Pauline Picard

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interesting question. I am in total agreement with him. Ever since our election, in 1993, we have asked the Minister of Finance to modernize and review substantially the tax system.

Our requests have been in vain. Like my colleague just said, they have always been met with half measures. We have been waiting since 1997 for changes to the Excise Tax Act, and we have now before us a bill in which something very important has been left out.

As I said earlier, this is a comprehensive bill. The excise tax applies to all products made in Quebec and Canada, like tobacco products, spirits, wine, and beer. These are products made in Canada on which the excise tax is levied.

Now, why should beer be excluded from the bill? We have been told that there will be further studies and other bills will be coming forward. We will have to wait another five years.

A moment ago, I was quoting a few figures. In Ontario, 13 microbreweries went under in the last five years. Over the same period, 11 went out of business in Quebec, two of them in Saint-Hyacinthe. We also had microbrewery closures in Saint-Eustache, Baie-Saint-Paul, Amos, Montreal and Cap-Chat. In British Columbia, seven had to close down. Where are the British Columbia members, when microbreweries need their support?

I am very surprised that my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance would support this bill and not defend entrepreneurship in their communities. It is our products that make us competitive. Again, nobody is doing anything to defend microbreweries. Five microbreweries had to shut down in Alberta, one in Manitoba and another one in Nova Scotia. Why are the members not defending microbreweries and the entrepreneurship of people in their communities? It is difficult to understand.

I would remind members that, in the finance minister's riding, the Brasal microbrewery had to shut down. Why? Because, in Lasalle—Émard, the finance minister's riding, that microbrewery had to compete with the powerful John Labatt company.

I fail to understand why the Minister of Finance himself was unable to defend these entrepreneurs in his own riding against a large brewery. I have nothing against large breweries. I think that they make enough profits to be able to support microbreweries and to be willing to do so. Microbreweries will never be a threat to large breweries such as John Labatt or Molson. But they should be given some room to breathe. That is what is important. We should be supporting them in their originality instead of crushing them.

We can imagine what happened when the Brasal microbrewery had to shut down. Can we not suppose that someone from John Labatt, a large brewery, went to the Minister of Finance and asked him—I prefer not to go too far on this subject—to exclude beer from the new excise tax bill?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, nobody knows why. We asked that same question in committee. The secretary of state and his handlers who are supposed to support him and provide him with answers were unable to come up with a satisfactory answer. Why? Because there is no answer.

The only answer we can think of is that the very powerful lobbyists for the big breweries put pressure on the government to ensure that beer would not be included in the bill.

How can we explain that? It does not make any sense. Why has the government suddenly decided to exclude beer from a bill dealing with the more global issue of excise tax, which applies to all these products? How can it be explained beside the fact that lobbyists must have said, “No, do not touch that. We want the microbreweries to stay the way they are. Some could even close their doors. If only one or two of them remain, we do not care. For every share of the market we get—and we already control 90% of the market—it brings in $17 million more.”

I cannot see anything else but power and money in this situation. What I find most unfortunate is that the government had promised good things to these microbreweries and their managers who, through their energy and their leadership, wanted to put a quality product on the market, but the government now wants to crush them. The Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Finance and the current Minister of Justice had made promises to them, such as the ones that are made during election campaigns. These promises were selling all kinds of things. However, once the government is in office, it reneges on its promises.

This is a serious situation. Many breweries have disappeared. There were 13 in Ontario. Five are left. Where are all the government members who were elected in Ontario, in ridings where there are small breweries belonging to brave men and women who get up every morning to make a quality product and who dream of being competitive on the international market? With globalization—there is talk about it every day—our businesses must be competitive. Today, these members, these yes men, stay in their seats in support of their government, which is helping the big breweries.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

I am told that it is the current Minister of Justice. So, they supported microbreweries and they generated hope by saying “Indeed, it does not make sense. You cannot be competitive under such circumstances, considering the excise tax rate imposed on you. Therefore, we promise you that we will update the legislation. You will get what you want”.

Microbreweries are currently experiencing serious problems. They are paying more excise tax than they make profits. They were given reasons to hope. This act comes from the Standing Committee on Finance. It comes from the Department of Finance and it is the Minister of Finance himself, who is currently engaged in the leadership race, who promised to change things, to modernize the act, but instead he is crushing microbreweries with this legislation.

