Scott Brison

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque also represents rural and small town communities like mine. He knows that a lot of the volunteer firefighters in rural and small town Canada are people who are not making a lot of money. They are people who are struggling barely to get by. They are people who, in a lot of cases, are raising families on less than $20,000 a year and will not benefit from these non-refundable measures.

Again, anyone in this House, regardless of the politics of his or her party, has to understand that it is fundamentally wrong that low income Canadians would get less of a benefit than middle class or higher income Canadians. This applies to the volunteer firefighters and the caregivers. It also applies to children playing sports. Let us think about this. We all know that the cost of hockey, soccer, and any other sport has gone up. Kids need to have good activities to have healthy minds and bodies and to have a good and productive life. These tax credits are designed to help kids in sports, music and the arts, but they will not benefit children of low income families. That is particularly wrong. It increases the inequality of opportunity that is so menacing to a lot of Canadian families.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been very active on the G8 and G20 spending file, perhaps one of the greatest misappropriations of public tax dollars in the history of the country.

I remember that now infamous fall 2008 economic statement where the finance minister claimed there would be a $100 million surplus. In a federal budget, $100 million is almost a rounding error. The only way he was able to reach that minuscule little baby surplus was to sell off $10 billion of assets. I remember day after day we asked the minister to produce a list of the assets that the government was going to sell. He never presented that list of assets because there was no list of assets. The government had effectively created this notion that there was going to be an asset disposal. It never created a list.

As a minister of public works in the past, I know it takes about two years to go from having a list of assets to actually implementing a sale. The government made up those figures to try to pretend it had a surplus and in fact it did not.

The member is quite right. It is very hard to have faith in the government's budget numbers or projections.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, the second implementation bill for budget 2011.

I want to speak to some of the unfair elements of this bill. We think it is wrong that the Conservatives continue to exclude the lowest income Canadians from budget measures that are designed to help Canadians by introducing programs, like the tax credits for family caregivers, volunteer firefighters and children's arts activity, and then only making them available to some Canadians while completely leaving out those who are most in need: low-income Canadians who will not qualify for these measures because these tax credits are non-refundable. We think that is wrong and that it will weaken Canadian society by increasing the already growing gap between the rich and the poor in Canada. It will contribute to a reduction in the equality of opportunity that is so fundamental to Canadians and Canadian values.

I will speak today to some of the economic challenges facing Canadian society and how measures introduced by the Conservatives will actually serve to reduce economic opportunities for some Canadians who are already disadvantaged during these difficult global economic times. I then will provide some examples of how a Liberal government would do things differently.

There is a rising income gap under the Conservative government. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing in Canada. A recent study by the Conference Board of Canada shows that income inequality is rising even faster in Canada than in the U.S. The Conference Board's July 2011 study helps to provide some context by discussing why growing income gaps are a problem. It pointed out the following:

—high inequality can diminish economic growth if it means that the country is not fully using the skills and capabilities of all its citizens or if it undermines social cohesion, leading to increased social tensions. Second, high inequality raises a moral question about fairness and social justice.

Again, that quote was from the Conference Board of Canada's July 2011 study.

Lower incomes can also lead to shorter life expectancies. A 2010 report from McMaster University found that the life expectancy of someone living in the wealthiest neighbourhood in Hamilton, Ontario, is 21 years longer than someone living in the poorest neighbourhoods of Hamilton, as an example. Rising income inequality, in terms of economic output, will increase costs in health care at a time when we already have a demographic bubble, or time bomb as some refer to it, in terms of the aging of our population and the commensurate increases in health care costs that will bring.

In 2008, in terms of economic output, a group of economists, including Don Drummond, estimated that poverty costs Canada between $72 billion and $86 billion per year in higher costs for health care, the criminal justice system and lost economic productivity.

One of the largest contributors to growing income gaps in Canada is the persistently high levels of unemployment and underemployment facing low-income Canadians. The reality is that we have almost 600,000 fewer full-time jobs than three years ago in August 2008. There is a significant gap geographically in Canada in terms of how individual economies are doing. If people happen to live in Saskatchewan or Alberta, resource rich provinces, provinces where people had the vision, foresight and wisdom to put oil and gas under the ground and, in some cases, smart enough to put potash under the ground as well, their economic situation is very different from that of places in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.

