SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 171 - Mar/22/23

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Mar/22/23 9:21:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate our hon. colleague's speech, because for the first four minutes he entered into Hansard the names all the microbreweries and breweries in his riding. I think he owes a care package to all member who are currently present in the House. When the escalator tax was introduced and brought in back in 2017 before COVID, Finance Canada officials testified at committee that the Liberals did no modelling on how this tax would impact small businesses and breweries all across our country. Why does the government continue its mismanagement of monetary policy? Is the member hearing the same as what we are hearing? Perhaps he has some suggestions on what the government can do to scrap the tax and make things more affordable for Canadians.

129 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Mar/22/23 9:22:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George. It is good to see him in person. As others have said, we missed him here in person in this place. We know he has been active virtually, but I—

42 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/22/23 9:23:21 p.m.
Watch

I remind the hon. member not to mention the presence or absence of members in the House. The hon. member.

20 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Mar/22/23 9:23:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will retract that, but it is good to see him. We do not want to scrap the tax. We want to restructure it so that it is fair. For it to go up 6% in one year when we are already facing the effects of inflation is too much to ask of these producers. We want it capped and we want all these taxes restructured so that small producers are treated fairly and can compete.

78 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Mar/22/23 9:24:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay for being an advocate for the wineries and small craft breweries in his riding. I have two breweries in my riding. Orange Snail and Third Moon are both awesome. They do a lot in our community. Andrews Farm produces wine as well, and we have strong connections to Pelee Island in Milton. That is a great Ontario winery. This is all about balance, as my hon. colleague pointed out. It is not a matter of just scraping a tax all at once; I think that would be irresponsible. Consumption has an impact on the health care system, so we have to consider those ramifications. On the topic of balance, how does my hon. colleague suggest we approach that? What would be reasonable? I agree with him that a 6.3% increase to the excise tax is not reasonable to ask our breweries, vineyards and spirit producers to shoulder. What would be appropriate?

169 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Mar/22/23 9:25:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think it would be too difficult to ask for. When the government brought in this escalator tax, inflation was pretty marginal. There was very little inflation, so it was only going up 1% or 2% per year. I would like to see something less drastic than just following inflation every year, because if it goes up 6%, that is drastic. What would be more important for these producers, especially the small producers, is to develop a fair sliding scale of excise tax payments that makes it easier for them to compete with the bigger players and especially the imports.

104 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Mar/22/23 9:26:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. I had the opportunity to taste the wines produced in his riding. I have friends who live in the Okanagan Valley, in Summerland's Trout Creek area. It is really the place to have a nice drink and enjoy local flavours. He understands the Bloc Québécois's position. Quebec is home to many small craft producers who have developed berry wines and ciders. Can my colleague explain why it is so important that the government listen and exempt these producers from the excise tax so that they can benefit—

103 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/22/23 9:26:50 p.m.
Watch

I must interrupt the hon. member. I will give the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay 15 seconds to answer.

22 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Mar/22/23 9:26:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if someone makes cider or mead and then throws some berries into it, suddenly they are paying an excise tax. They do not pay it when it is produced without the berries. It does not make sense. I think that illustrates the excise tax needs a serious going over to make it fair in many ways.

