Fin Donnelly

[Fisheries and Oceans, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, why is it that when people speak out against the Conservatives, they are attacked and ignored? Canadians deserve better. Communities that rely on the fisheries could be devastated by the environmental--

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that the department is facing a $56 million cut. I am not sure how my colleague across the way can say with a straight face that marine safety will not be compromised.

If the most strategically located rescue station in Vancouver port, the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, is removed from the equation of marine safety, we then have to turn to the Sea Island hovercraft or to the Howe Sound or Deep Cove auxiliaries to fill the gap. All of those examples will take at least 30 minutes in good conditions, with availability, to get there.

How can the parliamentary secretary say with a straight face that marine safety will not be affected? If he had any analysis done, will he provide that analysis to the public? The public feels they were not consulted, and they want to hear the information.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a good point. I would like to point out the difference between each coast. On the west coast, the auxiliary is like a volunteer fire brigade. They certainly have training, but they are not trained to the level of the Coast Guard. While volunteers play a vital role as part of that network my hon. colleague talked about, they recognize they cannot be a substitute for the Coast Guard that can respond within minutes.

Auxiliary members would have to come from home or work. They would have to generally drive to the station, which would take many minutes, then get their equipment ready, get in the craft and get to the distress call. As has been described by others, this would take 45 minutes, most likely at best, and that is unacceptable.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, those two points were certainly brought up at the consultation we held last week. There were a number of individuals who said they like to recreate on the waters off Vancouver. They like to take their families out. Whether it is a pleasure craft, a sailing boat, a kayak, or a canoe, they like to enjoy the waters. They want to know that they are going to be safe. They felt that with the closure of the station, which could respond to emergencies within minutes, that would not be the case.

Because there are so few dollars needed to keep the station open, they were asking where the priorities of the government are. They feel marine safety should be a top priority and a high priority, and it should be fully funded.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a question we heard time and time again at the emergency town hall meeting that was held last week. They are certainly appalled with the cuts to the station. They want this decision reversed.

However, one of the things they were extremely concerned about was the lack of consultation. They wanted to hear the analysis. They wanted to see the reports that were made. They wanted to hear the rationale and the justification for this, so they could understand as well why the government was making this decision.

What we heard from the Minister of Heritage, as I mentioned is the lead Conservative MP in British Columbia on this, was that there was broad consultation. What we found was that is simply not the case. That is not true. What we found was that only DND was consulted and that this analysis does not exist.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion by the hard-working member for St. John's East, and I am happy to second the motion.

I am pleased that the member has brought this important motion before Parliament so we can debate the Conservative government's short-sighted and reckless cuts to the Coast Guard search and rescue services right across this country.

The closures are a result of a massive $56 million in cuts proposed to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Because of these cuts, coastal communities will see the closures of the St. John's marine search and rescue coordination centres, as well as the closure of the Quebec marine rescue centre.

The cuts will also result in the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station in Vancouver. The Kitsilano Coast Guard station is one of the most active in the country, servicing approximately 300 distress calls per year in Canada's largest port. Most of these calls deal with serious emergency situations, such as a person in water, medical responses, suicide attempts and fires.

There is no question the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station will increase response times, as the next nearest rescue boat would then have to travel 17 nautical miles from Sea Island in Richmond to Vancouver.

Last week the member for St. John's East and I held a packed emergency town hall meeting at the Jericho Sailing Centre. We heard a variety of perspectives, but all attendees were in agreement that the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station was a huge mistake that would put people's lives at risk. Many citizens showed up to voice their concerns about the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. Those in attendance included recreational boaters, kayakers, yacht owners and club members, representatives from labour unions, retired Coast Guard members, Coast Guard employees, Vancouver parks board commissioners, environmentalists and residents of Vancouver.

One of our panellists at the event, Mike Kelly, a retired captain and 37-year veteran of the Coast Guard, stated:

The coast guard is disaster driven. Bases don't fall out of the sky because they have got too much money. They only fall out of the sky because somebody paid for it in blood, and it is always blood on the deck before anything gets done. We must not pay that price again.

We also heard from Mike Cotter, the general manager of the Jericho Sailing Centre Association. He brought up some excellent points. He told the audience that over five million people travel through the Vancouver harbour every year, and billions of dollars' worth of cargo travel through the First Narrows.

He also stated that the Vancouver harbour is the busiest port in the country.

