House of Commons Hansard #133 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was barbados.

Topics

First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka
Ontario

Liberal

Andy Mitchell Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

moved that Bill S-38, An Act respecting the implementation of international trade commitments by Canada regarding spirit drinks of foreign countries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Malpeque
P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill S-38 because it is important to our agriculture and agrifood sector and indeed to all of Canada and all Canadians. The bill would open up possibilities not only for the Canadian spirits drink industries, but for our wine industry and for our growing agri-tourist sector as well.

The bill is about jobs and about the diversification of regional economies. It is about growing Canada's $26 billion a year agriculture and agrifood exports in a manner which is most beneficial to our economy and our jobs.

One might ask how Bill S-38 would do all that. The bill would accomplish that by helping our agrifood sector add more value to our agriculture products, our grains and our grapes here at home so we can keep the dollars and economic prosperity within Canada.

Bill S-38 is also known as the spirit drinks trade act. Basically the bill would bring into full force a bilateral wine and spirits agreement that was signed by Canada and the European Union two years ago. It is this agreement which will benefit Canadian producers in both our domestic and foreign markets in the ways that I have just outlined.

The agreement, signed in September 2003, covers a wide range of wine and spirit trade issues between Canada and the EU. These include updates to an existing bilateral agreement which has been in place for some 15 years.

I will speak first to the technical provisions in the bill regarding spirit drinks which upholds Canada's end of the Canada-EU agreement.

In a nutshell, these provisions protect the identity of certain European drink names such as ouzo from Greece, grappa from Italy, pacharan from Spain and others.

Under Bill S-38, only spirit drinks from those specific countries and nowhere else could carry those names. In other words, a distiller in Niagara could not produce a spirit drink and sell it as a grappa or an ouzo. To be clear, no Canadian producers are doing this now.

Certain wines and spirits which are named after the geographic regions where they come from such as Rheingau and Baden in Germany already are protected in Canada under the Trademarks Act. So are Canadian geographic indicators such as the Okanagan Valley, or the Niagara Peninsula or Canadian rye whisky. Products like grappa and ouzo do not fall into that geographical indication category so they needed the specific protection provided under Bill S-38.

New legislation is needed to house the protections required by the Canada-EU bilateral agreement on wines and spirits. This is because these provisions could not simply fall under the Trademarks Act. It does not cover generic names for goods. Furthermore, it only protects private rights while the agreement calls for state enforced protection of these names.

As well as protecting European spirit drink names, Bill S-38 also would protect a number of North American spirit drink names, including Bourbon whisky from the United States and tequila from Mexico. These provisions fall under Annex 313 of the NAFTA.

Bill S-38 would also incorporate Canada's long-standing protection for the names Scotch whisky, Irish whiskey, cognac and Armagnac. Finally, the bill would provide protection for Caribbean rum under the Caribbean and Canada trade agreement. These existing commitments are currently implemented through provisions in the food and drug regulations, however Justice has advised us that it is not the appropriate home for them or the appropriate legislation for them to be within

I would also note that following consultations with Industry and International Trade Canada, a number of minor amendments were made in the committee in the other place. These amendments were designed to more clearly differentiate between the types of protection that Canada undertook to provide for each spirit drink name.

These are the nuts and bolts of Bill S-38. As I said earlier, while the bill may be viewed as a minor technical matter, Canada's wine and spirits industries regard it as much more than that. For them, Bill S-38 is nothing less than a wide open doorway to new growth and exports and new market development opportunities.

We are talking about is helping an industry that is already a strong contributor to Canada's economy and jobs, particularly in rural Canada where many of our wineries and distilleries are located. Rural Canada, as I have said on a number of occasions, is an important part of our country and the government takes that part very seriously. For urban Canada to be strong, rural Canada must be strong as well. They are not separate entities and they are not separate ideas, and we must support both. Rural Canada is home to one-third of Canadians. It provides one-quarter of all jobs. It contributes 22% to Canada's GDP and 40% of our total exports. Certainly the wines and spirits industry is an important contributor to that output.

We should never lose sight of the fact that our rural communities, our rural resource base and our rural people are the fabric and backbone of what makes our country strong. Canadians know that rural communities are key to both our social and our economic competitiveness. They are the front lines in building a better quality of life for the entire country. There is no question that wineries and distilleries are good for the rural economy. They generate crop sales for primary producers.