We are seeing In this global economic restructuring the type of recovery in Canada that does not benefit all Canadians. In fact, a commodity led recovery, which is driving the Canadian dollar, for all intents and purposes, increasingly an oil and gas or commodity-based dollar, higher and, at the same time, as a result of that higher dollar, crowding out value-added jobs in other regions. While high commodity prices can disproportionately benefit some parts of Canada and some sectors in Canada, it is driving out a lot of manufacturing jobs, value-added jobs.

We just had an announcement of a permanent closure in my riding of the Fundy Gypsum Company. Part of the reason for that was the higher Canadian dollar in recent years that made its exports to the U.S. less competitive.

We have seen a lot of manufacturing jobs lost in my riding, food processing jobs, such as at Canard poultry and Larsen, close to my riding. We have seen a lot of losses in jobs in my riding. I latest information if have if that in Kings county, Hants county and Annapolis county, which is my riding and part of the riding next door, have 6,400 fewer jobs than in August 2008. The unemployment figures for Annapolis, Kings and Hants counties reached 7.8% in October 2011 compared to 5% in September 2008. That is almost a 3% increase in unemployment in my riding and half of the next riding, the riding of West Nova.

We are seeing it in our communities. We are seeing it in the small business community. The owner of a restaurant in Windsor, Nova Scotia told me recently that it had the worst year in 20 years. When people have lost their full-time jobs and have seen them replaced with part-time work, they cannot afford to take their families out for breakfast on a Saturday morning or for supper on a Friday night.

We have a responsibility in the House of Commons to evaluate how the economy and families are doing across Canada, not just look at the macro numbers, but look across the country and consider the plight of families in some of the regions. One of the realities is that during this technical recovery, this statistical recovery, many Canadians are still facing a deep human recession.

The other thing to realize is that before the markets tumbled back in August 2008, 17,366,000 Canadians had jobs. In October 2011, and these are the latest figures available from Stats Canada, that number stood at 17,402,300 jobs. However, that includes almost 600,000 net fewer full-time jobs lost in Canada over the last three years.

This issue has contributed as well to the growth of household debt. We are now at record levels of household debt in Canada, largely because Canadians are trying to replace their lost income from losing their full-time jobs with income from part-time jobs. They are having a lot of challenges making ends meet. They are seeing their costs going up on an ongoing basis and their pay going down as they are replacing full-time work with part-time jobs.

The reality is the household debt levels in Canada is $1.51 for ever $1 of annual income in Canada right now. That is actually higher than the family indebtedness in the U.S, record highs for Canadian households.

Canadians are worried about how they will pay the bills next month and they are petrified about what will happen at some point in the future when interest rates start to rise, which they inevitably will.

Within the context of rising inequality, the Conservatives have gone ahead and introduced a number of tax measures in budget 2011 that will actually worsen the situation by deliberately excluding low-income Canadians. We have repeatedly asked, both at finance committee and in the House of Commons, that the Conservatives make a family caregiver tax credit, the volunteer firefighter tax credit and the children's arts tax credits refundable so all Canadians can qualify, but the Conservatives have steadfastly refused.

I want to be clear. We support a family caregiver tax credit and a volunteer firefighters tax credit. In reality, it was the Liberal Party that proposed both of those before the Conservative Party. We proposed those tax measures because we felt a lot of families were struggling with aging and ailing loved ones, trying to keep them in their homes, and they needed the help.

Many communities, including my own communities in places like Summerville and Brooklyn, Hants county and Wolfville and Kentville, have a lot of volunteer firefighters. It is harder and harder to attract volunteer firefighters. Frankly, they are paying a financial cost. They are risking their lives and struggling to keep the fire departments viable.

We believe very strongly in a family caregiver tax credit and a volunteer firefighters tax credit. In our platform, we had both of those, but we had made them refundable. The reason they need to be, and ought to be, refundable is that by making them non-refundable, as the Conservatives have done, it perversely means that the lowest-income volunteer firefighters and family caregivers will not receive benefit. There is no way we can defend, economically or morally, that the lowest-income volunteer firefighters and family caregivers would not benefit from these measures. It is fundamentally wrong. I see families struggling to take care of loved ones now.

