SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 171

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2023 01:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 171 - Mar/22/23
Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)
  • Mar/22/23 8:45:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-19 
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. As members know, unlike sales tax, which represents a percentage of the value of a product, the excise tax on alcohol is a fixed amount by volume as set out in the Excise Tax Act. Traditionally, that amount was occasionally reviewed and adjusted to inflation through an amendment to the act. However, since 2017, the act has included an automatic indexing formula, which means that the amount of the excise tax goes up every year based on inflation. That is why the excise tax on alcohol is going to increase by 6.3% on April 1 to reflect the high level of inflation we have seen over the past year. Today's motion will not actually have a very big impact. We are talking about 1¢ per can of beer. This motion is not a real response to the increased inflation that is driving up the price of food in particular. This is a clear example of the populism of the Conservatives who are more interested in coming up with gimmicky slogans than they are in developing serious public policy. Furthermore, when it comes to beer, only large breweries will benefit from the adoption of today's motion. Given that microbreweries only pay a fraction of the excise tax, they will benefit far less from a freeze on the tax rate. Of the 1,200 breweries in Canada, including the more than 300 in Quebec, only 12 pay the full amount of the excise tax on the majority of their production. Most of these 12 breweries are owned by foreign multinationals. The decision to apply a different tax rate to microbreweries, the artisans who are passionate about agri-food living in every region, was implemented in the 2006 budget after the Bloc Québécois advocated for it for years. The Bloc Québécois has been fighting for our microbreweries for a long time. That decision would give them the opportunity to compete against the giants of the industry, whose production costs are much lower thanks to economies of scale. Since the implementation of the preferential rate, the number of microbreweries has skyrocketed and increased eightfold to our great pleasure. For a small artisanal microbrewery, indexing the amount of the excise tax might only represent a 0.1¢ or 0.2¢ increase per can. We are talking about that very small amount today. This means that when we buy a 12-pack of beer, we would pay an additional amount of just a little over 1¢. In budget implementation Bill C‑19 from spring 2022, the Bloc Québécois managed to extend to cider and mead producers the same support that had been extended to microbreweries 15 years ago. They are now completely exempt from the excise tax. Our support for small local producers is not limited to microbreweries. Unfortunately, since the government has a very restrictive definition of cider and mead, the producers who flavour their products with berries and aromatics continue to pay the tax. That is something we really hope to see resolved in the next budget, just like the application of the tax on wine made from other fruit such as pears, blueberries or even maple, which showcases our land. They should be treated the same way as our apple cider producers. For hard alcohol, we are talking about an increase of roughly 25¢ for a 750-millilitre bottle. Again, we are not talking about a catastrophic increase, but it adds to the overall price increases. With respect to spirits, frankly, the Bloc Québécois would have preferred that the Conservatives propose applying to microdistilleries the model that is already in place for microbreweries and impose only a fraction of the tax that is required of the industry giants. That would have a much greater impact. It would come down to about $3 per bottle rather than the meagre 25¢ that is being discussed today, but it would apply only to our small local producers. We hope the government listens carefully to what the Bloc Québécois is saying and will take it into account in its budget next Tuesday. Our small producers are suffering, struggling to compete with the industry giants. As I said before, they would benefit greatly from a more targeted measure. Unfortunately, that is not what today's motion proposes. It has very little impact on consumers. On every one of their opposition days, the Conservatives come back with their mantra: We need to lower taxes, cut EI by lowering the premium rate, cut retirement income by lowering the pension contribution—which also has an impact in Quebec, because the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan are harmonized. They keep coming back to the idea of eliminating pollution pricing to pander to the oil companies. Today's motion, while not intrinsically bad, is along the same lines and does not represent a real plan to fight inflation. We are talking about 1¢ for a can of beer or 25¢ for a $40- or $50-bottle of spirits. This is not the end of the world, especially considering that alcohol represents only 4% of the average household's market basket. Skyrocketing housing and food prices are crushing Quebeckers and Canadians, especially those living on modest or fixed incomes. Measures that address the causes and effects of inflation would be much more useful than today's motion, which will have an essentially marginal impact on consumers. However, we do recognize that it could have a greater impact on restaurant and bar owners, who have been profoundly affected by the COVID‑19 crisis. As members are well aware, the Excise Act does not just determine the amount of the excise tax. It also determines the terms and conditions for the sale of alcohol. Along with the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, it states that only the government of a province can import or distribute alcohol. Quebec or the province can delegate that responsibility to a private importer or distributor by granting them a licence, but the province holds the exclusive power to govern the importation and trade of liquor on its territory. The fact that international trade is an area of federal jurisdiction is incongruous, and I am going to talk briefly about the history behind that. Canada's first referendum took place in 1898. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many Protestant churches, particularly Baptist churches, were strongly advocating for the prohibition of alcohol. These prohibitionist movements were active in the United States and English Canada, just like in Lucky Luke. The Canadian plebiscite on the prohibition of alcohol, which was held on September 29, 1898, was on the passage of a law prohibiting the importation, production and sale of alcoholic beverages across Canada. This law on prohibition would have taken the form of an amendment to the Criminal Code. The yes camp won by 51.2% to 48.8%. It was a tight vote, but the yes camp won. However, the referendum exposed an important cultural divide in Canada. Every province except Quebec voted yes, but opposition to prohibition in Quebec was massive: 81.2% of the population voted against it, as they did in the case of conscription. The opposition was not only massive, but it was also very acrimonious. The members from Quebec in the House of Commons stated that they could not vote for a prohibition law because their families and communities would never forgive them. The prime minister at the time, Wilfrid Laurier, noted that there was a cultural divide between Quebec and English Canada on this issue. He felt that the federal Parliament did not have the legitimacy to legislate, which would amount to imposing the decision of the majority on the minority that wanted nothing to do with it—the French Canadians at that time—even though it had the constitutional power to do so. I hope the government is taking notes. It must not take unilateral action, and it should tell every province and Quebec to manage their own jurisdiction. That is how it was during the first years of Confederation. Instead of introducing legislation imposing prohibition across Canada, it chose to amend the laws on the importation and trade of alcohol and leaving it up to the provinces to regulate. That is why still today that responsibility falls to the provinces. Of course, this creates some inconsistencies, such as the ban on transporting alcohol from one province to another, which prohibits a resident of Ottawa from bringing home a bottle that he may have purchased at the liquor store in Quebec. However, the principle is interesting: If there is a difference between Quebec and Canada on a given topic, then the federal Parliament should refrain from imposing a blanket solution that applies indiscriminately from coast to coast to coast. I hope that the government and my colleagues from English Canada are listening carefully to this history lesson. I hope they will draw from it and stop imposing the will of Canada on Quebec when there is a difference of opinion, and delegate the powers. To my colleagues, I would say, “a word to the wise”.
1573 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 171 - Mar/22/23
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
  • Mar/22/23 10:34:10 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I do respect is provincial jurisdiction, where liquor stores and so forth are administered through provincial governments. They do have all sorts of programs out there dealing with drinking responsibilities. I would think the stakeholders, the provinces and Ottawa all play a role in responsible drinking.
52 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border