Debates of March 22nd, 2023

Opposition Motion—Tax Increase on Beer, Wine and Spirits

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from commenting on the need for an independent public inquiry. In a context where the federal government is experiencing significant budget surpluses and in a time of high inflation, why does the Liberal government want to increase the tax by 6.3%?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not say the federal budget is in a surplus situation. I think we are still going to see deficits. The 6% increase to the tax is due to the fact that we have an automatic mechanism to escalate the tax.

I think this is wrong. We as parliamentarians need to have debates and make deliberate decisions about tax increases. In the current environment, we are in a period of extreme inflation compared to previous decades. I do not think now is the time to have an exceptional tax increase on these products.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, off the top, I will say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauce.

The cost of living is rising faster than at any time in the last 40 years, and the NDP-Liberal government's inflationary deficits and high taxes are driving up those costs. Hard-working Canadians whose paycheques do not go nearly as far as they once did are having trouble making ends meet. Canadians are already out of money and cannot afford to have the Prime Minister dive deeper and deeper into their pockets.

The average Canadian family is already spending more of their income on taxes than on basic necessities. More of their hard-earned dollars are going to taxes than on food, shelter and clothing combined, yet there is no break on the horizon. It is actually just the opposite. Life will get more expensive for Canadians on April 1. With the failed Liberal carbon tax set to increase, Canadians will be paying even more at the pumps and on their home heating bills.

On April 1, the Liberal carbon tax will increase to 14¢ per litre of gasoline, and the carbon tax will add 12¢ per cubic metre of natural gas. Of course it does not end there. On April 1, the NDP-Liberal government's automatic escalator on the alcohol excise tax will mark the largest tax increase on alcohol in the last 40 years. This tax increase will not only punish Canadian consumers, but also hurt workers in the tourism, hospitality and restaurant sectors.

It is a big hit to our brewers and our winemakers also. Today's Conservative motion recognizes the significant impact of this tax increase, and it is an opportunity for the NDP-Liberal government to reverse course and cancel this punishing increase.

The tourism, hospitality and restaurant sectors were some of the hardest hit by the pandemic restrictions imposed on these sectors. The reality is that many small businesses in these sectors are still struggling to keep their doors open. According to Restaurants Canada, more than 50% of licensed restaurants are either losing money or just breaking even. Many of these small businesses are still carrying debt from the pandemic, and the April 1 excise tax increase would not help these businesses that are just trying to keep the lights on, nor will the increased carbon tax, which is also going to drive up their cost of doing business.

The government should, at a minimum, have a “do no harm” approach. It should not be actively making it harder and more expensive to do business in Canada, but that, unfortunately, is the course we are on. Instead of addressing the concerns of restauranteurs, craft brewers, vintners and distillery owners, the Prime Minister is making it harder for them to do business and remain competitive.

Yet the Liberals will not even take responsibility for the hardship caused by their high tax agenda. In fact, the way the Liberal members often talk in this House, one would think that Canadians have never had it so good, which really shows just how out of touch they are and how out of touch their policies are.

When it comes to the excise escalator tax, we have all heard the Liberal rhetoric in this place that downplays the cost of the hike. The reality is that they are increasing taxes on beer, wine and spirits by 6.3% this year alone, totalling an 18% increase since 2017. A report released by Restaurants Canada indicates that the planned tax increase would cost restaurants and bars an extra $750 million in new annual costs. For individual restaurants, the tax hike would be more than $30,000 annually, on average.

Restaurant owners are not the only ones sounding the alarm. The heads of eight different unions representing brewery workers sent a letter to the Minister of Finance. Brewery workers are worried about the impact that this tax increase would have on their jobs. For brewers, the planned increase would cost them more than $45 million in federal taxes, and it threatens the job viability of the 20,000 Canadians they employ. In that letter, the unions representing brewery workers clearly state that a freeze on federal beer taxes is the single most important thing that the Minister of Finance could do for their workers and for their families.