It is one of the issues I hear from constituents on an increasing basis, as we have an aging population, and the rural communities in the Maritimes are aging disproportionately. We have lost a lot of young people who have gone to other parts of the country for work. Therefore, in many cases, we have fewer young people to help out mom or dad, or granddad or grandmom stay in their homes. The burden on the people who are left behind, the family members and the caregivers, is immense. The VON does an extraordinary job helping a lot of people in my riding in Nova Scotia, but it can only do so much.

My mom and dad have a home care person who comes in a couple of times a week. She does remarkable work in helping my parents stay in their own home. My dad is 88 and my mom is 82 and she has Alzheimer's. I see how hard the home care workers are working and the difference they are making.

I see the sacrifice my sister makes. She is, for all intents and purposes, the family caregiver to my parents. There are three sons and then there is my sister. I can tell members that, disproportionately, the burden goes to the daughters in a family when it comes to these situations. That is unfair, but I see it. I know my sister would qualify, based on her income, for the family caregiver tax credit. However, it is not fair that some other person's sister or some other person's daughter, who takes time away from her work to take care of an elderly mother or father, would not benefit. That is fundamentally wrong.

I would like to see other family caregivers benefit from this measure, particularly, low-income caregivers. In my sister's case, she has taken time off work so she can help mom and dad in their home, so she is seeing a decrease in her income. That is happening to a lot of families across Nova Scotia and Canada. It is wrong that the caregivers in those lowest-income families would not benefit from this program designed to help caregivers and to help seniors and people who face long-term illness stay in their own homes longer.

Frankly, it would take a lot of burden off the provincial health care system if we could help people stay in their own homes. In most cases, the cost of putting people in nursing homes or long-term care families is a lot more than keeping them at home. Therefore, from the perspective of long-term fiscal policy, it is important for both federal and provincial governments to do everything they can to help people stay in their own homes.

I focused a lot on the disparity and unfairness of making these tax credits unavailable to low-income caregivers and volunteer firefighters. It is unfair, but it is also nonsensical from an economic perspective. It makes no sense socially, economically or morally.

Susan Eng, vice president of CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, has said:

We...encourage (the government) to put forward a refundable tax credit, particularly for the more narrow segments of caregivers who perform 24/7 care. Those are the people who have had to quit their jobs...to look after families. They are not going to be in a position to benefit from a non-refundable tax credit.

That is from one of the largest organizations representing senior citizens in Canada.

Nadine Henningsen, president of the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, told the finance committee:

—convert the non-refundable credits to refundable credits, so that all Canadians with caregiver-related costs, regardless of income, will benefit from these tax measures.

Again, there is broad-based support for making these credits refundable from the people who understand caregiving the most, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, and from the biggest organization representing Canadian seniors, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.

At some level the Conservatives must recognize that there is a moral imperative to make these tax credits refundable so they are available to all deserving Canadians.

In their last election platform the Conservatives promised to make the Canadian fitness tax credit refundable so that low income Canadians could also qualify. However, they have only promised to include low income Canadians once the budget is balanced.

We know from the minister's latest oops moment, kind of like Governor Perry, with his budget number that it is going to be 2015 or 2016 by the time the budget is balanced. That is based on their latest numbers, but the minister has missed every target he has set. In fact, he inherited a $13 billion surplus and spent Canada into a deficit even before the downturn. He increased spending by 18%, three times the rate of inflation, and put Canada into a deficit even before the 2008 crash. He promised a balanced budget in the fall of 2008 and a few months later delivered a record high $56 billion deficit.

Therefore, it is hard for us to count on the minister's projections, but for low-income Canadians who are being promised some tax relief once the budget has been balanced, it is very hard for them to count on or wait for that inevitable balancing.

I also want to speak on the EI payroll tax increase of January. The minister confirmed that EI premiums would be increased by $600 million in January. With stubbornly high unemployment in many parts of the country, it makes no sense for the government to be increasing payroll taxes at this time. That is why we called for a payroll tax freeze and EI premium freeze at this time. It does not make sense to increase what is effectively a job-killing payroll tax at a time of high unemployment.

