FINA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

0940

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.))

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches--East York, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Ms. Laura Urtnowski (President, Les Brasseurs du Nord Inc.)

The Chair

Ms. Laura Urtnowski

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquin

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquin

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquin

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquin

0950

0955

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle (Administrator, Association des vignerons du Québec)

1000

1005

1010

The Chair

Mr. Léo Boutin (President, Association des cidriculteurs du Québec)

1015

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Pierre Paquin

Mr. Bob King (President, Big Rock Brewery Ltd.)

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Pierre Paquin

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Pierre Paquin

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Pierre Paquin

Mr. Jason Kenney

1020

Mr. Howard Thompson (President, Creemore Springs Brewery Limited)

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Pierre Paquin

1025

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Pierre Paquin

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Pierre Paquin

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Pierre Paquin

Mr. André Dion (President, Association des microbrasseries du Québec)

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. André Dion

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle

1030

The Chair

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.)

1035

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC)

Mr. Bob King

1040

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Pierre Paquin

Mr. Bob King

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Bob King

Mr. Pierre Paquin

Mr. Scott Brison

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.)

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Bob King

1045

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Pierre Paquin

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jason Kenney

1050

Mr. Bob King

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle

The Chair

Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George--Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle

Mr. Richard Harris

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

1055

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

NUMBER 087

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0940)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Bon matin, good morning, bienvenue à tous, welcome.

The order of the day is Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine, and tobacco, and the treatment of ships' stores.

We have witnesses this morning before us. Before we start, give me an indulgence. I do understand the committee clerk has heard that two more witnesses wish to come before us.

Who are the two witnesses, Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk of the Committee: The first group is les Produits Ronald, who I understand Mr. Loubier may wish to speak to. The second group is the Association of Canadian Airport Duty-Free Operators.

The Chair: I understand, Mr. Loubier, it is an equipment manufacturer. Is that correct?

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ): It is a product with a basis of wine.

The Chair: Okay. My information is that both of the witnesses would be available tomorrow afternoon.

In light of that, can I get some indication from the committee as to whether we wish to hear the two witnesses? We had scheduled a clause-by-clause in the draft. We could do clause-by-clause on Thursday, if it meets with your approval. Can I have some indication?

We should deal with the witnesses one at a time. The first one is the duty-free alcohol.

Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The second one we'd do in the same meeting.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. We will let the clerk's assistant contact them during this meeting. We will have a meeting tomorrow afternoon. The clerk will find us a room and put a notice to hear the witnesses.

Is it agreed that we go clause by clause on Thursday morning?

Madam.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches--East York, Lib.): Is it possible, Madam Chair, to do clause-by-clause after the hearings tomorrow afternoon, if they are the last hearings?

The Chair: I'm in the hands of the committee. We would have to have officials here and then we could.

Ms. Maria Minna: We could wrap it up, rather than coming back on Thursday.

The Chair: Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I raise an objection, Madame Chair, because tomorrow, after hearing our witnesses, we might have to move other amendments to Bill C-47. It takes time to prepare them. We cannot do this properly just after hearing the witnesses.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. The other alternative is Tuesday afternoon.

Why don't we move on? We have the witnesses tomorrow. You can discuss it. We'll come back this afternoon and deal with it. I don't want to delay any more, because we had technical problems with microphones this morning.

Without further ado, Jean-Pierre Bélisle and Charles Henri de Cousserves.

For the information of the people around the table, this is the Association des Vignerons du Québec. From Les bières du Nord, we have Laura Urtnowski, who is the president.

Welcome.

Ms. Laura Urtnowski (President, Les Brasseurs du Nord Inc.): No, I'm not with the vignerons. I'm with the brewers.

The Chair: From Les bières du Nord, we have Laura Urtnowski.

Ms. Laura Urtnowski: I'm from Les Brasseurs du Nord. I'm a brewer, not a vintner.

The Chair: That's what I said. Thank you.

From the Canadian Council of Regional Breweries, we have Monsieur Pierre Paquin.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquin (Director General, Canadian Council of Regional Breweries): It is I, Madame.

[English]

The Chair: From the Association des micro-brasseries du Québec, we have André Dion, president. From the Association des cidriculteurs Artisans du Québec, we have Léo Boutin, president. Thank you very much.

Do we have anyone else at the table whom you wish to introduce?

Mr. Pierre Paquin: Yes, I will be introducing some other members of the council later on.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Who would like to start us off today?

Mr. Pierre Paquin: We'd be pleased to start it off.

[Translation]

The Chair: Very well, Mr. Paquin, you may begin.

Mr. Pierre Paquin: Thank you, Madame Chair.

Honourable members, let me introduce myself. My name is Pierre Paquin and I am Director General of the Canadian Council of Regional Breweries.

This Council was created more than two years ago with the objective of promoting and defending the interests of small brewers in Canada and more specifically their interests with regard to excise tax. We represent more than 38 small breweries in Canada.

The time you have granted to us is very valuable. For us, up to now, it has been a long, sometimes uncertain, always difficult road. But finally, we stand here before you, very confident as a matter of fact, because we have a just cause.

[English]

The council is national in status and the directors of the council are all here before you. These moments are historical and important for us in our quest for justice. Some of us have flown across the land to be here today, knowing that at last we will be heard.

I wish to introduce to you these national directors of the Canadian Council of Regional Brewers: Mr. William Baxter, president of Granville Island and president of Micro Brewers Association of British Columbia microbrewers association; Mr. Bob King, president of Big Rock Brewery Ltd. in Calgary and president of this council; and Mr. Howard Thompson, president of Creemore Springs Brewery Limited and president of the Ontario Small Brewers Association.