58 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/22/23 9:27:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to tell the story of Marcel Rheault and Mireille Morin, the owners of the Rheault Distillery in Hearst, Ontario, which produces Loon Vodka. They cannot raise their price any more to be competitive. A 6% tax hike is something that is really going to hurt them and their product, which has won many awards for its quality. It is for people like Marcel and Mireille that we need to adopt this motion this evening. I am very pleased to rise and talk a little bit about the situation in Winnipeg. We have a lot of local brewers and distillers in the province of Manitoba. I think especially of Crown Royal, but there are many beer makers in Manitoba, such as Half Pints, Barn Hammer, Torque and Little Brown Jug. I could go on; there are a number. Manitobans are pleased to support their local brewers when they reach into the fridge for a beer at the end of a long week, if that is their choice. We want them to be able to continue to do that and continue to support local economies when they do. However, the fact of the matter is that many producers, particularly smaller producers, are in a tight spot when it comes to an increase in the excise tax. The excise tax is not based on a percentage of their revenue or of their profit; it is a certain amount they have to pay for every unit sold, so when it goes up, it really has an impact on their business model. Also, because that increase in the rate of tax is tied to inflation, we are seeing that be a particularly high increase this year. I think it was always a problem having a tax tied to inflation, a tax levied at an absolute rate, which is raised at the rate of inflation. It is something that was raised in 2017-2018 when the Liberals first brought this in. People asked, “What if we have a period of extraordinary inflation?” They said, “Well, that is not likely to happen. Inflation has been very consistent.” Of course, we know that major events can change the course of an economy, and Canada, along with many other parts of the world, has certainly been experiencing that. We have had a major event with the pandemic and there are major events happening as a result of climate change. Those are having an impact on the economy. As we see inflation go up, we should not see the government exacerbating the problem of inflation by having an automatic increase in the tax, which is not to say that no taxes can increase, but it is appropriate to have a debate and a vote in Parliament in order to have that happen. What we are seeing now is the fruit of a decision to take Parliament out of the equation and have those taxes increase automatically at the rate of inflation instead of increasing them deliberately by a choice of Parliament in the face of difficult economic circumstances. As my colleague for South Okanagan—West Kootenay pointed out earlier, quite rightly, there are other issues with the excise tax. New Democrats support the idea of a more gradual ramping up of the excise tax in order to help smaller brewers and smaller producers be more competitive when they are trying to carve out a space for themselves in what is a very competitive market with a lot of established, large players. That is not exactly what the motion calls for tonight, but I think that is part of the larger conversation we might be able to have more readily in this place if the excise tax were not already on an automatic escalator. It would mean that government would have to come back to this place every year if it wanted to see the excise tax go up, and that would create opportunities for parliamentarians, like New Democrats, who are interested in a fairer excise tax structure for smaller producers, to raise those issues at that time. Today, then, we are doing this in the context of an opposition day motion, because otherwise there is no natural opportunity to be able to discuss this kind of thing. I do think there is a real argument to be made about the particular economic circumstances we find ourselves in for Canadians who enjoy the odd beer and who are already facing increasing costs on groceries, rent and everything else. They do not need an added increase in the excise tax on their beer. There is an argument to be made for small businesses that are going to be distressed by having to pay these additional costs and worrying about whether they can raise their prices in order to pass that on to the consumer without just getting shut out of the market. I also think there is a more general and principled argument about the role of Parliament in approving taxation, where we can have great debates in this place about what the appropriate rate of taxation is on various things, and I am sure that we can find at least as much disagreement as we find agreement on that. I think it is important that this debate come to this place and that increases in taxes are approved. I would say this is just the other side of the coin of another measure that I do not personally support, which is indexing income tax brackets to inflation, too. I think that governments and legislatures, particularly, have a responsibility to evaluate the circumstances and make decisions, in a particular time, about what is appropriate. If that is a change in tax brackets, that is something that should be deliberately debated and about which a very intentional decision should be made. When it comes to something like the excise tax, likewise, that is something that should be debated and there should be an intentional decision about it. I think this mechanism of an automatic escalator is problematic because it removes people's democratically elected legislators from the equation when we are having important debates about what an appropriate rate of taxation is. I am a member of the finance committee, and I was certainly very happy to see in the finance committee's pre-budget consultation report a recommendation to freeze this planned excise tax increase, so that lets us know that it is not just coming from one party. It takes a majority voice on a committee in order to issue a recommendation, and I think the government should take very seriously the fact that coming out of one of the most senior committees of the House of Commons was a recommendation not to proceed with this tax hike. I think they need to look at the extent to which the excise tax will be increased because of the extraordinary period of inflation we have been living through over the last 12 months. This was not the kind of usual inflation that was normal in the Canadian economy prior to the pandemic. I do not believe this is what the government of the day foresaw. It is certainly not what Canadians foresaw when this automatic escalator was put in, and I think it is reasonable to recognize that the situation calls for a different course of action. That is why I am pleased to rise in support of the motion, alongside my other New Democratic colleagues.

1255 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/23 9:35:35 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Don Valley North is rising on a point of order.

14 words

Mr. Han Dong (Don Valley North, Lib.)