We also believe that we have to take a serious look at the Conservatives' plan that they introduced to force the EI system to self-balance over a short period of time. What that means is that it perversely actually increases EI premiums at times of high unemployment. It makes no sense to increase job killing payroll taxes at exactly the time when we need to either freeze them or potentially even decrease them. We need to have a longer horizon for self-balancing.

I also spoke with Jack Mintz, who spoke to a group of us recently. Jack Mintz says that we need a focus on overall tax reform in Canada. We need to simplify and streamline the Canadian tax code. My leader, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, has called for the same. We need to have a long-term focus on building a fairer and more competitive Canadian tax system, streamlining and simplifying the tax system, not making it more complex with boutique tax credits that do not benefit the lowest income Canadians.

[Financial Literacy, November 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise this evening to speak in support of Motion No. 269, financial literacy, from the member for Edmonton—Leduc.

I commend the member for recognizing the importance of this issue as a priority for the federal government; however, I would say that it is somewhat inconsistent with the Conservatives' decision to, first of all, cancel all the agreements on early learning and child care with the provinces, because one of the most important areas of literacy happens to be establishing a strong foundation for learning at the very earliest stages. Early learning and child care are fundamental in that regard.

It is also inconsistent in some ways with the Conservatives' decision to cut funding for adult literacy programs, which was one of its first decisions as government.

That being the case, I do commend the hon. member for his recognition of the importance of financial literacy. I would note that he is encouraging a great deal of work in areas that are often considered to be provincial jurisdiction.

I would say that encouraging greater co-operation with the provinces and territories and working together with the provinces and territories in areas of shared interest is a good approach. It in no way, shape or form diminishes our respect for provincial jurisdictions; in fact, I would say to the hon. member that he is demonstrating a level of pragmatism that is atypical of some of his brothers and colleagues when it comes to working co-operatively with the provincial governments.

The report does recommend that:

all provincial and territorial governments integrate financial literacy into the formal education system...

and

that all provincial and territorial governments provide financial literacy professional development opportunities for teachers

and

that the Government of Canada, in partnership with provincial and territorial governments, integrate a financial literacy component into the Canada Student Loans Program...

and

that the federal, provincial and territorial governments help Canadians maximize the financial benefit from government programs for which they are eligible...

I could go on about ensuring greater simplicity and clarity in the way programs are written and structured.

One helpful thing would be for the Conservatives to design their programs so that they would offer help to those Canadians in the greatest need. One constructive suggestion I have for the Conservatives is to look at some of the non-refundable tax credits they are offering for children's activities, for caregivers taking care of loved ones in the home and for volunteer firefighters.

Unfortunately, these tax credits are non-refundable; as such, they do not benefit the low-income Canadians who need the help the most. I would argue that it would be important, as part of financial literacy, for the government itself to have programs that are literate in terms of actually meeting the severe needs in many Canadian families. Clearly, simply understanding that lower-income families need help the most would instruct and hopefully educate the Conservatives as to the importance of making these benefits refundable.

Some of this work is already ongoing. As many members of the House know, the month of November is already financial literacy month. The site is sponsored by the Government of Canada's own financial consumer agency. There is a national calendar of events on the website.

For instance, on November 1 in my own riding of Kings--Hants, the workshop called “financially fit for the holidays” was held in Kentville at the Kings Regional Development Agency boardroom. This event was hosted by Credit Counselling Services of Atlantic Canada, a non-profit organization that provides confidential credit and debt repayment counselling services.

There is a growing need for credit counselling services across the country. The reality is that under the Conservative government, we have seen household debt soar to record highs; in fact, a new record was set in the last quarter: the average Canadian now owes $1.51 for every $1 of annual income.

A number of factors have contributed to this ballooning of household debt. Unemployment is part of the problem. A lot of Canadians have seen their full-time jobs disappear and be replaced with part-time work. According to Statistics Canada, there are now 578,500 fewer full-time jobs than there were in Canada in August 2008.

At the same time, the cost of living has gone up. Prices have gone up. It costs more for people to feed their families or heat their homes today, so many of them have turned to credit to try to make ends meet. They are worried today about their ability to pay their bills at current interest rates and terrified to think of what will happen to them as rates in the future will inevitably move up.

