are on the international scene. I have in my hand a report published in January, 2002 by KPMG, a well respected international organization. The report deals with competitiveness on the international scene. The report is available to my colleagues on the opposition side. It is my hope they will obtain a copy of it and have a look at what the government has done over the years. I will not read through it but according to KPMG Canada has been identified as the best country in the world in which to do business. Canada is way ahead of the United States, the United Kingdom and many other countries in the industrialized world. We continue to strive in that area.
I will read for hon. members what it says about an area in which Canada has been the pride of all Canadians: labour costs and taxation. Canada is still one of the best countries in the world in terms of taxation. I will come to that in a minute.
My colleagues on the other side often quiz the government on the issue of competitiveness and labour costs. Hon. members will be happy to know that when it comes to wages and salaries, statutory plans and employer sponsored benefits Canada ranks first. That is ahead of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, France, Austria, the United States and Japan.
I will come back to the issue of taxation and what we are talking about in the bill. When it comes to levels of corporate taxation Canada has been ranked a close second to the United Kingdom but well ahead of all other G-7 countries.
This is all to say that what we have seen from the government over the past nine years is an unequivocal commitment to respond to the need of Canadians and ensure Canada continues to be the best country in the world in which to live and do business. Bill C-47 fits exactly into the government's agenda and where we are going.
I sometimes see my colleagues on the other side taking cheap shots at the chair of the finance committee or the parliamentary secretary. We have seen reports in the press over the past few days indicating 70% of Canadians do not have trust in their elected officials. It is my duty and obligation as a member of parliament to stand and say it is these kinds of unfounded allegations that are eroding the trust of the public in public institutions.
When members of this institution attack the integrity of other members we start to see an erosion of public confidence in our institutions. It is the responsibility of each member of this institution to stand and be counted. We must state the facts, not use innuendos or unfounded allegations. Members must not make comments if at the end of the day they cannot walk outside the House and make the same comments. Such members know they will be sued if they do because their statements are totally false and without foundation. Members of the House must be in a shameful state of mind to stand and attack the integrity of other members without proper foundation, without any legs to stand on, without any brain to guide them and without any soul to go back to.
In that spirit I want the House to know Bill C-47 has nothing to do with breweries. If there is a social or a business problem with the issue of breweries it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to address it in the context of something else, not in the context of what is before us and the House today. To turn around and make an allegation about the chair of the committee puts her in an awkward position. If the issue is not in the bill and she or the clerk have ruled that the issue cannot be dealt with by the committee, it puts the committee chair in a conflict.
What a shameful and baseless allegation. It is my hope that the same member who stood to attack the member will stand right now, as my colleague would say, and apologize not only to the member but to all Canadians because Bill C-47 is supported by the industry. It is supported by the people. It is supported by the same institution the hon. member is trying to protect. He is doing no service whatsoever to his constituents by making these kinds of unfounded allegations.
It is my hope that the House will approve Bill C-47 without any delay.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, I must first remind the hon. member that if public support for members of Parliament is anything like what we saw in last week's polls, I would be very concerned about that support. With only 11% of Canadians feeling that politicians are honest, we have no choice but to try harder to promote honesty. I think everyone agrees that we must avoid being in a conflict of interest situation, but we must also not appear to be in such a situation.
The hon. member is the chair of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investments. We work together, and I think we do a very good job. I am convinced that, as chair of the subcommittee, if an amendment were proposed by a committee member, which dealt directly with the interests of someone close to him, including his spouse or a relative, he would tell us and he would remove himself from the debate and let the committee decide. I am convinced that this is how he would conduct himself. I am asking him to confirm my opinion on this issue.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, first, as regards responsibilities, when a committee is reviewing a bill, the first administrative duty of the chair is to examine the issues before it. The committee was reviewing Bill C-47. Therefore, the first and last responsibility of the chair was to examine the issues relating to Bill C-47.
When an opposition or government member proposes a motion on any topic, the chair's responsibility is to take that motion or suggestion and refer it to the clerk of the committee.
This is precisely what the chair did in this case. The clerk of the committee said that this topic was not covered in Bill C-47. Therefore, the chair agreed that the committee would not look into it. I do not see how we could say that this puts the chair in a conflict of interest position. As we say, this is a slippery slope.
If we start saying that a member of parliament is responsible for what his spouse, mother, father, brother, cousin or any other relative or neighbour does, it will never end.
We need to realize that, for some time now, integrity issues have been important not only for government members, but also for opposition members. When issues like that are raised, they have to be based on clear objectives and a just foundation.