[Translation]

Mr. André Dion is President of Unibroue and President of the Association des microbrasseurs du Québec. We are also accompanied by the President of Les Bières du Nord, Ms. Laura Urtnowski, who has already been introduced and who is well-known in brewery circles. I must also mention that we are accompanied by Mr. André Piché of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an organization that has assisted us in all our activities since the beginning, with its well-known zest for serving Canadian small business.

[English]

At international beer shows, it is with pride that we see more and more Canadian microbrewers receiving first prizes, gold awards, and other noteworthy commendations. Canada should be proud of its small brewers in the same manner as Germany, Belgium, and England, in particular, are proud of theirs.

Some of the brewers now before you have received awards with which their peers were telling the world their product is the very best on this planet. Canadians are gaining the reputation as first-class master brewers, yet in Canada, our industry is not evolving under healthy conditions, and bad health leads to death.

If you look in annex B, you will find it deplorable to read 38 names of companies in the graveyard of Canadian brewers. These have disappeared in the last five years, and as time goes by the list will grow longer, because to a large extent Canada so far has failed to provide parity of treatment with small brewers in the rest of the world. A review of the Excise Tax Act offers a golden opportunity to correct the situation here and now.

May we remind you of some of the facts presented before your committee when it was preparing its last budget.

In Canada, a microbrewery pays 28¢ in excise tax to the federal government for each litre produced, regardless of its annual volume. In most industrialized beer-producing countries, particularly in Belgium, Germany, France, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, the U.S.A., and yesterday, England--a 50% reduction--the government applies reduced excise tax rates to small regional breweries, thus recognizing their specificity.

¿ (0950)

Small brewers are in a class of their own indeed.

In the U.S.A., with whom Canada has a trade agreement, the excise tax rate imposed is 9¢ Canadian per litre for any brewery having a volume inferior to a million hectolitres, while the base rate is 23¢ per litre for large breweries. This reduction of 60% of the base rate applies to the first 60,000 barrels produced by the breweries.

This enormous difference--and you can see attachment A--prevents the small breweries from being competitive with the giants of the industry and with the American brewers who are penetrating the Canadian market more and more.

The market share of Canadian small breweries has been in decline for the last two years and has fallen down to the 1995 level of 4.1%, while imported beers, mostly by the large Canadian breweries, now have more than 8.1% of Canadian market share as compared to 3.3% in 1995--an increase of 175%.

The Canadian small breweries request parity with the American breweries. This means a 60% reduction on the 28¢-per-litre rate in order to bring this rate back to 12¢ per litre. This is to be compared to the U.S.A. rate of 9¢ Canadian per litre. This would apply to any Canadian brewery with an annual volume inferior to 300,000 hectolitres.

The case, ladies and gentlemen, is very simple. Other governments of the world provide significant tax reduction to their small breweries and we don't. We can't compete in their markets, and they can and do indeed invade ours. We evolve under lose-lose tax conditions and eventually we die out.

A healthy microbrewery industry in Canada will never be a threat to large brewers of this country. Au contraire, the day where small entrepreneurs will not find a place under the Canadian sun will indeed be the day where the whole system is threatened, including the large brewers.

¿ (0955)

[Translation]

We are very heartened by the great support we are getting for our requests. Chambers of Commerce, business journalists, mayors of our towns, ministers whom we have met, all are ready to support us and to tell us that we are small, but important, because we still have a sense of entrepreneurship. More specifically, we want to give our hearty thanks to the members of the House from all parties who were willing to stand up and denounce the inequity in our system. We will never forget your support.

[English]

What are we asking for? We are asking for a reduction of 60% in the basic rate for the first 75 hectolitres of beer produced by any brewery that does not produce more than 300,000 hectolitres annually.

Why are we asking for this? Because we want to survive and grow, because we are different with our own specificity, because we want to compete on a level playing field, because we want our government to offer us the same protection offered to other breweries by their own government, because Canada is now being flooded by imported beers enjoying a different tax rate.

Why are we seeking a solution under Bill C-47? Because it is normal to resolve an excise tax inequity under the Excise Tax Act, because we have no time to seek relief under some other legislation yet to be defined, because we're advised by ministers that Bill C-47 was the appropriate legislation.

We have heard it said, ladies and gentlemen, time and over again, oh, we are sympathetic to your case, very sympathetic to your case, but it's a question of priority, you see, and a question of finding the proper place to assist you.

To us the time and the place is here and now under Bill C-47. This is where we will find out who really wants to help us out.

[Translation]

Let me conclude with what I said at the beginning. Our Council thanks you for your invitation and for lending us your ear. We want to shut the gates of this graveyard that is a disgrace for Canada. We trust our legislators and we can win many more international contests if you give us a chance. More particularly, we want to thank Mr. Loubier, the member who had the wisdom and foresight to propose the amendment you have before you. This amendment says everything. It is simple, it does not change anything in the rest of the act, it is perfectly clear and it would breath new life into our operations. Never has such a flagrant injustice been set right in so few words. Those who will vote for us are those who will vote for this amendment.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

Will anybody else be speaking at this time?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle (Administrator, Association des vignerons du Québec) : Yes. I would like to present.

I have 15 copies, but they are in French. They are a reference for the committee. Can somebody pick them up, please?

À (1000)

[Translation]

Madame Chair, my name is Jean-Pierre Bélisle and I am a member of the board of the Association des vignerons du Québec and I own a vineyard on the North Shore of Montreal, at Saint-Joseph-du-Lac, near the lac des Deux Montagnes.

I come before you to state the position of the Association des vignerons du Québec, as well as to suggest to the government of Canada an alternative which is included in our documents with a precisely drafted amendment. I was not aware of the amendment proposed by Mr. Loubier some time ago.