Beer has been deliberately excluded from the bill. The law has not been modernized. Promises have not been kept. Clause 2, line 14 on page 2 of the bill—the interpretation of the Excise Tax Act—provides the following, “'beer' means beer or malt liquor as defined in section 4 of the Excise Act.” They hushed this up thinking that we would let it go.

Resorting to such tactics is an insult to our intelligence and an insult to small brewers who have put their skill, energy, and hard work into building up their businesses. They want to compete on the market. Here is the answer we received in committee, “Wait. Other measures are in the works”.

These promises were made in 1997. We were told, “We will see about this in five years. We must wait another five years, because the act will not be reviewed until then”. This means that in the next five years, if the act is not amended or if no other measures are taken rapidly, there will not be many microbreweries left in Quebec and in Canada.

I cannot understand why my colleagues, whether they are from Ontario or Alberta, or whether they represent constituents who, through their entrepreneurship, have built up their microbreweries in order to sell their products, quality products, would not rise in the House. These members, who were elected to represent the interests of their fellow citizens, remain seated and hang their heads at such terrible legislation for microbreweries. This is a disgrace and I am ashamed for them.

The Canadian government talks a lot about how our businesses must be competitive. We agree. There is much talk about globalization. The government uses the taxes it collects from Quebecers and Canadians to set up programs to support businesses in Quebec and in Canada. That is the right thing to do. That is what our tax money should be used for. But the thing with the microbreweries is that they are not being allowed to compete. They are being squeezed out. Right now, our taxes are being used to support the big breweries.

How is that? Because in Canada, the tax on all beer producers, large and small, is 28 ¢ a litre. In the United States and in Europe, microbreweries pay only nine cents a litre. In Canada, both large and small companies pay 28 ¢ a litre. Large companies agree with paying 28 ¢ a litre. They were also in agreement with the government lowering the excise tax for microbreweries to the same rate as in the United States and Europe so that they could be competitive.

American owners of microbreweries producing so-called regional beer who want to import their products into Canada pay only nine cents a litre. How can our breweries compete on the U.S. market when they are paying 28 cents a litre? There is a huge difference. Either the microbreweries literally get swallowed up by outside markets, such as the United States and Europe, or we allow them to try to compete elsewhere. Everyone also knows that the methods we are using here are just as good as, if not better than those being used elsewhere. Our beer market is recognized world wide. Why not allow the microbreweries access to the international market?

The truth is out. We have here a letter the chair of the Standing Committee of Finance received from the president and CEO of the Brewers Association of Canada. I find it hard to understand that it was only after we put forward our amendments in committee that we found out that the chair of the Standing Committee of Finance, for whom I have a great deal of respect, was the wife of Mr. Barnes, the very one who deals with tax issues and one of the shareholders in John Labatt Ltd., a major brewery.

It seems to me that something here is not entirely transparent. Could there be the appearance of a conflict of interests. Ethically, someone who chairs a committee should act like a judge and remain neutral.

Such a person should not take sides but make decisions based on the rules and authority given to the committee by parliament. We have here a situation where our judgment can be skewed, as an opposition party has moved amendments that would include the beer industry in Bill C-47, a situation that makes no sense, according to some legislators. When we modernize an act, we have to modernize it completely. Why deliberately exclude beer?

This was done deliberately. The committee chair received a letter from the Brewers Association of Canada, which states:

—we fully support a reduction in the excise tax for small brewers... we strongly support a reduction of the excise tax for small breweries... We will support any measure aimed at attaining this objective, but in light of our prior agreement with the government—

I am thinking of Quebecers and Canadians who are listening today. When we hear “we fully support a reduction in the excise tax for small brewers, but in light of our prior agreement with the government”, could this actually mean that a very powerful lobby is saying to legislators “We do not willingly accept a reduction of the excise tax on beer because each time we gain a 1% share of the market, it is $17 million more in our pockets”? This is why beer and microbreweries are excluded from the bill.

At this point, I wish to show what is actually happening in the microbreweries sector. The big brewers like John Labatt and Molson currently control 90% of the market. As I pointed out earlier, each time the big brewers get 1% of the market, they make $17 million in net profits. It is easy to understand why the big brewers are so interested in seeing microbreweries disappear.

This is all fine and well. The big brewers say, “We support you”, and then they stab you in the back, saying, “We do not support you”. Each time they take over 90% of the market, they in fact grab 91% of the market, that is, $17 million more. They support the microbreweries, because it makes them look good, then they lobby the government saying, “No, not yet, we are not ready. We may need 98% of the market. There will perhaps remain a couple of microbreweries in Quebec and in Canada. This will please us”. This does not make any sense whatsoever.