In this case, however, our colleagues are raising an issue that is devoid of any substance. These are very personal issues that reflect badly not only on my colleague, but on the House of Commons and on all Canadians.
We are to blame if the public does not trust us, because we are responsible for what is being broadcast over the speakers in the House of Commons. We are somehow responsible for casting a negative light upon our Canadian parliamentary institutions. All because the opposition parties are making unsubstantiated allegations.
I challenge the hon. member to make these same allegations outside the House of Commons and see what the Canadian courts make of them. If the member can prove these allegations in any way, shape or form, he should make them outside the House of Commons.
This bill addresses all the topics, except for the breweries. The hon. member should stand up and apologize to my hon. colleague from London West.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, our colleague does not seem to know what is in the Excise Act. It contains everything we have in Bill C-47, amending the general excise legislation, except one thing, beer.
Why is that? Because the Brewers Association of Canada, through the chairman of its taxation committee, who happens to be the spouse of the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, asked her not to include in the bill the beer produced by microbreweries. That is why beer is not included.
In 1986, Justice Parker, who presided over the case of a Conservative minister who was accused of 14 counts of conflict of interest, said that we needed a stronger and legally enforceable code of conduct if we were to prevent public office holders from ending up in this kind of situation. One of his key recommendations involved an examination of the position, assets and economic interests of spouses and dependent children. In this case, it is not a neighbour who is involved, but the spouse.
You did not answer the question of the hon. member for Joliette. As chair of the committee--
Excise Act, 2001Government Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. The Chair should not be left out. I ask the hon. member to make his comments and ask his questions through the Chair.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, could you ask the member to answer the question of my colleague from Joliette?
If he, as the chair of a committee, had had a spouse who was involved in an issue that was considered by his committee, would he not have made known, right at the beginning of the examination of the bill, the fact that his spouse was directly involved in the bill and, as appropriate, would he not have proposed that he withdraw from consideration of the bill?
The hon. member for London West never told the committee members that she had a connection with the chair of the taxation committee of the Brewers Association of Canada, which is linked to John Labatt Ltd.
Would he have done the same thing? If he had done the same thing, I would have stepped outside, as I did for the hon. member for London West, and I would have accused him of a conflict of interest. This has already been done.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, but I think my colleague was not listening, this particular topic was not covered in the bill. Committee chairs do not make laws. My colleague needs a lesson on how things work with regard to bills.
Usually, a bill comes before a committee on the initiative of the ministers responsible. The chair or members of the committee are not involved in the drafting of the bill.
My colleague is not making a positive contribution to this debate. We are here to debate Bill C-47. Frankly, I expected the members to talk about this bill, but they rise and talk about all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the bill. The member talked about microbreweries in his neighbourhood and in his region. But does he have concrete proposals to make about what this House or a future House could do to deal with these issues? Does he have concrete proposals to make about what can be done? Does he have any ideas?
We must deal with the issues before us. A committee chair does not introduce a bill. It is the result of a concerted effort by the industry, the public and the public administration. It does not emanate from a committee chair.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take the floor to debate Bill C-47.
This is a rather special bill in that the debate involves not only an issue affecting the Excise Tax Act, but also an issue of ethics. The exchange of views we have just had strikes me as very clear in this respect. I will therefore need to speak to both of these aspects.
On Friday, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot pointed out, and rightly so, that it is strange, to say the least, that we are being presented with Bill C-47, which covers everything but beer and the excise tax on microbreweries.
This is a general bill, and one that is well explained in the presentation, where it is stated that it re-enacts existing provisions in the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act relating to the excise levies on these products, together with technical improvements, and incorporates a range of new provisions.
This is, therefore, a re-enactment of existing legislation. In the present legislation, everything is addressed: wine, spirits, beer, tobacco. There are provisions on licensing, rights of accession, offences, collection, record. In this bill, everything is there except for beer and excise tax on microbreweries. This is passing strange.
Why? There are two reasons, as has been pointed out by the members of the Bloc Quebecois since the start of this debate, I believe, and by a number of opposition members as well. First, because the government has torpedoed the work of the committee, and second because it preferred to lend an ear to the major breweries rather than the needs of the microbreweries.
When they listen to the major breweries, which must unfortunately be identified as Labatt, Molson and the like, the corporate image of these companies is greatly tarnished in the process. Personally, I find this regrettable, because these are well-established institutions. They have put themselves in the position of being in conflict of interest and this, I feel, will not go over well with the general public.
