Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 4, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 6:20 p.m. to examine the issues related to the development and marketing of value-added agricultural, agri-food and forest products, on the domestic and international markets.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: As you know, after we finished our study on BSE, we are now studying value-added products. The reason for doing this study is, a number of farmers have said they work long hours, day and night, and there is not enough money being left at the farm gate. Is there anything that could be done to add value to the products they produce so more money could stay at the farm?
With that as our basis, we have been hearing a number of witnesses on a number of products ranging from beef products, wheat, grape, cheese and others. We are trying to find out just what types of things farmers, farm organizations and other groups across Canada are doing to add value, so that they can put more money ultimately in the pockets of those in the farm community.
This evening, I am pleased to advise that our guest witness is Ms. Linda Bramble from the Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute at Brock University, where she teaches a general interest course in wine appreciation and a professional development program in wine sales and service. She is a certified sommelier and hosts a weekly wine and food show. Ms. Bramble has recently completed research on winery tourism producing a training program for excellence in retail sales, as well as a self-assessment guide for excellence in wine tourism for new winery owners.
As adjunct professor in the faculty of business, she has taught entrepreneurship and consults on leadership development and wine marketing.
With that very impressive background, Ms. Bramble, we are looking forward to hearing from you.
Ms. Linda Bramble, Industry Liaison, Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute, Brock University: It is a pleasure to be here today. I will speak to issues related to value-added challenges and opportunities as they relate to the wine industry of Canada. I will use the wine industry as an illustration, with hope that there are lessons to be gleaned that, perhaps, could be applied in other parts of the agricultural and forestry industries.
I will speak to six questions.
I will first address the questions what are the barriers to interprovincial trade and how does the Canadian wine industry develop and market higher value-added products? I will also be speaking to what needs to be done to increase market share, and the issues relating to national standards. Finally, I will look at how standards are used as marketing tools and what research is currently underway, both nationally and regionally. I will conclude with a summary of my recommendations.
My remarks are based on a series of interviews I conducted this past year with a number of leaders within our industry. This went to preparing a report that was delivered in Avignon, France, last month. Linda Franklin, president of the Wine Council of Ontario, also graciously provided assistance. My remarks today are also based on my observations as an educator and writer for the past 22 years.
What are the barriers to interprovincial trade? Although trade is often tedious and cumbersome, for the most part the barriers to trade have been eliminated. There is, however, a much more serious barrier, and that is one of attitude. We are finding that there does not seem to be a general commitment by our nation's liquor boards to buy Canadian. When they do buy Canadian, it is usually those products that are available from their own wine jurisdictions and their own regions. We find that it is extremely difficult to find wines from other wine-producing provinces on our respective provincial shelves.
My recommendation is that government-controlled liquor boards should be given a strong mandate by the federal government to partner in a much more serious way with the domestic industry. The rationale for that, as I am sure you are all aware, is that selling wine to a domestic market adds value to the economy. A recent KPMG study, ``Economic Impact of the Ontario Wine Industry on the Economy of the Province of Ontario in 1999, Final Report 2000,'' showed that the economy gains $3.88 for each bottle of domestic wine sold as compared with 46 cents for a foreign wine sale. Obviously, it is much more profitable for our own economy to buy domestic.
My second question is: How does the Canadian wine industry develop and market higher value-added products? I am dividing this question into two parts.
First, I will look at how the Canadian wine industry developed its value-added products. As you know, there has been a sea change in the quality of wine in Canada. The task has not been one of simply marketing the product. The industry has had to start from a deficit position in respect of consumer acceptance. Not many jurisdictions had to overcome that stigma. The industry also had to convince consumers that it had gone through a complete transformation. As you are well aware, we are now producing wines of highly acclaimed quality.
Given the present level of the product, it is my view that, perhaps, it could be used as a model for the development and marketing of other agricultural products. I submit it would be important to start with a brief understanding of today's consumer. The ``old consumer'' — not by age, but those who purchased in the 1950s to 1970s — sought convenience and a wide range of products at low prices.