As a humorous aside, Madame Chair, let me say that Mr. Loubier and I are not related in any way despite our similar physical appearance. However, when I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly, for the Quebec Liberal Party, Mr. Loubier sometimes impersonated me in order to gain access to Mr. Parizeau's apartment.

That being said, Madame Chair, the Association des vignerons du Québec comprises 37 vineyards with cottage-type winery licences granted under the Quebec Liquor Board Act. Grape and wine production began in Quebec very recently, in the early 1980s. Twenty years is a very young age for a budding grape and wine production industry. We have nothing to compare with the expertise, knowledge and know-how of Ontario and British Columbia wine producers. I see that Mr. Pillitteri is here, he knows something about that. Thus, in Quebec, we are just starting out. We are just starting a new grape and wine production industry.

Two of the 37 vineyards produce about 75,000 bottles a year; another produces about 50,000 bottles; and the 30 others produce between 5,000 and 10,000 bottles a year. These facts show that the grape and wine production industry in Quebec is in its early infancy, at its very beginnings, and that out of the 125 million bottles consumed by Quebecers and sold by the Société des alcools du Québec, the total production of bottles from the 37 Quebec vineyards is about 505,000 bottles, which accounts for less than 0.5 per cent of the total consumption.

The founders of the 37 vineyards have made a lifetime commitment to their projects. This involves agriculture, a great deal of tourism and organic farming. I think that 30 or 32 of the 37 vineyards belong to persons who run them as a weekend hobby. It takes a great deal of hard work to start something and to try to pay municipal taxes and fixed costs.

Quebec vineyards have not benefited from any support for investment or for modernizing their equipment. The Canadian government would be mistaken if it treated the 37 small vineyards in Quebec in the same way as they treat the extraordinary vineyards found in the Niagara-on-the Lake region as well as in British Columbia, who have a 20, 30 or 50-year head start on the same industry in Quebec.

I object to section 135 of C-47, which provides that in the future, instead of levying excise tax when the product is sold to consumers, it will be levied when the product is wrapped. What does this involve? This involves wrapping, sulfating the bottles, bottling the product, corking, capping and so forth.

For the 37 small Quebec vineyards, from 4 to 8 months go by between the time the product is packaged and it is actually sold. Clause 135 of the act stipulates that once the product is bottled, the 37 small vineyards, the ones producing 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 bottles, and which make up 30 of the 37 of the association vineyards. These people will have to dig into their own pockets, withdraw money from their personal bank accounts, and not the business' bank account, to finance the federal government.

Under current regulations, the tax is paid when the wine is sold. If it is bottled in May or June and sold in December of the same year, I pay the following month. I simply wanted to point that out. You must understand that my argument is very simple.

Startup microbusinesses should not have to bear such a burden. The federal government's objective is to promote the development of this emerging industry. If you adopt clause 135 the way it is currently worded, you will be imposing an additional burden on people who are using their own savings to start up companies, to create jobs and to create added value that did not exist anywhere in Quebec 10 or 20 years ago.

Moreover, there is an exemption in paragraph 135(2)(b) of the bill that states that an exemption will be granted if product sales in the previous twelve months do not exceed $50,000. But subclause 135(3) specifies that this is on the condition that the wine is entered into an excise warehouse immediately after packaging.

For 32 of the 37 small Quebec vineyards, the production site is also used for sampling, sales, storage and production. There is a single area, one room, without any physical separation, without any walls or any partitions. It may measure 40 feet by 20 feet, or 40 feet by 30 feet. None of the 37 vineyards have a special warehouse that could be called an excise warehouse.

I do not know of any piece of tax legislation in Canada or in any of the provinces where the legislator sought to create imaginary,fictitious warehouses that no one will have, unless the federal government wants to give us some small cans of yellow paint so that we can paint lines on the ground. When I bottle my wine, I have to take the case and put it in an excise warehouse, something that is not manageable for any of the 37 Quebec vineyards and which, moreover, will be impossible for officials who are overseeing the enforcement of the Excise Tax Act to control.

In other words, Madam Chair, I am proposing the following amendment to paragraph 135(2)(b):

135.(1) Duty is imposed on wine that is packaged in Canada at the rates set out in Schedule 6.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to wine that is:

(b) produced by a wine licensee and packaged by the licensee[...] if production in the previous 12 months does not exceed 150,000 litres;

Why do I say 150,000 litres? There are four reasons for that, Madam Chair. First of all, general startup of the 37 Quebec vineyards is such that they need more leeway so that they are not penalized and can create jobs.

À (1005)

Secondly, Madam Chair, it has always been in Canada's interest to use its tax policy to help new emerging industries. Using your tax discretion in this case means creating numerous jobs and major value added.

Thirdly, if you adopt the amendment I am proposing, you will not be creating virtual or fictious excise warehouses that make no sense in legal terms, and that are impossible for officials to administer and control.

Last, but not least, Madam Chair, we always talk about harmonizing taxes among the various levels of government, because it is impossible to sort it out.

In 1998, the Quebec government, in a budget speech, provided an tax exemption for Quebec vineyards specifically for all licence holders for cottage-type production for the first 150,000 litres, thus recognizing the emerging industry and the tax discretion that should apply with good reason.

I am asking you to harmonize your assistance with what already exists fiscally speaking, to help promote economic and business development.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

À (1010)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Boutin.

[Translation]

Please begin.

Mr. Léo Boutin (President, Association des cidriculteurs du Québec): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am the president of the Association des cidriculteurs du Québec and I live in Mont-Saint-Grégoire.

As you know, the work “cider” evokes a millenium drink in Quebec. Cider, this home-grown product, is relatively young. Ignored or omitted from the act when the liquor commission was reorganized in 1920, it was reintroduced by an act 50 years later, with industrial licences.