Let us review the facts regarding breweries, and microbreweries in particular. Across the board in Canada, as is the case in the United States, there is a 28 cent tax per litre of beer. However, in the U.S., the mecca of capitalism, as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot reminded us again on Friday, there is a distinction made for microbreweries. The tax is not 28 cents a litre, but nine cents a litre. In the U.S., a microbrewery is defined as a brewery that produces a maximum of one million hectolitres. In Canada, a microbrewery is defined as a brewery producing a maximum of 300,000 hectolitres.
This means that what would be considered a large brewery here is considered a microbrewery in the United States. They are three times the size of our microbreweries, yet they are considered microbreweries and benefit from a preferential tax rate of nine cents per litre of beer, rather than 28 cents per litre.
The result of this situation is clear. Since their taxes are lower, they are able to compete with, and really hurt their Canadian competitors. We have witnessed the result: 38 microbreweries have disappeared. They have not disappeared by some miracle; they disappeared because the circumstances of competition led them to disappear.
Why? There are no doubt a number of factors, but there is one that is easily identified. The 28 cents per litre paid by Canadian microbreweries and the nine cents per litre paid by U.S. microbreweries is definitely one of the main reasons.
If the Government of Canada has at heart the interests and the future of its microbreweries, it should react swiftly by accepting to review Bill C-47, to immediately include the beer industry, particularly the excise tax on beer produced by microbreweries.
Europe has done the same thing. This would not be some Canadian invention. We would be falling in line with what is done everywhere else. There are rules—I say this as the Bloc Quebecois critic on international trade—accepted by the World Trade Organization. When it comes to microbreweries, they are considered in terms of regional diversification, and the member for Jonquière reminded us earlier, in terms of diversification of products.
There are also cultural aspects to the production of these microbreweries, which are often still using traditional methods.
The Government of Canada dismissed out of hand the concerns of the microbreweries and decided simply to listen to the interests of the big breweries, in particular Labatt and Molson, which dominate the Brewers Association of Canada.
I conclude that there is some sort of collusion between what it was decided to include in Bill C-47 and the interests which are not hidden, but admitted. We have the letter. I have seen it. Clearly, the Brewers Association of Canada is asking that anything having to do with the beer industry and the excise tax for microbreweries be excluded from Bill C-47.
So this entire situation is of great concern, all the more so since—and this brings me to the second point—while the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot tried to correct matters so that Bill C-47 would include the provisions of the earlier legislation amended to reflect the current state of affairs, the committee's work was sabotaged by the fact that the amendments to include the beer provisions were rejected.
Earlier, someone said, “Yes, but it was not in the bill”. A bill is just as important for what it includes as for what it leaves out. It seems to me that we are entirely justified in including beer in a discussion of excise taxes on wine, spirits and tobacco. The public would normally group these products together.
In my view, this argument is completely wrong. It is exactly the same as for bills before the sub-committee or the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Each time amendments to crown corporations concerning international trade or foreign affairs are put forward, I always put forward an amendment, but this amendment or this concern is never included in government bills.
I will give an example involving the Export Development Corporation. When it was decided to rename it Export Development Canada, there was a key omission. There was no provision requiring a crown corporation, such as the Export Development Corporation, now Export Development Canada, to respect Canada's international commitments. I put forward an amendment in committee. That amendment was accepted. It was not in the bill.
On the contrary, every time we talk about crown corporations, the government systematically excludes this. We have international commitments. Canada tries to be generous, but only if it is of no practical consequence. Every time it is not in the legislation. Every time I put forward amendments, they were ruled in order by the chair and every time they were defeated by the Liberals. However, I managed to do one thing at least--and I say it every time I have an opportunity to do so--to prove that this government speaks from both sides of it mouth.
This is another case in point. Do not give us this misleading argument that we are not dealing with beer. The current act deals with beer. They should have explained to us why we should not be talking about beer. Everybody agrees, including the Brewers Association of Canada, that the situation of the microbreweries is urgent. Why then is the only sector identified as being threatened by competition the one for which no decision is being made? It is being postponed, put off for a month of Sundays. In the meantime, microbreweries are disappearing one after the other. They have lost another 1% to 2% of the market.
Moreover, the committee chair, the member for London West, used a new procedure introduced during this Parliament with Motion No. 2, which in my view is particularly undemocratic. I remind the House that the government put forward Motion No. 2 after the debate on Bill C-20, which attempted and is still attempting to prevent Quebecers from democratically choosing their collective future. It will not work but this is what the Liberal government attempted to do. There is also the Young Offenders Act which the Bloc Quebecois, and especially my friend the member for Berthier—Montcalm, tried to stand up for the Quebec consensus on this bill.
