SoVote

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

Mar/22/23 9:58:46 p.m.
Watch

That is debate, and we will be moving on to the next speaker. The hon. member for Beauce has the floor.

21 words

Beauce

Mar/22/23 9:58:54 p.m.
Watch

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—

801 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/23 10:04:23 p.m.
Watch

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.

41 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Mar/22/23 10:04:50 p.m.
Watch

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.

191 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/22/23 10:06:30 p.m.
Watch

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.

163 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/23 10:07:18 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the point of order.

6 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Mar/22/23 10:07:24 p.m.
Watch

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.

101 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Mar/22/23 10:08:02 p.m.
Watch

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.

85 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Mar/22/23 10:08:36 p.m.
Watch

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.

97 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/23 10:09:09 p.m.
Watch

I know we are getting into a really strange place. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Deputy Speaker: 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.

130 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Mar/22/23 10:09:59 p.m.
Watch

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.

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Strahl

Mar/22/23 10:10:24 p.m.
Watch

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.

109 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/22/23 10:11:05 p.m.
Watch

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.

129 words

All Topics

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/22/23 10:11:54 p.m.
Watch

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—

210 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/23 10:13:01 p.m.
Watch

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.

170 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/22/23 10:14:16 p.m.
Watch

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?

30 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/23 10:14:32 p.m.
Watch

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.

67 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/22/23 10:15:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague who asked me if I will hang around to answer questions: absolutely. It is about accountability. At least the Liberal Party of Canada stands for accountability, transparency and so forth. We have seen a demonstration, and it has happened to me personally today twice, where a Conservative stood in his place and delivered his speech and I wanted to ask him a question, but I could not. One was the former speaker, the official opposition House leader. It is not a reflection on the rules, but I would encourage members, in particular from the Conservative Party, to please understand that there is a tradition of a higher sense of accountability. If they say something in the chamber, they should at least provide members the opportunity to challenge, comment or ask a question. I have witnessed this first-hand as a parliamentarian in the House of Commons, but this is the first time that I have actually been stood up twice when I asked a question of a Conservative and they did not have the courage—

182 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/23 10:16:09 p.m.
Watch

I believe we have another point of order. It is a point of order night. You guys are great. The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

26 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Mar/22/23 10:16:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before the commencement of the speech from the member opposite, there was a brief exchange between me and I believe the member opposite for Milton. Under his breath, he called me an “asshole”. Therefore, I would be asking for a full apology and a retraction. An hon. member: Is it true? Mr. Larry Brock: Now I have heard from the NDP that it is true, so I would like— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

79 words