We know that an escalator tax is problematic to begin with, allowing the government to hike taxes annually without any debate or consideration of its impact on industry and Canadians. The Liberals tied this escalator tax to the rate of inflation, so this tax is directly impacted by their economic mismanagement. As I said, this year the tax rate is 6.3%, but if the NDP-Liberal government refuses to reverse course on its disastrous policies, which are fanning inflation and the cost of living, who knows what the tax increase will be next year.

Fighting inflation should be a priority for the government, and I certainly hope in next week's budget we see an end to the government's inflationary spending and no new taxes for Canadians. This is so hard-working Canadians can get some real relief. The more inflation makes life unaffordable for Canadians, the more they will need to pay to, for example, have a drink after a long day's work or to celebrate a special occasion with their family or friends.

While the Liberals may want to stand in this place and say this tax increase is pennies on the bottle, it is important to also put that into perspective. Alcohol is already highly taxed in Canada. On average, 46% of the retail price of beer is a tax. Tax is 65% of the price of wine and more than three quarters of the price of spirits. The April 1 tax increase will nickel-and-dime Canadians who are already being stretched to their max, making basic necessities and the cost of doing business more expensive across the board.

The many industries directly impacted by this planned tax hike cannot afford it either. Craft brewers, distillers and winemakers who are also struggling with inflationary costs cannot afford higher taxes that will make it harder to do business and stay competitive. The many small businesses in the tourism, hospitality and restaurant sector, which were hit hard by pandemic restrictions and are already struggling to keep their doors open and their lights on, simply cannot afford new business costs either.

Today's Conservative motion is an opportunity for every member of this House to stand up for Canadians and Canadian businesses. Let us give Canadians and the many Canadian businesses directly impacted by the excise escalator tax a break and let us cancel the April 1 tax increase on beer, wine and spirits.

Given what the NDP did this evening, I will be foregoing my questions and comments to allow some of my other colleagues to have their remarks put on the record.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am a little concerned because this is the second time it happened today where I was hoping to ask a question of the member, but the member literally walked out.

I will take that back. I will not say that the member walked out, but I would like to ask the member a question, if I could.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the hon. member wants to ask a question, but the availability of a member is important when it comes to answering. The courtesy is whether they stay or not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I realize neither one of us is supposed to say whether a member is here or not, so I am just rising to pose my question to the member who just spoke.

If she genuinely believes the Conservative Party's motion is worthy of supporting, could she tell me that this is something we should vote for?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is debate, and we will be moving on to the next speaker.

The hon. member for Beauce has the floor.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to our party's opposition day motion on the Liberal government's escalator tax on beer, wine and spirits. This unfair tax introduced by the government in 2017 is extremely troubling and will once again increase the cost of things that Canadians regularly consume.

This tax will not only have a major impact on consumers, but it will also harm many small businesses, including microbreweries, vineyards and other alcohol producers. It will harm restaurants, hotels and bars as well. These small businesses deserve a break after being hit so hard during the pandemic.

However, this government is determined to increase taxes on everything in an attempt to recover the money it wasted over the past eight years. On April 1, the escalator tax will increase by a staggering 6.3%. Since 2017, the tax has increased by an average of only 1% to 2% a year, but in 2023, it will be three or four times that.

That is why, in this motion, our party is calling on the government to abolish this tax and to assure Canadians that next week's budget will contain a commitment to cancelling this tax. As I mentioned earlier, it will hit small businesses the hardest. This unfair tax plan will negatively impact not only our alcohol industry, but also our tourism industry, which is still picking up the pieces after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Alcohol is taxed enough already. According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, taxes make up 50% of the price of beer, 65% of the price of wine and 75% of the price of spirits, on average. The heads of eight unions representing the country's brewery workers have written to the Minister of Finance asking her to freeze this tax. They are extremely concerned about job losses in their industry because of this dangerous Liberal tactic.