Sales, supported by excellent advertising and an on-demand market, went up to almost 5.4 million litres in the mid-seventies, then dropped off just as quickly and dried up. The first licence for artisan production was issued in 1988, and the number of producers as well as the variety of products have gone up ever since.

Our association represents 28 members, and sales volume hit a new record high in 2001 of roughly 300,000 litres, which has almost brought us up to the level of Quebec vineyards. On-site sales represent 60% of sales, sales at public markets represent 16% and sales at fairs and in other places represent 15.5%. Sales at the SAQ represent 4.5% and, finally, sales in restaurants represent 4%. That gives you an overview of the cider industry in Quebec.

It is also interesting to look at cider production in millions of litres at the international level. Great Britain is the biggest cider producing country with a domestic market of 382 million litres for a total of 406 million litres, including imports and exports, whereas France is in second place with 129 million litres, including imports and exports. Germany ranks third with 97 million litres domestically, and 6 million litres in imports and another 6 million in exports, for a total of 109 million litres. Ireland, which is a very small country, produces 18 million litres, imports 3 million litres and does not export any, for a total of 21 million litres. This illustrates our position on the international scene. The last country at the bottom of the list is Belgium, with 12 million litres, including 5 million litres in imports and 15 million litres in exports, for a total of 32 million litres.

I do not have data for the United States, but they have announced a constant increase of more than 1,000% per year.

The average cider producer has at least one hectare of apple trees that he grows. He produces between 6,000 and 8,000 bottles. He sells mainly on site and tries to make a name for himself at fairs and public markets. I don't need to remind you that management and accounting are directly linked to the agricultural component.

Home-style cider is a full- fledged agricultural product and is recognized as a product that draws in tourists par excellence in Montérégie, since 85% of all cider sold is produced in the Montérégie region.

At this time, I would like to draw your attention to the 5,000 hectoliters that should be tax exempt. At present, we talk in terms of dollars, in other words $50,000 in sales. I wanted to raise these points. Our association is asking for 5,000 hectoliters to be tax exempt. We were asking for a production site to be recognized as warehouses, that the only accounting required be with respect to sales and that monthly reports be harmonized with those required by the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux du Québec.

Having said that, I fully endorse the comments made earlier by Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle. We face the same problem with respect to warehousing. Knowing how to deal with that is a major problem. The entire problem revolves around the warehouse.

That concludes my remarks.

À (1015)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to start the rounds. I understand another committee has the room at 11 a.m., so we will start with five-minute rounds, to make sure we can get in as many people as possible.

Mr. Kenney, go ahead.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of our witnesses and guests for taking the time to come here--some from right across the country.

First let me address the submission made by Mr. Paquin and the Canadian Council of Regional Brewers by saying that fortunately the idea that you have presented us with today is not a new one. In October of last year, Madam Chair, the Brewers Association of Canada, which I gather--perhaps you could tell me the difference between your organization and theirs--represents all of the breweries in Canada, including the large ones that represent about 90% of production, made a submission to this committee at its pre-budget hearings with, essentially, precisely the same recommendations. It's very interesting to see that this is not just a “special interest” seeking a special preference in the tax code, but rather the entire industry, including those that would not directly benefit from this; i.e. those who produce over 300,000 hectolitres per year are on the record of supporting the idea of a 40% excise for the microbreweries. I wonder if Mr. Paquin or any of his colleagues could comment on that.

Mr. Pierre Paquin: With your permission, Mr. Kenney, I'll have the president of our association respond to this.

Mr. Bob King (President, Big Rock Brewery Ltd.): Yes, Mr. Kenney, your statement is correct. The Canadian Council of Regional Brewers and the Brewers Association of Canada do share a common objective in advocating a 60% reduction in the federal excise tax. It's not by coincidence that the three people at the table today representing the small brewers are also directors of the Brewers Association of Canada, including myself, Mr. Baxter, and Ms. Urtnowski from Quebec. There is a common objective.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I find that particularly interesting, because often when industry groups seek minor changes to tax legislation that affects them, there are unintended consequences for competitors, but in this instance the folks who produce 90% of the product in this country have no objection. I guess the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has also endorsed this. Is that correct?

Could the representatives from the regional brewers tell us whether they have had any compelling response from the government, from the finance department, about why they have not yet accepted this recommendation or whether they're willing to consider doing so?

Mr. Pierre Paquin: What we have heard, Mr. Kenney, so far is that.... First, let's say, right at the outset, that we haven't been confronted at any point with anyone objecting to our proposal. Everyone we've talked to everywhere agreed with the fact that there was an inequity and somehow it had to be redressed. It seems that the only difference of opinion we've heard was where and how it should be redressed.

Mr. Jason Kenney: All right. I think you make this point in your presentation somewhere, but isn't it true that six or seven of the provincial governments--maybe you could clarify that--have adopted a second lower provincial excise rate for microbrewed products?

Mr. Pierre Paquin: Yes, sir, that is right.

Mr. Jason Kenney: So most governments seem to be coming in line with this.

Mr. Pierre Paquin: Yes. The provincial governments of this country recognized the fact that something had to be done and did indeed provide us with some tax reductions.

Mr. Jason Kenney: In terms of the impact of this tax, could you put this in layman's terms for us? My understanding is this. Your operations are so small, collectively representing for all microbreweries in Canada 3% of total national annual productions. It's a tiny fraction that each one of you produce compared to say Molson or Labatt.

You're producing a more expensive craft product. The cost per unit of production and labour must be several times higher than it is for the major breweries. Could you quantify for us how large the excise tax is, as a fixed cost of your doing business, versus all the production costs? Is it a huge share or a modest share? What kind of share is it?

À (1020)

Mr. Howard Thompson (President, Creemore Springs Brewery Limited): Thank you. My name is Howard Thompson and I'm with Creemore Springs Brewery.

