Evidence of meeting #51 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was wineries.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Shirley-Ann George  President, Alliance of Canadian Wine Consumers
Miles Prodan  Executive Director, British Columbia Wine Institute
Paul-André Bosc  President, Château des Charmes
Debbie Zimmerman  Chief Executive Officer, Grape Growers of Ontario
Hillary Dawson  President, Wine Council of Ontario
Mark Hicken  Vintage Law Group, Winelaw.ca

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Mr. Hicken, you have 30 seconds on this.

4:50 p.m.

Vintage Law Group, Winelaw.ca

Mark Hicken

Sure. I think it's a valuable addition to the bill. Because if it's not there, then conceivably you could have a province that sets the limit at two bottles per person, or even per year. You could end up with an unreasonably small limit.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay, but let me ask this specifically, because Ms. George said that the province can still set a limit. With “reasonable”, if the amendment is passed, can a province set a limit or not?

April 3rd, 2012 / 4:50 p.m.

Vintage Law Group, Winelaw.ca

Mark Hicken

The way it's written right now, it just says that the provinces will set a limit—

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I understand that.

4:50 p.m.

Vintage Law Group, Winelaw.ca

Mark Hicken

We're asking for that limit to be defined to be a reasonable limit.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay. I'm asking a very specific question. If you add “reasonable”, can the province still set a limit?

4:50 p.m.

Vintage Law Group, Winelaw.ca

Mark Hicken

Sure, but they then have to be able to defend it, because legally the limit has to be a “reasonable” amount for personal consumption. If they set the limit at two bottles per person, then theoretically somebody could go to court and say that it's not a reasonable limit for personal consumption if they've set it at two bottles.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

So instead of me as a citizen of Alberta pressuring my government, if you had “reasonable” there, the expectation is that you would sort it out through the court system.

4:50 p.m.

Vintage Law Group, Winelaw.ca

Mark Hicken

Well, hopefully you wouldn't have to sort it out through the court system, because it's then in the law, and hopefully the province would act responsibly and actually set a reasonable limit, not something that is unreasonable.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

A reasonable limit as defined by the province.

4:50 p.m.

Vintage Law Group, Winelaw.ca

Mark Hicken

Well, then at least you have to be able to defend it. Legally, there's a difference between saying there's a reasonable limit and just setting a limit. A limit could be an unreasonable limit.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay. I'm going to move on to the issue of 100% Canadian grapes.

Ms. Zimmerman, I'd like to hear from you and Mr. Hicken on this issue. We had testimony at our last session saying that if this were adopted we would have trade challenges presented to Canada. Now, you clearly disagree with that, so I wanted to get you on the record in response to what was said at our last session. I'd like to get Mr. Hicken's response as well.

4:50 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Grape Growers of Ontario

Debbie Zimmerman

Again, I'm not a trade specialist. We've been given advice on it saying that our position is clear. We would have liked to see the bill address 100% Canadian. We feel that would have been fair.

We are raising the issue and are on the record that if there are potential issues in the future and we have issues related to the fact that we cannot move our grapes for whatever reason.... And if the intoxicating liquors act is opened up and is previewed for other issues and they cause concern for our industry—because this is not the only issue and there may be others—obviously we wanted to be on the record today to say that. That's why we're here.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Hicken, you have 30 seconds on this.

4:50 p.m.

Vintage Law Group, Winelaw.ca

Mark Hicken

I think the bill as currently written, or if it included the word “reasonable”, would clearly be compliant with our trade agreement obligations. I do have reservations, as we discussed earlier, about the 100% Canadian wine issue, but I think the bill, as it is currently written, would not prompt any kind of trade challenge.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

For our last round, we'll go to Mr. Allison, please.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to go back again, because I don't think everyone around the room understands exactly how foreign markets work in terms of how they own their markets. We talked about Australia, Italy, and France. Can you talk to me about what they own in terms of their domestic market, generally speaking? You may—

4:55 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Grape Growers of Ontario

Debbie Zimmerman

How much do they own of our domestic market, or...?

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

In places like France, how much of their own markets—

4:55 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Grape Growers of Ontario

Debbie Zimmerman

It's over 75%, in most cases.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Over 75%?

4:55 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Grape Growers of Ontario

Debbie Zimmerman

In most cases.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

And that's the case for most wine-producing countries?

4:55 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Grape Growers of Ontario