On the winery side, we are seeing a tremendous boom in the whole agri-tourism sector. More and more tourists are flocking from all corners of the globe to take wine tours in the Niagara Peninsula, the Okanagan Valley, Prince Edward County and elsewhere, even the Annapolis Valley as my colleague next to me has indicated, much as they do in the Napa Valley in California or the Loire Valley in France. That influx of tourism brings important economic benefits right throughout the rural economy: the hospitality sector, the restaurant sector, the travel sector and much more.

The Canadian wine and spirits industries are agrifood success stories, to be sure. Our wine sector continues to grow at a steady pace in many parts of Canada, including, if I may add a commercial message, in my own province of Prince Edward Island. Today about 170 wineries across Canada annually sell some $400 million in wines and purchase $75 million in grapes from producers. As for the spirits industry, Canada has 21 distilleries that produce over $1 billion worth of spirit drink products each year. Of that, some $500 million worth is exported.

As we heard in committee in the other place, both the wine and the spirits industries, including the Canadian Vintners Association and Spirits Canada, are in full support of Bill S-38. Why? Because, as I mentioned earlier, it secures the benefits achieved under the 2003 Canada-E.U. agreement. This agreement provides the industry and the Canadian economy with trade rules in the domestic marketplace, with greater access to the E.U. marketplace, and with a framework to manage any potential grievances in a cooperative and collaborative manner. Best of all, this is a balanced agreement that would benefit both sides without causing any disruption in the Canadian marketplace whatsoever.

With this proposed legislation bringing the 2003 Canada-EU agreement into full force, Canadian wines and spirits producers can look forward to improved access to the European market with which the recently expanded membership is now home to almost half a billion potential consumers. That is a considerable marketplace which is now open to more products thanks to this proposed legislation, products of which Canadian producers and the rural economy can take advantage of.

With Bill S-38 in force, wine and spirit producers in both Canada and the EU will have an agreement that would give them access to more trade opportunities and more stable trade rules. As well, consumers in Canada and the EU have access to a greater variety of wines and spirits than they have had in the past.

The Canadian industry is confident that the agreement will help free up some of the market restrictions that they have encountered in the EU market over the years and in doing so, secure greater recognition in the international reputation of the Canadian wines and whiskey.

As members will know, the Canadian wine industry has made great strides in quality over the past decade, due in large part to the development of the VQA , or the Vintners Quality Alliance, application. Today Canadian VQA wines are known and respected in international wine circles. It is interesting, even if we go to the stores around here, we will see people looking for that VQA symbol because that is the wine they like to buy and that is quality.

The next important step will be to make our quality Canadian wines household names right across Europe, to get them into basement wine cellars from Paris to Prague. The bill marks an important step in that direction. In fact, the wine industry believes that on the strength of this agreement, it will be able to grow wine exports from about $1.5 million annually to some $5 million over the next 10 years.

To give a few more specifics of the Canada-EU agreement, it will recognize for the first time Canadian wine-making practices in labelling rules for VQA wines in the EU market. It will provide for simpler certification for VQA exports, giving wine exporters greater certainty of market exports and allowing them to invest in market development. While protecting EU spirit names, it will protect our geographic indicators in the EU, notably Canadian whiskey and rye whiskey.

I must add that Canadian whiskey is an incredibly positive ambassador for Canada in many markets around the world. A full 80% of our production of Canadian whiskey is exported. Formal recognition by the EU of Canadian whiskey and rye whiskey provides the Canadian spirit industry the opportunity to invest and grow their brands, secure in the knowledge that they will not be undermined by cheap imitation knock-off products in the markets that they serve.

Just as important, here at home the Canada-EU agreement permits provincial liquor boards in Ontario and British Columbia to continue to allow producers in those provinces to make direct sales to consumers. Quebec also will be able to maintain its requirement that wine sold in grocery stores be bottled in the province of Quebec.

To sum up, Bill S-38 is about jobs. It is about regional diversification in rural Canada. It is about growing Canada's exports and adding value to those exports to keep more prosperity and more economic benefits here at home and to continue to build rural Canada. Bill S-38 is about Canada living up to our international trade obligations. We take these commitments very seriously and we expect no less from our trading partners. Canada is a trading nation and a rules-based trading system is fundamental to the global economic competitiveness of Canadian industries.

It is for these reasons that I would urge my hon. colleagues on all sides of the House to lend this important bill their full support. I would note that Canada agreed to provide protection for these names by June 2006, so it is important that we move forward with this bill rather quickly.