It's a good question because there are really two aspects to it. The first is just the size of the excise tax bill itself. We have a small company--42 employees--and we're one of the largest microbrewers in Ontario. Our excise taxes bill will be $800,000. To put that into perspective, it's more than we pay for the labour to produce the beer and to package the beer. It's also four times what we would pay in income tax. So any of the small business incentives that have been built into the Income Tax Act are more than wiped out by the Excise Tax Act. The distinction we like to make is that rather than being beer businessmen, we are small businessmen in the beer industry, and that's significantly different from being a global international player in the beer industry in all of your cost structures. Excise is the largest federal tax bill we'll have.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I appreciate that.

I'll close by saying that I also have tabled an amendment with the clerk to reduce the excise tax, as per your recommendation, to a rate of 40%. I hope I'm not in a conflict of interest, though, because I am a very large consumer of these microbrew products. I think they're absolutely tremendous. In fact, I should have shares in most of your companies.

I'll hand it back to the chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to our guests for their excellent presentation. I have several questions for Mr. Paquin or for the other members of the council.

Last week, we started analyzing Bill C-47 with department officials. My colleague from Drummond is working in close cooperation with me on your issue in particular. The officials stated, as if they were controlling everything, that there would not be any amendments to Bill C-47. I have been here for 10 years, and I have never seen anything like that. The officials said that the excise tax on microbrewery beer had nothing to do with this bill. Of course, Mr. Wilfert, as parliamentary secretary, had probably an order from the Minister of Finance to adopt the same position. He supported the officials by saying that there would not be any amendments to Bill C-47, that this bill does not concern the excise tax.

However, I have been reading this bill since it was tabled at first reading, and I see that everything in it deals with the excise tax. Where, if not in a bill dealing with the excise tax, are we to amend the excise tax on microbrewery beer in order to correct an unfair situation vis-à-vis microbreweries who are your competitors in the United States and in several European countries? Where can we amend an excise tax if it's not in a bill dealing with the excise tax?

Mr. Pierre Paquin: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Loubier, thank you for your question.

You have put your finger right on the problem. I am repeating myself and I apologize.

In all instances where we have spoken over the course of the past two and a half and even almost three years, we have met with sympathy and agreement with respect to our claims, at every level. The fact of the matter is that everyone, at all levels, is saying that microbrewers in Canada are having major difficulties and are in an unfair situation that must be remedied. So there is no disagreement on the fundamental issue and its merit.

And then the Excise Tax is reviewed. We said to ourselves that it was so simple that it wasn't even funny. It is crystal clear. Here is an unfair situation with respect to excise duties and it should be corrected in the Excise Tax Act, shouldn't it? That seems obvious to us.

À (1025)

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Paquin, all, or almost all microbrewers are members of the Brewers Association of Canada, aren't they?

Mr. Pierre Paquin: I think they are all members of the Association.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: And the Brewers Association of Canada, which is associated with the discussions on the review of the excise tax system for wine and spirits since 1997, I believe, has always said that the excise tax should be reduced for microbreweries in order to allow them to be competitive and survive.

Mr. Pierre Paquin: Yes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: It has been involved since 1997 in these discussions with the federal Departments of Finance and Revenue. Since 1997, they have been saying that this must be resolved as part of the review of the excise tax system.

Recently, on April 12, 2002, Mr. Sandy Morrison, while agreeing with you on the principle of reducing the excise tax, said this:

However, the industry does not agree that such a change should be made through an amendment to Bill C-47, which is currently before the House, and which is introducing a new excise system for producers of spirits and wine in Canada. Following extensive consultations on the proposed changes to the Excise Act, brewers concluded with the Department of Finance that a lot remains to be done to develop a system that is appropriate for the brewing industry.

The way it was worded, it does not seem all that complicated.

Instead of delaying matters of interest for other sectors, it was decided to exclude brewers from this piece of legislation and to deal with the industry separately once Parliament has enacted the changes for other sectors. This measure has received the support of all members of our association, large and small.

How can you explain that you are a member of the Brewers Association of Canada, the BAC, which claims to have been defending you since 1997, but which is involved in discussions with the Department of Finance on redefining the tariff regime for the excise tax that led to Bill C-47, and which, although it says it supports you, disapproves of what you are currently doing? I think it was you, Mr. Dion, who told me that 38 microbreweries in Canada have disappeared over the past 5 years. So, during those 5 years the discussions were ongoing, I'm under the impression that the large brewers, Labatt and Molson, in particular, have been telling you that they support you but at the same time, they have been working in a different direction behind your back. How can you explain that dichotomy?

Mr. Pierre Paquin: Thank you for the question. I think that Mr. Dion is in a better position than I am to answer it.

Mr. André Dion (President, Association des microbrasseries du Québec): Mr. Loubier, you have asked yourself this question very seriously and very sincerely, as we too have done. The Brewers Association of Canada obviously represents all brewers, including the big ones which control 92% of the market. We decided to take matters into our hands and to do without the support of the large brewers, even if they support us theoretically, to move in this direction. If we are here today, it is not because the large brewers recommended we come, it's simply because some ministers, including Mr. Boudria, told us that this was the way to proceed and that we should forget about the others. They told us that the Finance Committee would undoubtedly help us and accelerate the process that we have been waiting for three years. We cannot speak on behalf of the BAC, which is the association representing the large breweries. We decided that we had to act on our own to get what we are looking for as quickly as possible.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I think you did well in creating your own association, because if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself, as we say. I am trying to help you in this regard.

Mr. André Dion: Thank you very much.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I just have a short question for Mr. Bélisle. Mr. Bélisle is not my brother and I was not the one trying to pass myself off for him at the National Assembly; it was the security guards who greeted me and called me Mr. Bélisle when I was there.