We moved amendments to correct the bill. To deal with the problem, the Liberals changed the rules of the game. The chair of a committee or sub-committee may now simply decide that an amendment is out of order. This is what happened in the case of the amendment moved by my friend, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.
Democracy is ailing in the Canadian parliament. No wonder Canadians and Quebecers are losing confidence in their parliamentary institutions. Decisions are not taken here but in the Prime Minister's office. This is where it was decided that beer would not be part of Bill C-47. It is the duty of the opposition and it should also be the duty of the members across the way to say, “Bill C-47 should have dealt with the beer industry, especially microbreweries”.
Therefore I cannot accept the argument, which is being constantly repeated, namely that since Bill C-47 did not deal with the beer industry, the amendment had to be out of order. This is totally ludicrous.
Unfortunately, this is what occurred. I will not mention the fact that the spouse of the chair of the committee is a lobbyist for the Brewers Association of Canada. This is probably just a coincidence. The facts, however, are real. This is the truth. I believe that if she were a minister, the committee chair would probably be a very good candidate for a position as ambassador in a Scandinavian country.
It seems to me that if the government were committed to the future of the 2,000 employees of microbreweries who earn their livelihood in this sector, mainly in Quebec--I remind hon. members that proportionally Quebec has more microbreweries than the rest of Canada--and elsewhere in Canada, it would immediately bring forward amendments to Bill C-47 dealing with the beer industry and the excise tax as it relates to microbreweries, which everyone considers necessary.
I remind hon. members that even the Brewers Association of Canada has said so. Allow me to read the letter sent on April 12, 2002 to the chair of the committee and spouse of a lobbyist for the brewers association:
Our position remains unchanged: we fully support a reduction in the excise tax for small brewers. It is a priority of the BAC and we want to point out that small brewers in Canada urgently need such reduction.We will support any measure aimed at attaining this objective, but in light of our prior agreement with the government, we cannot support amendments which would include beer in Bill C-47.
On the one hand, the association says that it is prepared to support any measure to settle a situation that it itself deems urgent, but, on the other hand, it did everything it could to prevent the Bloc Quebecois from moving amendments that would have corrected the situation. This is a rather serious case of manipulation of the public interests.
If the government cared about the future of these 2,000 employees, it would correct the situation. I believe the opposition would unanimously agree to include this clause in Bill C-47.
Unfortunately, this government, perhaps because it has been in office for a number of years, no longer cares about Canadian and Quebec workers. We can see it in the Murdochville and GM cases. I could list all the issues on which the federal government shown indifference. This government only cares about one thing: remaining in office, ensuring that the Liberal Party of Canada has enough money to win the next general election. This is its only concern.
There has been an incredible deterioration. I have witnessed it myself, because I followed politics for a number of years before I entered it, in November 2000. The government is no longer protecting the interests of the federal government, of Canadian federalism. It is protecting the partisan interests of the Liberal Party of Canada. If this means that microbreweries must disappear, then they will disappear for this government, for the party in office, but not for us.
We are going to fight to ensure that what has happened to GM and Murdochville does not happen to the 46 microbreweries left in Canada, 19 of which are located in Quebec. The government will have to wake up and review Bill C-47 to include the beer industry and the excise tax for microbreweries, or this will be yet another example of the federal government's failed economic policies.
Just for fun the other day, even though there was actually nothing very funny about it, I decided to make a list of all the federal government's failed economic policies since Confederation.
The national policy artificially created an east-west market. It deprived Quebec of its natural axis, which is north-south. Fortunately, free trade set things straight and we do more business with the Americans than we do with the rest of Canada.
The Borden line made Quebec and eastern Canada pay more for gasoline than we would have paid if prices had been in line with international prices. And why was that? To develop the oil industry in western Canada. It was a completely respectable choice. How strange that Quebec always has to pay for these policies.
Now, for the St. Lawrence seaway. Certainly it had to be constructed but what compensation was there for Quebec, Montreal in particular, southwest Montreal, east Montreal, when the seaway was built and industry moved to southern Ontario? This is perhaps just another coincidence and probably not premeditated in any way.
There was no question of not putting in the St. Lawrence seaway. There should, however, have been investment in restructuring, in worker retraining, in order to avoid the catastrophe that ensued, in the late 1970s and early 1980s in particular. Fortunately, people were able to pick up the pieces. Things are better in Montreal now, without any help from the federal government.
The federal government's R & D policy systematically penalizes Quebec. It took a 30 year struggle to get back occupational training—and we do not yet have it all back—in order to have a consistent employment policy. That took 30 years. We lost 30 years in federal-provincial squabbles. In the end, the federal government had to bow to the pressure and acknowledge it was wrong. Nevertheless, we wasted 30 years. Quebec wasted 30 years on this battle.
