On the minimum reasonable amount, you can look to the United States. That's open to debate obviously. My personal definition would be one or two cases per month per person. That would be my personal definition. That's probably a legal issue you need to discuss in greater detail. But I think it's very important, as Shirley-Ann said, to add that to the bill because I think the history has been that the liquor boards are not particularly receptive to the changes that are needed.
If you look to the experience in the United States on the same issue, there have been a lot of attempts by individual states to seriously limit the ability of wineries to ship into a state, by imposing very strange low limits or other requirements that are difficult for wineries to satisfy. I guess that's my answer to the first question.
On the second question, it's my opinion that the amendments to the bill, as they are currently written, or the amendments that include “reasonable” would be trade agreement compliant. With great respect to the passion exhibited by Ms. Zimmerman, I do not think you could make the bill apply solely to 100% Canadian wine. I do not think that would be trade agreement compliant. I think that would be a clear violation of GATT and NAFTA. You'd have some serious problems with trade agreement compliance if that were done.