I just have a comment for you. We do not have a problem replacing our amendment with the one you are proposing, which is more complete, and even amending it to take into account the suggestions made by Mr. Boutin on cider. So rest assured we are going in the direction of what you are recommending.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle: Madam Chair, I understand what Mr. Loubier is saying. The text of our amendment is quite simple. This type of bill requires brevity. We know that 150,000 litres represents 185,000, 750 ml bottles. It will take another 15 years before we reach that point in Quebec. It will take that much time to get these businesses up and running.

This involves harmonizing the excise tax rules for microbreweries across six or seven provinces. I think that in Quebec it is reasonable to consider an exemption to the specific duty.

Madam Chair, if I may, I would like to raise something that, as a lawyer, I find rather puzzling. I will explain. In clause 135(2)b), the exemption is determined by the level of annual sales. The legislator has stated that an exemption will apply if annual sales are below $50,000. I simply can't understand why this criterion was used since the concept used in C-47 is based not on the sale, but rather on the production, in order to determine the taxation level. It says that when it is bottled,

À (1030)

[English]

when it's bottled, you have to pay the taxes. It's an act of production. It's not a sales act. You're not selling the product to a consumer. If you're not selling the product.... Let's be logical about writing the text in the proper legal language. Let's not use the basis for the exemption as a value in money--$50,000. What should be written there is volume in litres or hectolitres. That's the way the bill should be written in proper legal language.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Pillitteri and then Mr. Brison.

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

This morning, on this issue of excise tax and knowing Mr. Bélisle and knowing a lot of the Quebec industry, I think I have to walk a fine line when I ask questions.

Let me say that I would love to have the ability the Europeans have. A lot of them don't have excise tax because it's treated as food and therefore they have nothing to worry about. It would be under the food act, not under the drug act. Therefore there's no excise.

For any product coming into Canada from anywhere without an excise tax, once it enters Canada, excise tax is put on equal to that of Canada. Therefore, I don't see it as competitive or having anything to do with competing with other countries. Basically the federal government, under the excise tax, makes everything equal for stuff coming in or stuff produced here, be it a microbrewery or a small winery or any product. Even on products we export out of Canada on which we have an excise tax, the excise tax is removed. Therefore it gives us a benefit on exports.

I feel that realistically, the cost of excise to a small brewery or a small winery is excessive for the simple reason that in comparison to a large one--the equipment one has and how much it uses in a year--they're getting the better share. For the small companies in the wine industry, two groups control 85% in Canada, so it's not really fair.

I really don't see where the Europeans or the Americans benefit from this legislation. The provinces ultimately control the price at which it's going to be sold, and each province varies. It's not really competition because a bottle of wine in Quebec, on average, is $2 more than a bottle of wine in Ontario. That is because the provincial taxes are far more than the excise tax. Therefore one has to look for the benefits in the provinces.

I want to ask some questions, specifically of Mr. Bélisle. He talked about $50,000 versus 50,000 litres, which it should have been. For instance, you have 37 wineries in Quebec, which produce 550,000 litres. In Ontario there are over 120 wineries; two of them produce 85% and the rest produce the other 15%. So really, it's not competitive. It's really finding a niche market for any small winery to survive. I don't think it's the excise tax, frankly. I've been through it, and it's not the tax itself. What difference would it make to change from the $50,000 sales to the 50,000 litres, which they have in Ontario? That's one part.

Another part I'd like to ask about is the sale of the product when the excise tax comes on, warehousing. I don't know how it's looked at in Ontario, but if you have a warehouse on the premises, that's acceptable. The only time the applicable excise tax comes on is at the time of sale. Would you elaborate on that?

À (1035)

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle: Madam Chair, I will try to answer the question from Mr. Pillitteri.

As I was telling the committee, 32 out of the 37 holders of permits in Quebec have only one building, one small room of 40x25. In the same room there's a tasting room...which we don't see in the beautiful vineyards of Niagara-on-the-Lake. The bottling, the wine making, the tanks--everything is in the same environment, in the same room; no walls, no divisions, no partitions.

In the text of the bill right now, you give an exemption if the wine that's bottled with a bottling machine two feet away is deposited immediately in an excise warehouse. We do not have, in the 37 wineries, excise warehouses. So that's not going to be manageable. We won't build excise warehouses. Most of all, it won't be controllable by the persons from Revenue Canada.

What you're doing is putting in a fiscal law there, a fiscal imposition. That's what you're doing. In schedule 6 you're imposing tariffs. You're imposing an excise tax. I have never seen, in Canadian income tax law, a fictitious, imaginary creation of the mind where, physically, somewhere two feet away from a bottling machine, there exists in the same room an excise warehouse. What I'm telling you people is that you're legislating something that's going to be impossible to apply, impossible to manage, impossible to control.

That's why the provinces, six or seven...and the Government of Quebec has accepted that all of the micro-enterprises should be exempted from this 8% specific tax in Quebec. The same goes for other provinces' governments in Canada. You have to give us special status in that regard.

That answers your last question, Mr. Pillitteri, I think.

If I can be more personal, I know your place well. You have a warehouse, and you have places where you can put the bottled product. We do not have those facilities, neither the cider-makers of Quebec nor the vintners of Quebec.

The Chair: Mr. Brison and then Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC): If I understand this correctly, the definition of microbrewery is based on the size of an individual production facility...? It's conceivable, particularly with the level of merger and acquisition activity in the brewery business, that you could have a bunch of microbreweries--and this has happened--that are part of one corporate entity. It's actually one big business comprised of a group of smaller independent producers in terms of individual factories.

Is the microbrewery status based on the size of individual operations, then, or is it based on the total volume of the corporate entity?