We must pass this legislation because it gives Canada a legal mechanism enabling it to meet the trade obligations we have so carefully negotiated. In the context of the discussions which led to the renewed agreement on spirit drinks and wines, Canada has succeeded in obtaining many benefits from the EU which Canadian producers and consumers can enjoy. However, to retain those benefits, we must ensure we are in a position to honour our obligations to our trading partners.

The provinces, the members of the wine and spirits industries in Canada and the federal government have worked hard together in negotiating the Canada-EU agreement on wines and spirits. The bill we have before us is the end result.

I would also like to recognize the contribution, hard work and collaboration of a number of federal departments including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, International Trade, Justice, Industry, and others. This is a significant accord that ensures Canadian wine and spirit drinks producers will have increased access to markets in the European Union in the years to come.

Again, I urge members to support the timely passage of this legislation.

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn St. John's South, NL

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the presentation by the parliamentary secretary. As usual, he did a very good job in talking about a product that is important to the agriculture field, a field in which he is very interested. I also know the gentleman, as a former chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, is also interested in fish.

My question actually has two parts. I cannot ask too many questions on wine, being someone who has never had a drink in his life, and I do not know why. Anyway, I am no expert in wine. I totally agree with him by the way, but if we can put this kind of an effort into protecting and promoting our products, how many more Canadian products can we do much better with on the national stage, and the international stage in particular? I would refer to him a product that goes to the EU. Should we try to put the same effort into protecting and promoting Canadian shrimp? As he well knows, a 20% tariff has been placed on shrimp and it is destroying the industry in Atlantic Canada in particular, including affecting people in his own province.

He initiated an effort on that some time ago and nothing is happening. Why is it we pick certain things to really make an effort on, and other things perhaps of greater magnitude are ignored?

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I know how seriously the hon. member takes the issue relative to trade in shrimp with Denmark and some of the other European countries.

Yes, in my past capacity as a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, we did a tour in the Newfoundland and Labrador area. I talked to lots of producers about that very serious issue. I think we made a very good report which went to the Government of Canada.

I can very clearly say that the government, through its international trade department and others, has continued to try to deal with that controversial issue. It is still ongoing.

I gather as well that last week the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was again in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador looking at some of those fisheries issues. I expect the committee will again be putting pressure on the government as a whole on the serious concerns within that province over those 20% tariffs.

This agreement shows what is indeed possible when negotiations go well. We are having difficulty on the other side and admit that. I can say that it is not for lack of effort by the Department of International Trade and the negotiators on many fronts. This agreement will certainly be helpful to rural Canada by opening up markets for our producers, for our wineries. It will give us the kind of protection that we need for those products in an international trading environment.

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, very supportive of Bill S-38 because it shows what can be done when we have good, effective trade policy that is win-win.

Basically the European Union wanted access to our markets in the same way that Canada wanted access to its, but at the same time we wanted to protect the appellations that exist in Europe and in Canada for the creation of a market for good Canadian quality products. Bill S-38 is an example of very effective trade policy.

As the parliamentary secretary knows, we have another issue, that of softwood lumber, where the government has clearly been completely ineffective and in fact negligent. We have an industry that is bleeding $4 million a day. Our partner in the United States has ripped up those aspects of NAFTA that the Bush administration does not like and the government has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to defend the interests of the softwood lumber industry, the 20,000 workers who have lost their jobs, and the communities across British Columbia, across northern Ontario, across Canada indeed, that are suffering from this long-standing dispute.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary what has worked in this case. Canada very clearly has negotiated equally with the European Union in order to bring forth a bit of trade policy that works for both partners. Why has the government manifestly failed on softwood lumber?

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, the member made allegations in terms of the Government of Canada's efforts on the softwood lumber issue and he has it all wrong. The fact of the matter is that members of the government right up to the Prime Minister have worked hard on this issue for quite a number of years. We have been supportive of the forestry industry and we recognize that it is extremely important to the Canadian economy.

Although the tariffs and the anti-dumping percentages are there, we have continued to export more product to the United States at higher values. In fact, this morning we met with the maritime lumber industry. Yes, that industry wants the issue resolved, but it was certainly not critical. We are getting some criticism from some of the political parties, but we are really not getting criticism from the industry itself, which knows that we are working cooperatively with it to try to win this argument with the Americans.

In fact, on the weekend a number of Canadian parliamentarians, including a member of the New Democratic Party, were in St. Andrews, New Brunswick speaking with U.S. legislators, again laying out to them the Canadian position on where we are on the softwood lumber issue.