There is much discussion in Canada about rising housing prices. One of the reasons Canadians have taken on more debt is an overheated housing market in many Canadian cities and markets. One of the first actions taken by the current finance minister was to throw out some of the prudent rules for residential mortgages that were put in place by the previous Liberal government.

The Conservatives actually followed the lead of the Americans and introduced 40-year mortgages with zero down payment. I do not think that sent a very good message to Canadians, and it did not reflect sound principles of financial literacy from the government at that time. They have since done an almost complete reversal on those mortgage rules, and that is a good thing. They have scaled back the amortization period from 40 to 35 and then to 30 years, while reinstituting the minimum 5% down payment that the Liberal government had in place.

Some international economic commentary suggests that Canada does have a housing bubble in certain markets. The Economist magazine has opined on this, and when Martin Wolf of the Financial Times of London was in Ottawa earlier this fall, he said that despite what Canada's finance officials are saying, in fact there is a statistical housing bubble in Canada.

There are issues around retirement. The TD Bank recently published a report entitled “Canada's Aging Household Debt Burden”. The report has some startling revelations. It states:

The bigger surprise is that older Canadians have been growing their debt-loads at a considerably faster rate than their younger counterparts.

In Canada, average debt loads in the past 10 years have increased twice as fast as income, but the rate is three times as fast for older Canadians, and many older Canadians simply cannot afford to retire. That is important.

It is also important to recognize the leadership provided by some international organizations in this area. The World Economic Forum has set up a task force under their YGL, Young Global Leaders, organization entitled “Learn Money”. It is focused on promoting access to financial literacy programs around the world. In fact, I would very much like to speak to the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc about this to see if there are ways that we can potentially incorporate some of those ideas here in Canada and plug in nationally to what the World Economic Forum is doing.

World Economic Forum YGL member John Hope Bryant serves as an adviser on financial literacy to the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council and has also served as vice-chairman of the U.S. President's Advisory Council on Financial Literacy. He argues that following the global economic crisis, financial literacy is the new civil rights issue in the United States, and has said that:

To not understand the language of money, financial literacy, and to not have a mainstream bank account (or credit union account) in the 21st century, clearly an economic age, is to be an economic slave.

In fact, he is saying that financial literacy is an issue of rights. Equality of opportunity is something we all take seriously as a rights issue, and clearly financial literacy and access to financial literacy education are fundamental to equality of opportunity. Whether it is helping Canadians to buy a house, manage their debt or save for retirement, there is a clear need for greater financial literacy in Canada.

We also know it is important that Canadians set aside enough to retire on, and there is a real question as to whether Canadians have been and are setting aside enough to retire on.

Even if they make that important step, where do they invest? It is a very complicated and complex investment decision. This is one of the reasons that opening up the CPP to a voluntary supplemental CPP would give Canadians access to a low-cost, well-diversified financial opportunity.

[The Economy, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, over 71,000 Canadians lost their full-time jobs just last month. We now have 600,000 fewer full-time jobs than in August of 2008.

Doug Porter of BMO said that “losses of this magnitude are extremely rare, aside from recessionary periods”.

Scotiabank said, “The magnitude and breadth of the decline is disconcerting here”.

This is a jobless recovery and a human recession. When will the Conservatives invest in a real plan to create jobs and help Canadians get back to work?

[G8 Summit, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs admitted that he always knew that the $50 million he asked Parliament to approve for the border infrastructure fund would actually go to projects in Muskoka instead. The minister admitted that he topped up the fund by 166% in order to hide his Muskoka gravy train from both Parliament and the Auditor General.

The minister makes jokes about this, but breaking the rules and wasting tax dollars is no laughing matter. Will the minister take this opportunity to apologize to Canadian taxpayers for this abuse of power?

[Human Rights, October 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have fought and voted against every advancement of gay rights in Canada, from pension benefits to marriage to transgender rights, and yet, yesterday, the Conservatives came out in support of the “It Gets Better” gay youth campaign.

If the Conservatives are now serious about helping gay youth, will they recognize the support that pride festivals provide to struggling young gays? Will the Conservatives restore the funding that they themselves cut for these important pride festivals across Canada?

[Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, October 20th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (interprovincial importation of wine for personal use). As the law stands today, it is illegal to purchase wine from a winery in one province and then bring it home.

