Joyce Murray

[Fair Representation Act, December 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. NDP member for her comments on the importance of defending the interests of Quebec.

As my colleague already mentioned, there are no numbers, but I understand that the NDP's policy and plan would require 30 more seats. An additional 30 seats would cost a lot. On the contrary, the Liberals have a plan that is fair for Quebec and the other provinces and it does not add any seats.

In the hon. member's riding, as in mine, are there people who want more money for researchers, for Fisheries and Oceans, for scientists working on climate change, who want more money to narrow the gap between rich and poor? Do the hon. member's constituents think that spending more money to have more MPs is a better plan than using that money for other things we need in our society?

[The Environment, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members are laughing, but in fact they are going to be losing Canadian jobs because more and more countries are putting trade restrictions on products from countries like Canada that are climate change laggards.

Why are the Conservatives jeopardizing Canadian jobs with their backward approach to climate change? It is shameful.

[The Environment, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government promised that it would not stand in the way of countries that want to have an international climate change agreement, but it has done just that and so it has been shamed once again with the fossil of the year award. What the Conservatives do not understand is that by isolating Canada--

[The Environment, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, rising global greenhouse gas emissions present clear evidence that the fight to prevent dangerous climate change is being lost and we must not let that happen. That is why the stakes are so high at the climate conference in Durban and constructive solutions are so urgently needed. How shameful that the Conservative government has been described as “swinging a wrecking ball through the conference”.

Canada's emissions continue to increase and will fall well short of our required reductions as well as the watered down Conservative targets for 2020.

Under the current government, the oil and gas industry receives $1.3 billion in annual subsidies. In effect, Canadian taxpayers are paying almost $9 for every tonne of CO₂ pollution the industry emits. That is backwards. In Europe the polluter pays per tonne of CO₂. The result in Germany has been the creation of almost half a million new green energy jobs.

The conference in Durban ends today, but the battle to prevent climate change is far from over. The government must respect the majority of Canadians who want Canada to help construct, not obstruct, solutions.

[Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, December 7th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be part of the debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-311.

I wish to congratulate my colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla, a riding in the beautiful province of British Columbia, on this very sensible bill. I am pleased that all the parties in the House seem to agree that it is a good thing to do.

I also want to congratulate my colleague from Kings—Hants for being the seconder of this bill and having spoken on behalf of the Liberal Party in support of it.

I represent a riding in British Columbia that has a large wine industry.

The wine industry is of growing importance in my province.

We have heard from members who have spoken to this bill that the current law makes no sense. We are dealing with a law that dates from 1928, the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, which was passed more than 80 years ago. This law was brought into force following the lifting of prohibition on alcohol. Some of the elements of the law at that time were overly restrictive because there was no clarity as to how the use and sale of alcohol would proceed following the period of prohibition.

What happens under that law established 80 years ago is that people visiting a vineyard in the province of British Columbia who come from another province in Canada would be able to taste wine, buy a bottle or two and consume it in B.C. However, they would not be able to take any home or order any to have sent home. This makes no sense from many perspectives, one of which is the trade barrier that it implies.

We are one nation. We are a united nation. We are a nation of Canadians who are united in many ways. One way to unify us is to reduce barriers to trade, to increase the prosperity of small businesses and their workforces. When there is a trade barrier that does nothing to protect people, it is important that we look at those laws, update them and change them. That is exactly what Bill C-311 is all about. It is time to change that law.

The changes proposed are widely supported. I know some of my colleagues have been speaking about that. It is a change that is supported by Canadian consumers who enjoy agri-tourism, visiting vineyards and going on wine tours. For example, the circle tours which have been developed in British Columbia are an important tourist product. People from other countries and provinces are invited. Some drive through the interior of British Columbia, one of the most spectacular parts of Canada, and through the Okanagan. They stop at wineries, enjoy high-quality meals, see the magnificent art on the walls, go on tours to see how wine is made and enjoy the products. It makes no sense whatsoever that if tourists visiting a winery come from south of the border, for example, they are able to have wine shipped to them, but if they come from Alberta, Nova Scotia or Quebec, they are not able to do that without breaking the law.

The law is actually quite strict. There is a $200 maximum penalty for a first offence. For a second offence, the penalty is between $200 and $1,000 or imprisonment of three to six months for the default of payment. I know some in the House might think that more and longer prison sentences are a good thing, but we all agree that for bringing wine from one province to another, it is completely ridiculous. This penalty actually goes up to between 6 and 12 months for each offence after the second offence. This a very out-of-date law.