According to Mr. Cotter, the Kitsilano Coast Guard has the ability to respond to an emergency in this region within six minutes. If British Columbians had to rely on the Coast Guard auxiliary for an emergency, according to Mr. Cotter it would take at least 45 minutes for a response from Horseshoe Bay and 50 minutes from the Deep Cove auxiliary to reach the First Narrows. He wondered why the Conservative government would not come up with the $900,000 to ensure the safety of people and products travelling through this busy port of entry.

Both the Vancouver parks board and Vancouver city council have passed motions opposing the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. The B.C. NDP opposition leader has written to encourage all B.C. MPs to speak out and oppose this closure. The premier of British Columbia has also urged the federal government to reverse course.

Yet the government refuses to listen to the very people who know the region, the waters and the services that are required to keep people safe.

We held the town hall meeting to give people an opportunity to voice their concerns and anger. The Conservative government so far has refused to listen, despite mounting outrage. We promised to bring the people's message back to Ottawa.

One of the attendees at the meeting was Katrina. She works in insurance for the yachting industry. She asked what impact this decision would have on insurance costs.

Since then, she has written an open letter, and it is excellent. I want to quote from that letter. She said:

Weighing shades of grey and ethical dilemmas which cut across political, moral and industrial divides is a hobby I take great pleasure in pursuing. These sorts of dilemmas in Canada are many and complex; our ability and willingness to navigate these concerns and stay united despite our differences somehow defines us as Canadians. However, I assure you wholeheartedly, my fellow Canadians, that the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station is not a decision that falls into this category. There is no political, economic, social, moral, or nautical justification which would warrant the closing of this base; not one. Any politician suggesting there is has misunderstood grossly some or all of the reasons which compel this location to remain open. If this station is closed lives will be lost, full stop. Any politician suggesting otherwise is in grave error and in gross neglect of their duty as a public servant. At no point were they elected to put human lives at risk; at no point will the sea bow down and say, “I will quell my force in obedience to Ottawa”. At no point will one human life lost at sea be forgotten conveniently in order to make this issue go away.

Those are powerful words.

One message we heard repeatedly is that the protection of the public must be the top priority for any government. Everyone was adamant that the Conservative government must not balance the budget at the expense of marine safety. British Columbians are also upset that, once again, the government has failed to consult them on a major decision, such as shutting down the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station.

After assurances from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is the lead B.C. Conservative MP, that a broad consultation had taken place, we soon discovered that the department had only consulted with the Department of National Defence. This lack of consultation does not instill a sense of confidence that this short-sighted decision is in the best interest of British Columbians. The choruses of disapproval from people who are active in marine safety, who have the local knowledge of the area and know the level of service required, is growing.

If the government had taken the time to consult, it would have heard that on the May long weekend alone the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station saved nine lives, or that so far this year the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station has responded to 70 calls and saved 55 lives.

If the government had bothered to ask Fred Moxey, retired commander of the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station, he would have told them, “Very simply, lives will be lost.”

Attendees at the town hall all wanted to know how the government could justify relying on volunteers to protect citizens in the water. They wondered who exactly was consulted about this. They wondered who was consulted when the decision was made to use the hovercraft and volunteers to replace trained professionals.

People do not trust the government on this issue. They are shocked and appalled that this decision was reached without public consultation, particularly with people who are active in marine safety and have the local knowledge. Also, the City of Vancouver and the Province of British Columbia were not consulted.

Marine safety should be a high priority for the government. The federal government has a responsibility to provide this essential service. To shut down the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station is an abdication of their duties.

The message from the town hall meeting was clear: the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station creates an unacceptable risk for Canadians. I urge the government to reconsider this reckless cut to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station, and keep it open.

[Search and Rescue, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a tale.

Last week in Vancouver, over 100 people packed a town hall meeting to voice their objection to the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. Coast Guard workers and volunteers, recreational boaters and even yacht owners were on hand to raise their concerns with marine safety, the environment and the economy. The minister knows full well the importance of this station. He knows the risks.

When will the minister listen to British Columbians and reverse this reckless cut?

[Search and Rescue, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives had bothered to consult anyone about this decision, they would have found how reckless it was. This cut will increase risks to coastal communities.

It is curious that none of the B.C. Conservatives are standing up for the Coast Guard. The heritage minister claims marine safety will not be compromised. He says that we could just use a hovercraft. The fisheries ministers plans to fill the gap with volunteers.

What will it take for the B.C. Conservatives to stand up to the fisheries minister and demand he back down from this reckless decision?

[Search and Rescue, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at the same time they try to force through their pipeline and projects, the Conservatives are making cuts to marine safety. In spite of mounting public opposition, the Conservatives are sticking to their reckless plan to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

This week the B.C. premier and the Vancouver mayor and council added their voices to those demanding Ottawa reverse this cut.