In Canada a consumer cannot purchase a bottle of wine in one province and then transport it across a provincial border. One cannot purchase wine online or have it sent by mail if the wine is coming from a different province. I use these examples because simply laying out the facts as the law stands now, it seems difficult for people to believe we have a law in place that is this nonsensical and anachronistic.

The reality is it is easier today for a consumer to import wine from another country than to import wine from another province. There are more trade barriers between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia than there are between Canada and Chile, as an example. This ridiculous situation needs to be addressed and this legislation is a big help in addressing it.

As an example, if people from New Brunswick make the very short trip to visit a winery in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia, they cannot even bring wine home with them. It is against the law. There are both federal and provincial laws that make this activity illegal. Most of these rules date back to the prohibition era. They are outdated and they needlessly cost Canadian jobs. We need to get rid of them.

That is why I am proud not only to support but also to second Bill C-311. The bill would get rid of the federal rule against importing wine from one province to another as long as that wine would be for personal use and not for commercial purposes. It would amend Canada's Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act to create an exception for personal use. I would argue that we ought to go further to include the restaurant industry and commercial use as well. That is a discussion for another day and also engagement with provincial governments.

The legislation would not get rid of the problem entirely. Most provinces will still not allow wine to be imported from another province, but Bill C-311 sends the right signal and provides some federal leadership by removing the federal obstacle. That is a step in the right direction.

Thankfully, the Province of Ontario is already moving in that direction on the provincial side. This past summer the LCBO changed its rules to allow individuals to bring with them up to nine litres of wine from another province. It makes me wonder why they would choose nine litres when wine comes in cases, of course. However, sometimes the bureaucracy does things that we cannot understand. It is like buying cars that never seem to take whole containers of antifreeze. Anyway, that is another discussion.

In any case, it is a step in the right direction. I commend the Ontario government for taking that step. We need every province to make these kinds of changes.

The member for York Centre referred to the Liberal Party's aversion to free trade. In fact, the Liberal Party, with the exception of one election in 1988, has always been the party of freer trade. In fact, if we look from an economic perspective, liberalized trade is something that is key to the Liberal Party and core to our beliefs on the economy.

In order to keep Canada's wine industry, including our wineries in Nova Scotia competitive, it is essential that we break down these barriers on the federal side and on the provincial side. In terms of Nova Scotia's wine industry, when I was first elected 14 years ago, there was one winery operating in my riding of Kings—Hants. As of 2010, there are now 17 farm wineries and 30 grape growers operating vineyards. It is a $10 million a year industry.

The hon. member referred to the fact that today the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia is perhaps where the B.C. industry in the Okanagan Valley was 20 years ago. That is quite right. It would be helpful for us to look at what lessons we can learn from what has occurred in the Okanagan Valley and in the Niagara region. We should also look at the genesis of the wine industry in the Napa Valley, the Sonomo Valley and central coast. We should be looking at these and determining best practice on a local level.

In any case, the success of these wineries in my riding has created huge spinoffs for restaurants and tourism, and the whole foodie-type tourism which is growing. It is a remarkably valuable resource and an enhancement to the quality of life for people who live in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia.

In my riding of Kings--Hants we can now boast nine wineries: L'Acadie Vineyards in Gaspereau, operated by Bruce Ewert; Avondale Sky Winery in Newport Landing, operated by Ben Swetnam; Benjamin Bridge Vineyards in Gaspereau, operated by Gerry McConnell and his family; Blomidon Estate Winery in Canning, managed by Greg Benjamin; Domaine De Grand Pré in Grand Pré, managed by Hanspeter Stutz, winemaker Jurg Stutz; Gaspereau Vineyards in Gaspereau, managed by Dan Burns, winemaker, Gina Haverstock; Luckett Vineyards in Wolfville, operated by that great Nova Scotian entrepreneur Pete Luckett; Muir Murray Estate Winery outside of Wolfville, operated by Dr. Jonathan Murray; and Sainte-Famille Wines in Falmouth, operated by Suzanne Corkum.

In terms of recognition, people are taking notice of the wines in Nova Scotia. Many of these wineries are now winning awards. As an example, at last year's Canadian Wine Awards, Bruce Ewert of L'Acadie Vineyards received a gold medal for his 2007 Prestige Brut. Nova Scotia is excited to host this year's awards in November 2011.