The Government of Canada is indeed working hard. We are aware of the ruling in Canada's favour relative to NAFTA. That shows the kind of background, research and work that was put into that issue by the Government of Canada, its negotiators, its members and others.

Specifically on Bill S-38, the spirit drinks trade act, the member is absolutely right. It is a win-win situation. It shows what can be done when people sit down, negotiate and accept that those negotiations are a win for both parties.

On the other issue, the U.S. does not seem to want to abide by the ruling on a trade agreement that the U.S. in fact signed on to.

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I know we want to move this bill through Parliament on an expedited basis because there are some deadlines to meet to honour the negotiated trade settlement we have with the European Union.

The one thing I forgot to ask in committee and would like to ask the parliamentary secretary now is whether there are any businesses here that are going to be ill affected by this bill. Are there any distillers or wineries here that are producing products that carry protected names by European standards? How is that going to be negatively felt in Canada? That is something we need to know.

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, it is a very fair and legitimate question. The bill is fully supported by the wine producers and their organizations. The wine sector as a whole is a major benefactor of the agreement. It is Canada's objective really to maintain existing provincial liquor board policies that benefit Canadian wine and spirit producers. We achieved those objectives. It improves access to the European Union market for quality Canadian wine and spirits.

We see no reason that anyone should be disadvantaged because of this bill. In fact, I think it is one of those cases where there should be positive benefits to all players in the industry.

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-38. The bill respects the implementation of an international trade commitment by Canada regarding wines and spirit drinks.

The bilateral agreement between Canada and the European Union affords the Canadian industry recognition and protection to signature products. This is important because the value of this industry is tied to the inherent value in Canadian brands.

The Conservative Party supports the intent of the bill as an export strategy for the Canadian wine and spirits industry. Conservatives are very supportive of rules based trading systems, especially ones that help secure international markets for Canadian products and that help ensure that Canadian consumers have access to high quality products produced in other countries.

As such, we support the general thrust of the bill and the agreement that it helps implement.

Formal recognition by the European Union of rye whiskey exclusively as Canadian will provide Canadian industry participants the opportunity to invest and grow knowing that their investments will not be undermined.

The bill is good for many reasons; for the wine industry and for the distilleries. It also is good for rural Canada. Why rural Canada specifically? Many of Canada's distilleries, wineries and breweries are based in rural Canada, so they provide jobs which are good. Also it is agriculture which takes place in rural Canada that provides all the ingredients for these beverages. After all I have not seen many corn fields or grape fields in the middle of downtown Toronto. Therefore, this is good for rural Canada.

As our brand names become known on the international stage and through this bill, which would protect the integrity of those products, in other words people from other countries would be unable produce copycat products, the integrity of our products will be preserved. That will encourage our Canadian distillers and wineries to continue using Canadian product that comes from rural Canada.

Rural Canada does not just feed the cities, it also provides power. Rural Canada also provides the key ingredients for all our world famous wines and spirits.

Many people are confused by the bill. I have spoken with different people about it. They are afraid we will be unable to buy Merlot wine again. That is not the case in fact. The bill would is protect Canadian wines on a regional basis and Canadian spirits such as rye whiskey. No matter where we go in the world, if we order rye whiskey, we would be certain that it came from Canada and was made here with Canadian product.

This is a good thing for Canada on the world stage. We have a high quality reputation on the world stage. Our rye whiskey has been available around the world. There has been a demand for it for many years. Our grapes are quality, whether they are from the Annapolis Valley, or southern Ontario including my own riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, particularly the Niagara Peninsula, or the grapevines across the Prairies or the Okanagan Valley. The wines we make in Canada from these grapes are winning first prize awards around the world. It is wonderful for Canadians to be represented that way on the world stage.

I said that there was some confusion. Merlot is a grape, but for many years some thought that was a region. Italy and France have had regional protection of their wines for many years. If we go into a restaurant and order a glass of Bordeaux, we know that it comes from the Bordeaux region in France. Its quality is very carefully controlled. It is the same thing for Burgundy as well as the many great Italian wines. They have regional designations that protect and promote the integrity of the quality that wine.

The proposed bill will open the doors for our wines to have that same promotion and that same protection. This is a good thing. We will be unable to refer to a Bordeaux or a Burgundy because those come from France. We will be able to promote the Niagara Peninsula and the doors will be opened for our great Pelee Island wines as well. There are many other award winning wines produced in Canada, but I do not have the time to go through them all today. I congratulate them for being such ambassadors for us on the world stage

Another benefit of protection and bringing us in compliance is a number of years ago legislation was originally written to protect a product very similar to our rye whiskey, and that is Scotch whisky. Scotch whisky is very special. It is called the water of life. As we know, it comes from Scotland. However, that has not always been a controlled situation.