Mr. Bob King: It's based on the total worldwide volume for the corporate entity. So if a company owned six microbreweries, you would accumulate the total volume of those six. If it exceeded $300,000 it would not qualify.

À (1040)

Mr. Scott Brison: Okay.

Although I'm supportive of what you're proposing, perhaps I can play the devil's advocate here. From the perspective of your own self-interest, do you see this as one of the unintended consequences, that you're actually putting, in some ways, a limit on the ability for you to develop, from an economy's perspective, the type of size...? I mean, you're preventing an awful lot of potential merger and acquisition activity. You're putting a limit on the price that your breweries are worth, from the perspective of an exit strategy. That seems a little counterintuitive.

It may make sense now, but in a few years will you be appearing before this committee and suggesting that the treatment ought to be changed because it's imposing an unfair disadvantage to you as you pursue corporate finance opportunities to do something in the future?

Mr. Pierre Paquin: This is indeed a very interesting question.

I'm sorry; go ahead, Bob.

Mr. Bob King: There's always that possibility down the road; I think we all recognize that. On the other hand, I think we're aware of what our U.S. counterparts have; mind you, it's much higher. We're asking for a rather modest 300,000, whereas in the U.S. it's a million, I believe, Pierre, isn't it?

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Bob King: Nevertheless, you have pointed out a potential downstream downside. I think we're all prepared to live with the consequences of what we're putting forth to you, ladies and gentlemen, and indeed to the Honourable Paul Martin and others; nevertheless, we do recognize that potential is there.

Mr. Scott Brison: But in a U.S. context, a Keith's or a Moosehead is almost a microbrewery--from a U.S. perspective--in some ways. Is it the same definition in the U.S. for microbreweries?

Mr. Bob King: They go up to a million.

Mr. Scott Brison: Oh, okay, now I....

Mr. Pierre Paquin: Very frankly, it has been said to us that we're limiting ourselves, at 300,000 hectolitres, and as you just said, as a result we may come back to you later on.

To tell you the truth, you would up the ante, and so long as we get our solution, we'd be quite pleased. You decide, really. We'll be satisfied with 300,000 hectolitres, but should you say there'll be a 60% reduction for the first 75,000 hectolitres for companies across the world not exceeding 400,000 hectolitres, we could live with that easily. You decide.

Mr. Scott Brison: Well, you won't get a lot of arguments about tax advantages for breweries from a Nova Scotian MP.

Mr. Pierre Paquin: Yes.

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Wilfert, did you indicate you didn't want a question? Okay.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Chair, I don't really have anything to add to what I gave on Thursday.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Ms. Minna, then, for five minutes.

Ms. Maria Minna: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go back to the earlier discussion with respect to the Brewers Association and yourselves.

As this bill, Bill C-47, does not deal with beer at all, I wanted to get a better understanding as to why.... I respect the fact you've organized yourselves and that it's an important issue, but my understanding from reading the letters--I've got two letters here, one saying disregard the other one, which is unfortunate, and one from the Brewers Association--is basically they're saying there was an agreement that the market breweries and the beer issue would be dealt with in a separate bill, because it requires and deserves proper attention in the kind of discussion we're having, but it's not part of Bill C-47 at all.

I'm trying to ascertain whether you disagree entirely with the Brewers Association--you're having a disagreement. In that case, if we were to try even to insert something here, it actually would change Bill C-47 entirely and would take, I think, some major discussions and redrafting, as the beer issue is not addressed in this bill at all. It's put aside to deal with separately through another process.

I don't understand the disagreement here. And I don't know that Mr. Kenney's motion, which I've just read, changes very much.

Mr. Bob King: It's a very good question. There is a perception that there's disagreement between the two associations. The best person to answer this would be someone who's at the executive level, if you will, within the BAC, but I'll try to give you our interpretation.

I believe it's a question of urgency. Mr. Paquin referred to the number of dead breweries, the tombstones that are spread across the country. It's a very urgent matter to the small brewers, namely the Canadian Council of Regional Brewers. It's certainly a priority, if you will, of the Brewers Association of Canada, but the priority they've given this particular issue is not at the level we've given it. In other words, we put an urgent sign out; they're saying “as soon as possible through some other mechanism”.

You have to understand I'm interpreting what the content of that letter is. Indeed, we don't know exactly what was discussed several years ago with the finance department; obviously there was some discussion. There may have been some understanding. It's a question of the vehicle. Is this the right vehicle? Would the BAC say it's probably not the right vehicle? Would others say it may not be the right vehicle? But as Mr. Paquin indicated earlier, he believes, speaking on our behalf...we all believe it is the right vehicle.

So it's a question of urgency, I believe, more than substance, and maybe of form over substance in this case. I believe there is a shared common objective between the BAC and the Canadian Council of Regional Brewers.

À (1045)

Ms. Maria Minna: I guess I'm not so much questioning the urgency or the importance. I understand from your collective presentation that this is an important issue, and obviously, from reading all the material, I quite appreciate that. But given the fact that Bill C-47 really doesn't address this issue at all and given that the issue from the different presenters and some of what I've read is a bit more complex--it's not a straightforward one- or two-paragraph change--maybe it deserves proper attention and a bill of its own rather than being grafted into something that is not intended to deal with that at all.

Mr. Pierre Paquin: If I may say so, the act very much deals with the microbreweries in the sense that some five or six years ago there was an agreement to exclude the microbreweries from the act. The inequity we have and that we have been living through for the past five or six years is as a result of this exclusion. We must remember that there is a direct link between what we are suffering right now and the fact that we've been excluded from the Excise Tax Act. The purpose of our being here today is to say and to repeat as clearly as we can that we have an excise tax inequity and it should be resolved under the Excise Tax Act.

Ms. Maria Minna: Fair enough. Thank you.

The Chair: We have a couple of rounds available.