Some concerns have been raised about the provinces' responsibilities in that regard. Will the federal government be acting in an area of provincial jurisdiction? I would like to say that that is not the case will Bill C-311, because it allows the provinces to set their own limits regarding the quantity of alcohol and bottles of wine that can be transported between provinces. This means that if a province does not want to import any wine and wants to stop all such imports, it can set the maximum amount at zero. Thus, the quantity or existence of this interprovincial exchange remains in the hands of the provinces.

Who is for this? It is very strongly supported by the vintners, of course, as well as the business community and even the provinces. I note that the solicitor general of British Columbia was publicly considering taking steps to reduce the effects of this antiquated law that made it an offence to take wine across a provincial boundary.

According to the vintners, the proposed amendments are widely supported by the Canadian wine industry. They are pleased to be able to facilitate consumer choice in wine. It is good for small business, for tourism and for people who love to sample wine from other parts of the country and bring it back to share with their families, friends and neighbours.

Having recently been on an economic tour of the interior of British Columbia, I noted that some of the rural communities that were struggling to develop their economies after a downturn in their logging industry. The local provision of jobs through logging are turning to agri-tourism. The vineyards and wineries are a high quality example of agri-tourism in British Columbia. In fact, our wineries are among the best in the world. We have a solid reputation for award winning wines. We want people to not only come and travel throughout British Columbia and bring their tourist dollars and leave them with the small businesses, the hotels, the restaurants and wineries, but we want them to be able to take some of that product home with them, or order that product.

Small and medium-sized businesses are the bulk of the wine industry. Almost all of Canada's wineries are small businesses. This is a very important part of rural economy and it is growing. The number of Canadian grape wineries has increased by roughly 300% to more than 400 wineries. British Columbia, of course, is one of Canada's wine centres and gives the other provinces a run for their money in terms of awards and recognition.

These are small businesses and our small and medium-sized business sector in Canada is incredibly important in terms of job creation, innovation and recycling money in the Canadian economy. Small and medium-sized enterprises employ two-thirds of the private sector workforce, overall. The wineries are an important segment of this.

In British Columbia, the B.C. wineries are happy to see this bill brought forward, so are wine lovers across Canada who can continue to appreciate and share with their friends the bounty that our vineyards produce.

[The Environment, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, China has said it is willing to go even further in its commitments under the Kyoto protocol. Meanwhile, the Canadian government is saying that it is abandoning its commitments under that agreement.

While most leading economic nations are committing to developing green economies, why are the Conservatives turning to their Reform Party roots and refusing to serve the economic and environmental interests of Canadians?

[The Environment, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary needs to brush up on her homework.

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I agree with almost nothing the parliamentary secretary said.

After a decade of effective work with the provinces, the public and industry, the Liberal government made huge progress and emissions actually went down in 2005 during an economic boom. The reform party tried to block those moves every step of the way. Unfortunately, I am hearing the very same propaganda from the parliamentary secretary that we heard from the reform party over the years.

In terms of setting goals, I would hope the member has set goals for herself that it might be possible that she would not meet. However, by aiming high, we achieve more than if we do not set goals.

In this much lauded funding that the government is announcing, shamefully, because it was announced before, there is nothing new. Half of it is loans and the other half is a redirection of important international aid from other funding that the government had already committed to.

Could the parliamentary secretary please tell us of any new dollars going into the climate fund?

[World AIDS Day, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, over the past decade, British Columbia has begun to turn the tide on HIV and AIDS. The key has been treatment as prevention, a strategy developed by the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV-AIDS that calls for the widespread testing for HIV and immediate treatment with highly active anti-retroviral therapy.

New evidence shows that the treatment as prevention strategy is so successful it could stop the spread of AIDS. Think of that: In our lifetime, zero new infections.

Expanding the treatment as prevention strategy is critical to curbing the HIV-AIDS pandemic. The pivotal first test is in Swaziland where a shocking one in four adults are infected. The world is committed to cutting Swaziland's new infections in half over 10 years but it needs funding. Canada must pitch in and support this pilot project. What better time than on World AIDS Day for Canada to honour its pledges to the underfunded Global Fund to Fight AIDS.

Treatment as prevention is an innovative, made in B.C. beacon of hope. It is time for Canada to finally support this strategy in Canada and globally so we can move toward a world without AIDS.

[Government Communications, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government said it did not order public servants to replace the term “Government of Canada” with the Prime Minister's own name.

However, records show that is just not true. As one Industry Canada official noted in an email, he was forced to use the PM's name “as per our directive from PCO”.

This Soviet-style politicization of Canada's bureaucracy is unethical, and it breaks the government's own rules. Why force neutral public servants to do the Prime Minister's partisan bidding? Why cover it up?