Many years ago one of the eastern nations decided that it wanted to meet the taste buds of its population by providing a Scotch-like product. The rules at the time on the international stage said that it could only be Scotch whisky if it were made in Scotland. It was a bit loose on the definition. One very ambitious distillery decided to make Scotch-type whisky in a town that it renamed Scotland so all bottles then could say “made in Scotland”. Fortunately the powers that be on the international stage got together and recognized the type of deception that was attempted there. That is why they tightened up the rules. That is why I am so glad that as we proceed with Bill S-38 we are tightening up the rules even more so to protect Canadian product.

Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said during his speech, we have a few concerns with the bill. When we spoke with Canadian distillers, they indicated that they still had some concerns. While they are generally in support of this bill, there are a few things that they would like to see fixed.

First, they believe that there is a need for the government to eliminate certain provisions currently found within the food and drug regulations that would duplicate provisions in Bill S-38 if passed. Second, they are also requesting, though, that no provisions be deleted from these regulations without a comprehensive and full consultation with the industry.

Quite frankly, that request on the part of the distillers causes me some concern. We have seen all too often in the 12 months that I have been in the House that while the Liberal government has claimed consultations with industry, in fact it has met with maybe one stakeholder, if it is being generous on that given day. However, in terms of doing a cross-spectrum consultation to get the impact of its decisions on others, we have not seen that at all.

We are dealing with this very issue on Bill C-27 these days, where industry has not been considered. The impact of the government's intentions and actions has not been duly considered, and we are looking at a real mess coming up there.

I am not sure that this is the time or place to address it, but my Conservative colleagues and I will be opposing Bill C-27 as hard and as loudly as we possibly can. Someone has to stand up for the producers and processors in our country. Sadly, the Liberal government has not done it. Fortunately, and thankfully, my Conservative colleagues and I are happy to step up and take on that role.

Apart from the elimination of the heavy-handed approach, we would also ask that the government respect the request of the Canadian distillers and this time work in close consultation with them as the changes move forward.

For purposes of due diligence and legislative housekeeping, we are prepared to consider recommendations with regard to improving the legislation, particularly with respect to explicitly defining what constitutes a spirit drink. This is something that is omitted in the bill. Normally in legislation one tends to define what the key subject is and what the parameters are. Nor is there any reference to its definition under things like the Excise Act or whether it is that definition that applies here. We would very much like to see an explicit and unambiguous definition of spirit drink to guide the interpretation of this act for its future and for possible expansion.

Some of the members on the other side of the House are chuckling to themselves as I say that as if to say, “How could anyone not know what a spirit is?”

Let me assure members that definitions change over time. A number of years ago I worked in the wine and spirits industry, and new products came out that caused a lot of concern. Perhaps members will remember the invention and introduction of the cooler. It started out as a wine cooler. Then it moved to become spirit coolers. The industry and the regulating bodies over those industries had real problems. No one could class them as wines, or spirits or beer. They did not fit any of the previous definitions.

There was a great deal of consternation at the time about the tax levels that would apply to them and how they should be priced. The provincial boards that sell their own wines and spirits have different pricing formulas depending on whether the product is classed as a wine or a spirit. No one knew what to apply because these products defied the current definitions. The world moves on. We want to ensure that whatever is in this act is very clearly defined so there can be no ambiguity.

We also will seek clarity on the necessity to reduce legislative and regulatory duplication in the food and drug regulations under the Food and Drugs Act.

We also want to seek assurances from the government about its assumption that there are currently no instances of products in Canada which are non-compliant with the bill, so we can ensure that vendors are not unfairly penalized once the act comes into existence.

The government does not appear to have anticipated what will be done if in fact there are pre-existing inventories of non-compliant spirit drink products once this legislation comes into force. The parliamentary secretary has indicated that he does not believe that there are any known non-conforming products. As we have seen so often, particularly during question period in the last week, just because the government is not aware of something happening does not mean it has not happened and does not exist. We have seen examples all this week where the government claimed not to know anything, and in fact millions of dollars of taxpayer money was being spent. The fact that the government did not know about it does not mean it did not happen.