A recent Globe and Mail article on Benjamin Bridge Brut Reserve was titled, “Surprise! One of Canada's best wines is from Nova Scotia”.

It said:

I’ll say it straight. One of the best Canadian wines I’ve tasted comes from Nova Scotia. I’m only surprised that it didn’t come from the Champagne region of France. It’s called Benjamin Bridge Brut Reserve...

The sparkling wine industry is evolving successfully in Nova Scotia as well as the ice wine industry. The success is also enhancing our orchard industry and value-added industry related to the orchards and the emerging cider industry. There are a lot of spinoffs.

This is probably a bad sign for any industry, when politicians start to enter it, but a couple of years ago we planted a vineyard on our property on the shores of the Minas Basin. We have a wonderful south-facing slope on the shores of the Minas Basin. We planted L'Acadie vines and we are intending on expanding that this year. In my line of work, it is always good to have a backup plan.

The wineries in our region are drawing tourists from throughout the country and around the world. Tourists are touring the wineries, eating at our restaurants, staying at the inns, the bed and breakfasts, and hotels, supporting the local economy.

What is really crazy is that in many cases people from other parts of Canada, after sampling the excellent local wines, cannot buy a case to take it home with them. That is nuts.

I remember in the 1990s, I lived in New York and travelled throughout the U.S. doing business. I remember spending a weekend in Napa Valley. We bought cases of wine and had them shipped back to us in New York. It was great. That is the way it should be. It is not only good for the local economy, but it is civilized.

The idea that we cannot transport wine across a provincial border is so nonsensical and damaging to the development and the evolution of businesses, wineries and restaurants. It makes no sense whatsoever.

In terms of the future growth of Nova Scotia wine, more and more Nova Scotians are discovering and supporting local wineries. In fact, last year the Nova Scotia Liquor Commission sold $109 million of worth of wine. Of that, almost 6% of that was local wine from Nova Scotia.

Even in terms of our own province, it is growing. The key, the way to grow our markets, is to actually expand so that we can sell wine across Canada.

Nova Scotia has a population of less than a million people, so our market is too small to sustain the kind of growth that we are able to achieve in our industry. We need to remove these needless interprovincial trade barriers and open up our markets so that local businesses can create jobs and grow the economy.

I know I am delving into areas of provincial jurisdiction which is always a mistake for a federal politician, but nevertheless.

I am a citizen of Nova Scotia. I did not relinquish my citizenship to become a federal politician. As such, I do have opinions and one of those opinions is that neither the provincial liquor commission in Nova Scotia nor the provincial government need be in the liquor business to begin with. Last year the liquor commission made $230 million and was run by bureaucrats. Imagine how much it would be worth if it were run by retailers who understood the markets. We could privatize that and take $3 billion or $4 billion off the provincial debt.

[Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, October 20th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation wholeheartedly and intend to be one of the seconders of the legislation.

In my riding of Kings—Hants, we have seen tremendous growth in the wine industry. In fact, on our property we raise L'Acadie grapes ourselves. Those L'Acadie grapes resulted from research at the Kentville research station.

Does the member agree that the government must invest in regional local research in these research stations across Canada and that local research is fundamental to growing--

[Kings--Hants National Leaders, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this year Kings—Hants is home to a trifecta of great Canadians providing effective leadership to three prominent national organizations.

Trinda Ernst is the president of the Canadian Bar Association, Dr. Robert MacGregor is president of the Canadian Dental Association, and Peter Clarke is president of the Egg Farmers of Canada.

Trinda Ernst is the fifth woman to lead the CBA and practises with Waterbury Newton in Kentville, Nova Scotia. She is a graduate of Dalhousie University.

Dr. MacGregor has practised in Kentville for almost 30 years and is a graduate of both Acadia University and Dalhousie University.

Peter Clarke is a well-respected member of the Nova Scotian agricultural community and operates an egg farm in the Annapolis Valley. He is also a recipient of the Order of Nova Scotia.

I congratulate these three fine citizens for their leadership in their communities and national organizations, for their leadership within Canada, and for their dedicated public service to all of us.