My time is up but I would like to move an amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-47. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-47, An Act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.”

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-47, which seems to be very controversial.

Yesterday and this morning, my colleagues explained the origin of the conflict that exists with regard to this bill and that puts several small breweries in jeopardy both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

As regards this bill, there seems to be some kind of collusion between the government and large Canadian brewers, who negotiated and put enough pressure on the government to bring it to exclude beer in a most unacceptable way, by ignoring certain provisions of its own legislation.

Clause 2, the interpretation clause of the bill, proposes a series of definitions. A definition of beer, meaning beer or malt liquor as defined in section 4 of the Excise Act, can be found on page 2, line 14. The problem is that beer has been excluded from Bill C-47. Everybody wonders why. Why would beer be excluded from this bill when the Excise Act is a general act that covers all sorts of things? It is wide in scope and covers all the products that are included in Bill C-47, as well as beer.

In other words, the only product that was not included in Bill C-47 is beer. We talked to people who draft legislation here and elsewhere, and they find it rather strange that Bill C-47, introduced by the government to modernize the Excise Act, covers all the products that were included in the Excise Act, which it is supposed to replace, except beer.

Before this new bill, the legislation included wine, spirits, beer, tobacco and distillery products. The existing act makes reference to breweries and tobacco products. It deals with everything, every single product touched by excise. There are provisions on licensing, rights of accession, offences, collection, record, accounts, required documents, warehousing and remission of duties, or what they call drawbacks in international trade. Bill C-47, which is supposed to bring that Excise Act up to date, also deals with everything, except beer.

How do we explain the fact that beer is not included in this bill? Is it an oversight? I asked that question in committee to the hon. member for Oak Ridges, because I wanted to know what would happen if we had forgotten to include beer in the legislation. After all, it is possible to amend a bill. I did not get any answer. Just a blunt rebuttal. We did not get any advice from the people who surround and support members of parliament in their work in committee, including the parliamentary secretary and public officials. We did not get any interesting advice. I was a little taken aback by the answers that I was given. Things did not make sense.

I had to come to the conclusion that something was going on. This is an act that the government has wanted to modernize since 1997 and everyone agreed—they even made promises to microbreweries—including the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Finance, secretaries of state who have now become ministers, ministers who live in Quebec, including in Montreal, and they expressed their support to microbreweries. This is because they have one in their region.

[Ethics Counsellor, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, each time the government is confronted with questionable dealings, it has used the advice of its ethics counsellor. Today, the only thing ethical about this counsellor is his title, because practically speaking, he is a political adviser.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor has lost all credibility?

[Ethics Counsellor, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that the government's ethics counsellor plays a much less objective role than the Prime Minister would have us believe. In fact, he prepares political responses for the Prime Minister to provide to questions from the opposition in the House.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the role the Prime Minister has given his ethics counsellor is nothing more than that of a political adviser whose responsibility is to ensure that his boss makes the best impression possible vis-à-vis the opposition and the public?

[Microbreweries, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what interests is the government pursuing by maintaining fiscal policies that are causing microbreweries to close down one after the other and putting the survivors in a perilous situation?

Are we to consider the present fiscal policies a form of collusion between the government and the major breweries in order to enable them to maintain their dominant market position in Canada?

[Microbreweries, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since 1997, 38 of the 86 microbreweries in Quebec and Canada have disappeared. The government's taxation policies are in part responsible for this situation, because domestic microbreweries have to pay 28 cents a litre in excise tax, while their American and European competitors pay only 9 cents.

How can the government use its fiscal policy to subject the microbreweries of Quebec and Canada to such prejudicial treatment?

[Kyoto Protocol, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, how can the federal government explain that other countries, for instance the countries of the European Union, have made far more progress than we have in implementing the Kyoto protocol, although a number of different countries were involved? Do we in Canada not have a real lack of political leadership and will?

[Kyoto Protocol, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of the Environment, the government is continuing its consultations leading up to ratification of the Kyoto protocol. The main issue to be settled is whether the distribution of Canadian efforts in compliance with the protocol will be geographical or sectorial.

Since the government is in consultation with the provinces with a view to applying Kyoto, can the minister tell us the basis of these consultations? On a territorial or sectorial basis? What is his position?