In a country where inflation is at a 40-year high, why does the government want to keep on hiking taxes instead of helping Canadians prosper? To make matters worse, this tax increase will take effect on April 1. What a coincidence. That is the same day the government plans to triple the carbon tax on Canadians.

Not only will the price of gas go up, but the price of alcohol will also skyrocket. That is cruel. When I spoke earlier about the effect of the carbon tax on small businesses, I did not even mention the impact it will have on alcohol producers. Their monthly expenses to run their facilities will go up, and so will their shipping costs.

How does the government think our sector can remain competitive on the national stage? I think it is very sad that the government is tying our industry's hands with such a policy. Canada produces some of the best beer, wine and spirits in the world, but they are being unfairly targeted by the Liberal government.

The Minister of Tourism continues to stand up in the House and say that this will add only 1¢ per can of beer. I do not know where he is getting his figures, but according to Beer Canada, there will be a net increase of about 10% in the price of beer in 2023.

In my riding, many small businesses have contacted my office to share their concerns about this increase. I spoke about it with a producer in my riding just this morning. Ms. Simard, owner of Verger à Ti‑Paul in Saint‑Elzéar, is very worried about her business's ability to remain competitive as April 1 approaches. Her cider business is still in the initial stages of development, and she is very frustrated with this 6.3% tax, which will slow the growth of her business considerably.

Mr. Poulin, owner of Frampton Brasse, a farm and brewery in Frampton, in the Beauce area, says that larger, older businesses like his are just as worried and frustrated by this tax.

Whether a business has been operating for one year or 20, it will have to deal with the disastrous consequences of this failed Liberal policy. These are mostly small businesses, and their products are distributed solely in the region. Consequently, this additional tax will be passed on directly to consumers, who are often the neighbours of these businesses and want to support local products.

This spend-happy, tax-happy government is preventing young entrepreneurs from achieving their dreams and owning a business. In my riding and across the country, labour availability remains a major issue. It will be much more difficult for small breweries and cideries to retain staff because of low profit margins. Companies will be forced to cut back on production time, making them less and less profitable—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There seems to be a lot of discussion going on in the House. I would ask members to please leave the House if they to continue their conversations, so that everyone can hear the debate.

The hon. member for Beauce.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bureaucracy and other obstacles such as this government's tax system are driving investments to other countries. This needs to stop. The Conservatives were strongly opposed to this escalator tax when it was first introduced by the Liberals. We even campaigned on the idea of getting rid of it. Members within the Liberal caucus do not seem to agree with this policy. Just ask the member for London North Centre, who said that the government should not move forward with this tax and it should not be tied to inflation either.

In conclusion, the cost of living keeps going up faster than the prevailing wage, and measures to make goods more affordable are sorely lacking in Canada. I sincerely hope that the government and the Minister of Finance will listen to the Conservatives, but mostly to Canadians, and that they will cancel this tax in the budget they are bringing down next week. I hope that the other opposition parties will join us in voting on this motion in order to pressure this government into doing what is necessary and scrapping this tax for once and for all.

Period for Questions and Comments Following Speeches

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am really quite concerned. We have a tradition in the House of Commons that if a 10-minute speech has been delivered, there is a five-minute question and answer period, and if it is a 20-minute speech, there is a 10-minute question and answer period. What we are seeing is chicken-Tory-soup, of sorts, where the Conservatives seem to feel they can give a 10-minute speech and then not have to be held accountable for their comments, even on an opposition day.

Obviously, that is something I would ask, if not of you, then of the Speaker, to be looked at and reported back to the House. It sets a dangerous precedent to say to members that they can stand up, deliver a speech and feel that they do not have to be accountable for the words they have said by choosing not to stand in their place.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If members do not have the courage to defend their speeches, they should not speak in the House, quite frankly. They have a responsibility to be accountable to members in the House. This is the third or fourth member of the Conservative Party who ran out of the House after giving their speech. Yesterday, we saw the leader of the Conservative Party not even vote on his own motion.