As for GM, federal government policies have systematically favoured development of the auto industry in southern Ontario. However, when it comes to industries with a solid foothold in Quebec, aeronautics or pharmaceuticals for instance, we see that federal government policies favour a shotgun approach, spreading them all over, in all regions of Canada.
I will give one example from my own experience. When Quebec obtained the space agency for Saint-Hubert, immediately afterward the federal government awarded the F-18 maintenance contract to Winnipeg, just to be sure that the goodies were spread around. This, however, can weaken the situation of the aircraft industry in Quebec. The same thing goes for the pharmaceutical industry.
With a record like that, it seems to me that we now have an opportunity presented to us, a symbolic one of course. Yet with this government, I believe we need to start with something symbolic before moving on to something more serious.
Honestly, the government ought to rethink its intention to push Bill C-47 through regardless. It should redo its homework. We are prepared to be involved, as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot has said right from the start. The law needs changing, needs modernizing, but there must be equity with all sectors.
I am not promoting wine, spirits and tobacco over beer. I think they should all be treated equally. That is what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for. If Bill C-47 does not meet our expectations, then we will have to fight against it and do everything we can to defeat it.
I will also fight for the microbreweries in the region of Lanaudière, especially one in Joliette, La Broue Pub, l'Alchimiste. It was set up by young entrepreneurs a few years ago and I want this young business to have the opportunity to compete on the North American market and, who knows, maybe even on the world market. But for that to happen, we need to take fairer measures, decrease the excise tax on microbreweries and amend Bill C-47. Otherwise, we will defeat it.
The federal government now has the chance to show that it cares about microbreweries, regional development, especially in Quebec, and more globally the 2,000 people working in this industry across Canada.
Darrel Stinson Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech regarding the issue before the House. I want him to clarify a few things for me. From what I was hearing in your speech, you were saying that small breweries are--
Excise Act, 2001Government Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. I am very sensitive and I feel left out.
Darrel Stinson Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Through you, Mr. Speaker, you are saying that small breweries--
Excise Act, 2001Government Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Let me see if we can get this straight. I am not saying anything. I will make it clear, I am not saying anything on either side. I would like to hear it, but that is not the debate today.
I want the question or the comment to be directed through the Chair to the hon. member for Joliette.
Darrel Stinson Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member was saying that small breweries will have to pay the penalties and the large breweries will not be paying the same tax.
My understanding in the committee was that a spouse, who is the chair and is married to somebody that works for the big brewery company, is making part of the decisions in the committee. The member had a hesitation in saying whether or not this was right or wrong or he did not want to say it. I do not have a problem with saying it. To me it sounds like it is very off colour.
I am wondering if maybe that is not one of the major concerns with committees as a whole here on the Hill. I really have very little faith in them myself. After reading the paper just a few days ago, most people in Canada think there is a basic point of corruption in government. Does that not contribute to that factor?
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, maybe the irony in my remarks did not come through in the translation.
The facts speak for themselves. When a member and his or her spouse are both working on the same issue, they may not be acting in bad faith, but there is certainly a lack of judgment involved.
As the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot pointed out earlier, I think it calls for a tightening and a clarification of our rules, especially where the chairs of the committees are concerned.
Motion No. 2 has given committee chairs more responsibilities than ever before and they need rules to guide them. I still think, however, that the chair of that committee made a bad judgment call. I hope that is all it was.
Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC
M. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He will certainly have the opportunity to speak later. My question is very simple.
The defence for what happened in the Standing Committee on Finance is based on the fact that the bill did not deal with beer. The Excise Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation, and the only thing that does not included in the new bill is beer. This is what the government side is saying. I did not study this bill thoroughly—I am not my party's critic on this issue—but I find it strange that, already in clause 2, there is a definition of beer.
I hope my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will hear this comment and the hon. member for Joliette will be able to consider the fact that we already have the word “beer” in a definition and that we find no mention of it in other provisions of the bill. This is extremely important. If one takes the trouble to define beer in the bill and there is no mention of it anywhere else in the bill, it is because there is a blatant lack of work and rigour in these provisions. If one takes the trouble to define this word, we must at least know what happens with beer.
I ask my colleague and friend from Joliette to look at the definition and to tell me why the government says there is no conflict of interest or apparent conflict of interest. On what grounds does he say that the issue of beer is not provided for in this bill, while beer is already mentioned and defined in clause 2? I hope this will be discussed. I ask my colleague to comment on this.