Finance committee  Hello. I'm sorry. I'm not sure whether this is the time for this question. Part of our issue as officials is that we don't have the text of either BQ-4 or the modified CPC-5 before us, so we can't fully comment on whether the motions are complete. We don't know whether they're c

Finance committee  Okay. The other thing we should mention is that the difference between the version of amendment BQ‑4 that we received on Saturday and at least this version of BQ‑4 is that this version of BQ‑4 presents some WTO concerns in the sense that this would maintain the exemption for dom

Finance committee  Okay, so, yes, it is the updated amendment BQ‑4, which we didn't have, that presents that issue, and the modified amendment CPC‑5—

Finance committee  I've been further advised by colleagues at Justice that both motions are also incomplete. BQ-4 is trying to amend clause 131, but it should actually amend both clause 131 and clause 132. It's the same thing with CPC-5. It is trying to amend clause 133, but it actually means t

Finance committee  I'm sorry. We weren't sure whether it was okay for officials to jump in with this earlier. It relates to BQ-4. We think that may have also amended the wrong section. BQ-4 appears to amend the “taken for use” provisions of the Canadian wine exemption, but we think it intended to

Finance committee  I think I can say at this time that we have not been looking into changing the inflation adjustment measures. I can also say that probably, just as a question or a point about the proposed amendment, it might be attempting to amend the wrong section. The proposed amendment that

Finance committee  At least what we received showed that the amendment was for clause 133, which is the relief for the non-alcoholic beer, but it is clause 132 that is the wine measure.

Finance committee  I can speak for the officials.

Finance committee  Our view is that a royal recommendation is not likely required, but that's for the House of Commons and the clerk.