I think this conduct is unbecoming of parliamentarians. If they are going to speak, they should have to stay and answer questions.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is the usual practice of the House that it is absolutely inappropriate to make mention of the presence or absence of any member of this chamber. I think it is absolutely inappropriate for the members opposite, who have been ducking accountability for weeks in the House, to come here and try to accuse Conservative members of not being accountable, when they have shown zero accountability on a number of important issues, including foreign interference.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same topic. I believe that whether a member is still present in the House or not, the member should be permitted to ask questions. In question period, a member of the opposition will address a question to a minister who may not be there, and someone else will get up and answer in place of the minister. Therefore, the fact that a member is no longer in the House does not mean that one should not have the opportunity to ask questions, even if they are not going to be answered.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I know we are getting into a really strange place.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Could you give me a moment while I have the Chair? I will get to the hon. member in a moment. I can see the hon. member, and I will get to him as soon as I possibly can. I also see that there is an opportunity here to remind folks that we do not want to set precedents that we do not want to support ourselves. I do not want to see government members doing the same thing, when the opposition is trying to ask questions as well. It would create a problem later on down road.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre with the same point of order, I believe.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think this is a question of the quality of our democracy. If, in the House of Commons, we were to switch to speeches back and forth, as opposed to debate with questions and answers, I think the level of accountability on all sides would be reduced. I ask you to rule on this very fair point of order.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

This is not out of order. These are points of debate from people who are angry about how things have transpired this evening. The parliamentary secretary to the House leader is here. The government whip is here. Maybe I am not supposed to refer to their presence. If the members on the Liberal side want to talk about amending the Standing Orders, that is actually what needs to happen here. There is no violation of the Standing Orders happening here. This is simply a waste of time, which we are used to from the member who is about to speak.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

First of all, it is not questions. It is questions and comments. Five minutes of comments should be allowed if the individual is no longer in the House. Standing Order 43(c) says, “Except as provided in Standing Orders 95, 97.1(2)(c)(i) and 126(1)(a), following any 10-minute speech, a period not exceeding five minutes shall be made available...to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.”

What needs to happen is that the Conservatives need to realize that they were outwitted by the NDP today, suck it up, call it a day and move on. Tomorrow is a new day.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I think we should recall that at one time in the House of Commons there was a period without questions and comments. It was not until the McGrath committee report of the 1980s that Parliament adopted the practice of having questions and answers after comments.

If we look at certain provincial legislatures, like the legislature in Manitoba, they do not have the practice of questions and comments. The McGrath committee found that parliamentary debate would be far better if members were asked questions after their speeches. It was due to a very deliberate attempt to improve the quality of debate, by the McGrath committee in 1989, that we have questions and comments.

Unless we are going to study the issue and change our Standing Orders, I do not think members should go back on an important reflection of members at that time. It has been the tradition, up until now, to have meaningful debate in the chamber by having questions and comments, and that is what members are doing. Whether they are leaving the chamber or whether they are just stupefied, which I can believe with some members on the Conservative bench, and they choose to stay in their place—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will read from the Standing Orders. I will complete the clause that says, “Following any speech by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, a minister moving a government order, or the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, and following any 20-minute speech, a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.”

Bosc and Gagnon state, “If the questions and comments period is interrupted by another proceeding, when debate resumes on the motion, the questions and comments period will continue only if the Member who made the initial speech is present.”

There is also a ruling from 1986 that I can go and dig up, if people want.

As much as I am uncomfortable with what is going on here tonight, I believe there is a small piece of input from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a question. Was the time between the end of the speech and the beginning of Q and A interrupted by other business of the House?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

No.

I did reference “if available”. Whether I say if somebody is in the House or not means whether they are available and whether they can.

I am not the debater of what is required and what is not in this particular case. Folks, I am going to move on to the next speaker, which is the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.