We want to ensure with this bill that there is a thorough due diligence done to ensure that any pre-existing inventories are dealt with in a proper manner.

Overall, this is a decent bill. It will help promote and protect Canadian wines and spirits. It also will be a boon for rural Canada, both at home and abroad. For that reason, I will be happy to support it. However, we want to ensure that it is done right. For these reasons, we look forward to working on the bill as it is debated in the House.

In closing I would like to add a light note, being that it is the end of the day. I am told this is a true story, and I worked in this industry for a number of years.

The country I mentioned before, which tried to produce a product labelled “made in Scotland”, also did some market research. It decided it wanted to introduce a scotch-type whisky, but it wanted to ensure that it would sell. Therefore, it did a lot of research into popular brand names of the day. They discovered a few. One was Queen Anne. I am sure many members in the House are familiar with that. Another was King George. It thought it would get the best of both worlds so it came out with a product, which it put on the market, called King Anne.

We are trying to ensure that our quality and standards are much higher than that . I believe Bill S-38 will help us achieve that and achieve even more prominence for the quality of our wines and spirits in the world market.

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Malpeque
P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member for Haldimand—Norfolk and her party will be supporting Bill S-38. She has outlined a number of points in terms of its benefit to rural Canada.

I want to deal with a couple of points with which the member had some concern. One point the member mentioned was the matter of consultations. I do not think a government in Canadian history can be found that has consulted as wide as this one has on so many issues. In fact, Spirits Canada has made it very clear to us that it is supportive of the amendments that were made in the other place. I am not sure whether or not the member is aware of those amendments. I will outline them for the member.

It is clear that when the bill was being debated in the other place, we did receive input from the Association of Canadian Distillers, as well as additional input from International Trade Canada regarding the exact nature of Canada's trade obligations. The Senate acted to deal with those concerns with amendments.

The Senate decided to amend the bill to make a distinction between the type of protection Canada is obliged to provide for the spirit drink names under the Canada-EU wine and spirits agreement and the type of protection for names in the NAFTA and in the food and drug regulations.

The Senate decided to eliminate the blending provisions for Scotch whisky and for Irish whisky, as these provisions would more appropriately remain in division 2 of the food and drug regulations where the rest of the blending provisions for spirit drinks reside. I believe that concern that the member raised has been in fact addressed.

With regard to her second concern on the term “spirit drinks”, the government and the department has undertaken an interdepartmental review of this question related to the provision of Bill S-38 and feels that including a definition for spirit drinks would not be necessary. A general definition is not required as the legislation is very specific as to which spirit drinks are affected.

The proposed legislation does not actually reference “spirits” only “spirit drinks” and those specifically identified in the schedule to the Spirit Drinks Trade Act. We do not see a problem with relying on the definition of spirit drinks as that term would be commonly understood.

I believe we have addressed the concerns that the member raised. We would hope that hearing that, the member will be game for speedy passage of this legislation.

The last point is with regard to her comments on Bill C-27. There will be an opportunity to debate that on another day. Certainly, I hope that the official opposition is not going to start to compromise on that bill. Really, what that bill is all about, where the fuss is at the moment, is the dairy industry coming forward and wanting truth in labelling. I think all parties in this House should be supporting truth in labelling.

Spirit Drinks Trade Act
Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

Madam Speaker, I am delighted first of all, if what the parliamentary secretary says is true. If it has happened, I am delighted. We wanted to address those issues. They were raised with us by the Association of Canadian Distillers and we wanted to ensure that their voices were heard. It would appear that this has been done and that makes a nice change.

What really concerns me though is what the parliamentary secretary just said. It proves something that this side of the House has been saying for a very long time. The fuss over Bill C-27 is not at all about the dairy labelling amendment. Not at all, and this is what the other side of the House does not get and it would appear the parliamentary secretary does not get.

It is about the same thing that the last election was about and why that party has such reduced numbers on that side of the House. It is about accountability. We have been fighting Bill C-27 on the basis of a lack of accountability that is there. We have been fighting it since day one. We have made numerous efforts to introduce various forms and mechanisms of accountability into Bill C-27. We believe it is extremely important to Canadian producers and processors to have protection from their own government. These protections do not exist in Bill C-27. When we have tried to introduce them, every attempt to do so has been thwarted by the Liberal government.

When the parliamentary secretary says that the fuss is about something else, he is either grossly misleading the public who are watching this, or he still does not get it. That is unacceptable because the government has to learn about accountability. People have to be responsible for their actions and it is time that the Liberal government learned that.