Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Essex.
I am happy to rise today to speak to this motion. Although my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola has framed it as “free the beer”, it has much broader implications, as we have heard throughout the debate today. It is an important issue in my riding and his because of the wine industry. However, I will happily start with beer, as the motion refers directly to the Comeau decision that was triggered by the transport of beer across provincial boundaries.
Not being an economist, when I began to prepare my speech on this subject, I asked my colleague, the member for Regina—Lewvan, if he had any advice. His immediate sage advice was to watch Smokey and the Bandit. That was a 1970s movie that I had somehow missed over the past 40 years, but I found it yesterday on Netflix. I knew that it was a fun story about truckers and the police, but I had not appreciated the serious theme at its heart, which was the transport of beer across state lines. I am told that in subsequent years, the interstate restrictions on beer transport were largely lifted in the United States, though I am not sure that Burt Reynolds can take any credit for that. However, interprovincial restrictions on beer transport are still an issue in Canada.
There are many examples of interprovincial trade barriers, but the most apparent to the public are those for alcohol. Beer production and sales are a great example. One of the biggest trends in Canada over the past decade has been the growth of independent breweries in Canada. In 2006 there were 88 breweries in our country; today, there are more than 500. Most of them are small and produce less than 2,000 hectolitres each year.
Over a quarter of Canadian breweries are in my home province of British Columbia. Yesterday I talked to the owner of one of those fine small breweries in my riding. He urged me to support this motion to clear up the uncertainty around the transport of alcohol across provincial boundaries. These legal restrictions hamper the ability of small breweries to expand as their products grow in popularity.
Earlier today, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development mentioned the problem many small businesses have scaling up their operations. Here is a straightforward way to make it easier for many small businesses to grow across our country.
The issue of interprovincial trade barriers is even more critical for small wineries, since it makes even more economic sense for small wineries to ship their products across the country than it does for small breweries. The wine industry is a large and growing part of the economy in my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, as it is in many other parts of Canada, although I have to say, as I often do, that wineries in my riding make the finest wine in the country.
There are now 671 wineries across Canada, over 250 of them in British Columbia, and they create $6.8 billion in economic activity each year. I applaud the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for his private member's bill in the previous Parliament, which removed the federal interprovincial trade barriers for wine. Unfortunately, since that bill was passed, only three provinces have removed their own barriers to the transport of wine: British Columbia, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia.
For British Columbia producers, the most critical barrier is the one between British Columbia and Alberta. When Parliament passed the legislation that freed up interprovincial wine trade a couple of years ago, Alberta was the only province without specific trade barriers for wine. Ironically, the Progressive Conservative government in that province then took it upon itself to create such legislation to keep a barrier in place once the federal barrier was removed. Now to bring wine into Alberta from British Columbia or any other part of Canada, one must accompany the wine across border and consume it in one's own home.
Many of the visitors to the local wineries in my riding come from Alberta, and many of them are so impressed with the quality of the wine they taste that they like to buy a case or two to ship home. They cannot do it.
Those visitors also cannot go back home and order that wine online, and neither can wine shoppers from Ontario, Quebec, or most other provinces in Canada, but if they were from the United States or Nova Scotia or Manitoba, they could do both of those things.
I have talked to many of the wine producers in my riding and several from other parts of Canada in the past few years, and lately they have quickly brought up the Comeau decision as an example of how federal action could help their industry grow.
Right now, only 10% of the wine consumed in Canada is made entirely in Canada, but that could grow more quickly if interprovincial barriers were lifted. That would benefit all Canadians, both financially and by allowing them to consume the fine wines made in my riding and across the country.
The question today is on the motion. Is this the best way to move forward? Will asking the Supreme Court for a reference to the Comeau decision help the negotiations between the federal government and its provincial and territorial partners? I can only say that the situation now is a situation of uncertainty, and it cannot be helpful in these negotiations. Clarity would help negotiations and help build collaboration and co-operation between provinces and the federal government.
I am happy to support the motion. While I cannot speak for the whole House, on this side of the aisle at least, as Burt Reynolds would say, “Looks like we got us a convoy”.