Mar/22/23 9:36:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have informed the Prime Minister and the leadership of the Liberal Party caucus that I will be sitting as an independent member at the conclusion of these remarks. Mr. Speaker, I am in your hands as to what happens next. To all my colleagues in Parliament, media reports today quoted unverified, anonymous sources that have attacked my reputation and called into question my loyalty to Canada. Let me be clear: What has been reported is false and I will defend myself against these absolutely untrue claims. Let me assure members that, as a parliamentarian and as a person, I have never advocated, and I will never and would never advocate or support the violation of the basic human rights of any Canadian or of anyone, anywhere, period. The accusations are false. My family came to Canada for freedom. I have had the privilege of being elected to the House, and believe I have served honourably. I pledge to continue to serve honourably and fulfill my oath of office. I will continue to serve the residents of Don Valley North as an independent member of the House. I am taking this extraordinary step because to sit in the government caucus is a privilege, and my presence there may be seen by some as a conflict of duty and the wrong place to be as independent investigations pursue the facts of this matter. I will be sitting as an independent member so that the business of government and, indeed, the business of Parliament, is not interrupted as I work to clear my name and the truth is presented to Parliament and to the Canadian people. I am a proud Liberal and I am proud of the work our government does, day in and day out, to serve the people of Canada. I also do not want to distract from that important work. Before concluding, I want to assure Mr. Michael Spavor and Mr. Michael Kovrig and their families that I did nothing to cause them any harm. Like everyone in the House, I worked hard and advocated for their interest, as a parliamentarian. The allegations made against me are as false as the ones made against them. I will continue to work on my constituents' behalf as their member of Parliament. I thank my staff. I know the days ahead will be difficult, but I will be there to support them as we continue to serve the people of Don Valley North. I love my family, in particular my parents, who brought us here to Canada; my wife, Sophie; and my kids. I love them. I thank them for all the support and love they give me. The truth will protect us. Our honour and our family will get through this together.

463 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/23 9:40:39 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for his statement. I assure him that the House will be making the appropriate changes to the seating plan. We will take a quick breather here for a moment before we go back to questions and comments.

41 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

Mar/22/23 9:42:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear that the member for Elmwood—Transcona is going to support our opposition day motion. It is interesting. We have heard from the government members, and their comeback is that this escalating tax is 1¢ on a beer. If it is 1¢ on a beer and they downplay that so much, why is it that we even bother putting the 1¢ on a beer? Why are we not giving Canadians that break? The unfortunate part is that Canadians have lost trust in the current government. What we need to do is start building that trust back in Canadians. One of the first steps to do that is to show them they have cause. I appreciate the member's comments and I wonder if he would like to speak further on that aspect.

142 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/22/23 9:43:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I feel I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to acknowledge what has happened in the House with the member for Don Valley North. Obviously I am not in a position to speak to the veracity of the claims that have been made in the media, but I think this is an important reminder of the very real personal and professional impacts the debate we have been having on foreign interference in elections can have. It is an example of why it is important that we have a public inquiry, so we can have a proper airing of the kinds of accusations being made in the media, in many cases now by anonymous sources, and so that folks in the Chinese-Canadian community know that those claims are being considered by someone who has access to the full evidence and has the power to clear names where names should be cleared. That is why it is important that we have nothing short of a public inquiry. On the question that was posed, it is a good point that while it is a relatively small increase in some ways, that argument does not really pass muster because it is a big impact on the bottom lines of these smaller producers of beer, spirits and wines. At the end of the day, if it is not that big of an increase, which is what the government is saying, then it is not that big a loss for it to bypass it. We know that other government revenue has grown a fair bit because of inflation. This is not the place to do it. If the government wants other revenue, we know there are companies, such as Loblaws, frankly, that can afford to pay more in tax. The government should be looking at them, not smaller producers of beer, spirits and wine, to raise revenue.

318 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Mar/22/23 9:45:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was eager to ask my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona a question about a balance on the taxation of products that lead to certain health outcomes. I was also eager to stand to say it was kind of him to acknowledge the pain that our colleague is going through, but then the member politicized it a little, and I was pretty disappointed. I am a bit shaken because of what these types of debates do to people and families in this place. I think that is exactly why a non-partisan person should be the one to determine whether or not there is a public inquiry in this case. I hope we can let that stand and allow that person to do the work. Going back to the excise tax on beer, it comes down to a balance on precisely how we tax these products to ensure that they are providing commensurate revenue for health care in this country. I am a big fan of the products that the member mentioned. I am a big fan of the two breweries and the winery in my riding. Where does that balance sit?

194 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/23 9:46:52 p.m.
Watch

I will provide a bit of a caution to members to make sure that we stick to the debate we are having tonight. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

30 words

Elmwood

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/22/23 9:47:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I already said my piece on the other matter. In respect of the member's question on the motion that we are dealing with this evening, I would say that there is definitely a debate to be had about that proper balance. My point is that an automatic escalator makes it harder to have that debate, and it does not cause a debate to be had of necessity when those taxes go up. Let us have those debates and let us make those decisions here on the floor of Parliament. An automatic escalator actually deviates from that very path of having a debate about the right balance in this place.

112 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Mar/22/23 9:47:42 p.m.
Watch

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%?

47 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/22/23 9:48:05 p.m.
Watch

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.

96 words