Will the minister back down from his reckless plan, which would put the lives of British Columbians at risk?

[Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will provide some summary remarks. I support this bill and appreciate the hard work of members in preparing and bringing forward this bill.

The prohibition on interprovincial liquor importation is governed at the federal level by the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, the IILA, and, at the provincial-territorial level, by statutes that govern the importation, sale, transportation, warehousing and packaging of alcoholic beverages.

Bill C-311, which is an act to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act for the purposes of personal use, proposes to amend the IILA by providing a new exemption to the prohibition on the interprovincial importation of intoxicating liquors, except for purchases made by provincial-territorial liquor boards, commissions or corporations. This bill would allow the importation of wine from a province by an individual if he or she brings the wine into another province for personal consumption. This importation would be required to be in quantities as permitted by the laws of that province or territory in which the wine is being imported.

Under current federal legislation, if an individual wishes to purchase wine that is available only in a province other than the one in which he or she resides, the individual must make the purchase through the provincial-territorial liquor board, commission or corporation and must pay the associated taxes, mark-up rates and other special levies on the alcohol. That is by way of summary.

In terms of some of the comments on this bill, I think the industry and the public consider the IILA administered by CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, is the cause of the restricted trade. In reality, the combination of the IILA and the provincial legislation makes this trade illegal.

Pursuant to the IILA, all imports from one province into another must be made by the provincial liquor board or a private corporation designated by the province. This includes wine brought in by an individual from one province into another.

While the IILA does restrict interprovincial wine imports, provinces have the power to control the possession, sale, purchase and transport of wine within their respective jurisdictions. Provincial liquor boards impose a significant mark-up fee on wine produced or sold within a particular provincial jurisdiction. Most provincial legislations specifically allow a limited amount of wine for personal use to be brought into another province. For example, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario issued a news release in June of last year announcing a formal policy to permit up to nine litres of wine provided it accompanies the individual.

I know the hon. member who introduced this bill referred to the history, but I will add to it. The current law, which is section 3(1) of the IILA, stems from 1928 during the post-prohibition era when the various Canadian provinces were making the transition from prohibition to liquor board systems for liquor distribution. It created a restriction on both the transport of liquor across the provinces and provincial borders and the shipment of liquor between provinces unless the liquor was purchased by the liquor board in the destination province.

What we are looking for? I will go back to the bill. This bill would permit consumers to directly purchase wine in reasonable amounts for personal consumption, which is defined by each province and territory. It would address the legal issues related to interprovincial wine tourism and enable wineries to directly ship, including online, to consumers in provinces in compliance with provincial limits.

We support the bill as it stands, but we do have some suggestions for change as it moves forward. We support the matter of consumer choice. Canadians will certainly benefit from a greater selection of wine, especially smaller wineries across the country. The government needs to support the growing domestic industries, particularly in emerging wine-producing regions from Nova Scotia right across the country to British Columbia.

The Canadian wine industry is emerging as an internationally recognized cool climate wine producer, garnering an impressive list of awards and praise from many of the world's most influential wine critics. There are others that are onboard with the bill, including the Canadian Vintners Association, the Alliance of Canadian Wine Consumers and many wineries across the country.

I do want to make special note of British Columbia and the wine-making and wine-growing industry in our province. Vineyards, certainly in the interior of British Columbia, the Okanagan, Osoyoos, Kelowna and many other parts of the province, including Vancouver Island, which is certainly emerging as a wine-growing region, the Fraser Valley and pockets of the Fraser Canyon are becoming known for their wine or icewine.

There is also the idea of tourism and the importance of tourism in British Columbia as it relates to the bill, which would allow wine to be transported out of the province. B.C. is well-known for bringing in individuals from outside of British Columbia, from other provinces and territories, and also from other parts of the world. The United States, Europe and many other places around the world come to British Columbia for our fine wine and to enjoy what we have in that amazing part of Canada.

In summary, I will again lend my support to the bill. I strongly support the move to make an historical amendment to allow wine to be transported from province to province. I would like to see an amendment that would look at the labelling, which would include where the wine is made. That would enhance the bill.

Knowing where the wine comes from is quite critical. Consumers are not only enjoying wine, but they are becoming more sophisticated in knowing how the grapes are grown and where they come from. This is an important aspect that should be considered and included in the bill today.

Again, I thank the hon. member and previous members for their work on getting the bill to this stage.