Finance committee  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.

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

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

Finance committee  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 person

Finance committee  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.

Finance committee  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.

Finance committee  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,

Finance committee  Generally the answer is no, because the realities of the retail wine market, particularly for this direct-to-consumer channel, are that, first of all, consumers only buy wine for immediate consumption. More than 90% of wine in North America is consumed within 48 hours of purchase

Finance committee  Yes, absolutely it's a concern, and it's a very legitimate concern. But if you look at the experience in the United States, this particular channel, the direct-to-consumer channel, applies only to more expensive wines, so I do not see any danger in.... As I think somebody alrea

Finance committee  The only effect will be if a price was so different from one province to another that it completely overcame the cost of shipping and also the risks and delays of shipping. I know that already there are B.C. wine consumers who purchase wine in Alberta. They do so illegally right

Finance committee  Sure. It depends on the province. Some of the provinces have restricted provisions right now. As I mentioned earlier, Alberta's provincial laws right now say that a consumer in Alberta can import wine from another province. But there is a debate about whether they actually can do

Finance committee  Sure. It varies from province to province. Some provinces need do nothing. Some provinces would have to do something, and change their existing laws.

Finance committee  Certainly, as Paul said, the experience in the United States has been that the main effect is on the premium and ultra-premium sector of the marketplace. I think there would be definite growth in that segment of the market for the Canadian wineries.

Finance committee  I am not an expert on that particular agreement, but I believe that it excludes the alcohol market completely. I think there's an exception in that agreement for access to alcohol markets in the other provinces. Unfortunately, I don't think that agreement solves the problem.

Finance committee  I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question.