Mr. Jaffer, would you like to start?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): I would like to ask a couple of questions, but I think Jason just wanted to make a quick comment.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes. Mr. Jaffer is going to yield to me for just a moment.

With respect to the discussion that was just happening, there may be some confusion in this committee about where the Brewers Association of Canada, the larger industry group, stands. I just want to read into the record one paragraph from their submission to this committee in October of last year, where they said:

We are seeking, on behalf of 24 of these companies, [that is to say, their membership] a 60 per cent reduction in the rate of excise duty on the first 75,000 hectolitres of production for Canadian brewers producing no more than 300,000 hectolitres annually. Although our four largest member companies would not benefit from this excise reduction, it has their support. They believe that a healthy and diverse small sector is essential for the industry as a whole.

That should put to rest any doubt about where they stand.

In terms of dealing with it in another way, I would just point out that if we wait for the government to come forward with the bill, possibly sometime after the next budget, sometime next year, there will be microbreweries that go under in the interim. That's why this is a matter of some urgency.

This bill does deal with amendments to the Excise Tax Act, which is relevant. Ms. Minna said that what these regional brewers are seeking here is too complex to accommodate in amendments to the bill. I've given Mr. Paquin and Mr. King a copy of my amendment. Would they find the legislative response to their submission inadequate? That's my question.

À (1050)

Mr. Bob King: The short answer is yes.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Thanks for that short comment, Jason.

I just have a quick question for Mr. Bélisle with regard to the amendment he's proposing for this legislation.

To your knowledge, is there support for smaller wine producers in some of the other provinces? I know we do have a number of other provinces that produce wine that may be smaller. Have you had any contact with them? Has there been any concern?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle: I haven't had any contact with other provinces in that regard. There's one fact I know for sure: by the budget of 1998 in Quebec, the exemption has been given for 150,000 litres, which is the equivalent of 1,500 hectolitres. It seems to me to be a volume that defines the small ones rather than the more important ones in our field. I don't have the answer.

The Chair: Mr. Harris is next. Mr. Loubier is the only other person, and we have other people coming in to use the room.

Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George--Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): This is just a point of clarification, Mr. Bélisle. When is the excise tax applicable? Is it when it goes into the excise warehouse or when it's put into the bottles?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle: When it's put in the bottles.

Mr. Richard Harris: In the bottles.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle: And then there's an exemption, and I disagree with what Ms. Minna said, Madam Chair. If one reads clause 135, and the other provisions are similar in the act, we're talking about imposition of a fiscal duty upon firms and businesses in Canada.

The text, word by word, of clause 135 is, “Duty is imposed on wine that is packaged in Canada at the rates set out in Schedule 6.” So it's a fiscal law you're voting on here. When you're introducing subclause 135(2) and say that subclause 135(1) does not apply to wine that is produced by a wine licensee where there is less than $50,000 in sales volume, or where it is entered into an excise warehouse immediately after packaging, then you're legislating with regard to duty and the imposition of duty taxes in all respects. It's really a fiscal law you're voting on there.

So I don't think the argument stands, saying we're going to wait for another moment, for another appropriate bill, to change what you're voting upon here, which will affect the wineries, microbreweries--if I can say so--and also the cider makers of Quebec or Canada.

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, would you like the last question?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have a comment to make, Madam Chair.

Even though Mr. Kenney and myself did not work together, we have introduced similar amendments. It's just a matter of where you put the comma. We don't often end up in agreement when we have done our work separately. No doubt it is because common sense has prevailed.

As opposition members, I think it will be possible for us to include the amendments that you are seeking to Bill C-47. Time is of the essence for the microbreweries. Nothing really makes sense when we look at... This bill involves excise tax. Contrary to what Ms. Minna has said, it isn't all that difficult to change things. We simply need to introduce two small amendments, Madam Chair.

Therefore, nothing really makes sense, unless there has been an agreement with the big breweries in 1997 that would prevent a reduction of the excise tax, something that would cause so much harm to the microbreweries that they would eventually cease to exist. It will take more than a year, Mr. Kenney, before we have a new bill. This particular bill and the excise tax provisions have been in the works for five years now, since 1997. It will be too late, if we wait another five years. Thirty-eight microbreweries have closed in the past five years. What will happen over the next five years? It's unbelievable. It makes absolutely no sense. If you don't support our amendments, it will be scandalous.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate you taking the time to come before....

I'm sorry, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bélisle: You're welcome.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, has the letter from the Brewers Association of Canada, dated April 12, 2002, been put into the record?

The Chair: It was distributed to all the members. When I get the letters addressed to me, I send them to the clerk and he sends them to the members.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Loubier refers to 1997, and it refers to their position as of April 12, which is still unchanged. I want to make sure it is part of the record.

À (1055)

The Chair: It could be read into the record then.

Mr. Jason Kenney: On a point of order, could we ensure that the Brewers Association of Canada's October 2001 submission to this committee is in the record?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: And you'll want the April one as well.

The Chair: The documents are on the record from the prior meeting already, so they're already in the record, and you read from that just now.

Is there anything else? If not, thank you very much, gentlemen. This committee will come together again this afternoon after question period. I think we have one scheduled at 3:30 p.m. with witnesses.

Yes?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Could we call back the officials who, last week, put forward the absolutely invalid reasons why we could not amend Bill C-47? Could the officials who appeared last Tuesday be called to return before Thursday? I have some other questions for them, Madam Chair, following what we have heard from our witnesses. It would only take half an hour.

[English]

The Chair: They will be here for clause-by-clause, but I don't see--

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Perfect.

[English]

The Chair: They will be here for clause-by-clause.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: So please set aside half an hour for me.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

They will be here for clause-by-clause when we do clause-by-clause.

The meeting is adjourned.