The new consumer, however, is motivated by a very different quest — the quest for authenticity. The added value they seek is in authentic products. They look for products that are natural, located in a specific time and place, and they will, if the experience is intriguing enough, travel to bear witness to that authenticity. To be authentic is to be seen as having better value than something mass-produced by an unseen, indifferent manufacturer. This would be true in any part of the agricultural sector as well as forestry.
Agricultural products, the countryside in general and wine, in my case in particular, lend themselves dramatically to filling the quest for authentic products and experiences. So the question is: How is the wine industry developing and adding value to the product? One is through wine tourism. A lot of investment has gone into developing magnificent facilities and making sure that new entrants to the industry are market-ready, paying attention to how the people who serve the public are trained, and excellence in retail sales and licensee sales.
Another way the industry is being developed is through research. The Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute, is conducted research on wine, winery tourism, viticulture and wine-making as we speak. The Wine Council of Ontario has also engaged in a number of studies that inform strategic directions. Also, individual wineries engage in their own research. Much of it is proprietary, but they share much of their research.
I do want to stress, however, that a fundamental way to develop the industry through research has been abolished in many provinces — that is, the abolition of many of the extension services. In our case, that abolition of the extension services is limiting our producers to solve the day-to-day problems. My institute is concerned with applied research as well as basic research, but day-to-day problems languish for the most part because we do not have that service of the extension services.
Developing the industry through linkages has been an intriguing development in our industry in particular. A number of years ago — through a federal grant, I might add — A Taste of Niagara was developed. This program linked farmers with chefs for certain produce. In other words, a chef wanting blue potatoes could contract with a local farmer, and that farmer could grow specifically for that chef. It is a popular service now, and many restaurants have hired their own ``foragers'' to seek out farmers to develop special products for our local chefs.
Another way of developing the industry is through major events sponsored by large organizations and by individual wineries. Another is through information sharing, conferences and seminars. Our university held a conference not too long ago called ``Bacchus to the Future'' where we brought together all stakeholders — namely, industry, trade and scientists — and we learned together. This November there is a conference on culinary tourism that should be intriguing. Five university campuses will work together to conduct research to advance the whole movement toward culinary tourism. It will go for three years. It will not be just one-year research. It is a three-year block.
Regarding information sharing, I cannot underscore enough how well the wine industry works together. We collaborate; we realize that although we are good, we are very small. Because we are small, we cannot operate alone. Our brand is Canada.
The Chairman: Does that mean that people in Ontario are working with people in the industry in places like British Columbia?
Ms. Bramble: My remarks are more grounded in the way in which our producers work with not only the wineries within Ontario, but also with the stakeholders, the suppliers and the tourism organizations within Ontario.
However, I know through such organizations as the Canadian Vintners Association, other associations and the liquor boards that there are many endeavours where we can bring together more closely our wine-producing communities. We realize we are too small to go it alone. Those are a few ways in which the product is being developed to gain greater value-added.
As to marketing, the usual marketing venues such as the distribution channels of liquor boards, the imprint of the VQA, winery tourism, stores and events, and the media, are continuously being pursued. However, the most significant project in Ontario has been the recent initiative in partnership with the Liquor Board of Ontario, LCBO, to promote Ontario wines. The program is called ``WOW,'' for ``wonderful Ontario wines.'' The LCBO and the wineries worked together to develop a training package that enabled 250 selected stores to be trained just on the products of Ontario. Thus, when a customer wants to know more about a particular Riesling, someone at the store has specific knowledge and training relating to the product. That has been a successful program, and the sales results have borne that out.
In respect of the ways in which other agricultural sectors might improve their value-added products is to improve access to the rural experience. Today's consumers want authentic products. They want to go to the country. They want to experience what that is like.
My other recommendations are to: support entrepreneurs who have an original product to sell; facilitate linkages between suppliers and manufacturers; encourage the development of rural events; support the means of information sharing and learning; and, encourage local cooperation among holders.
The third question is what needs to be done to increase the domestic market share for domestic wines. First, we need to create a more level playing field in Canada. We are one of the largest importers of wine from all the major wine regions, but our producers must surrender to some of the subsidies that these same exporters to Canada have that our producers do not have. That is an unfair disadvantage.
Second, the heavy tax burden that our industry shoulders presents an unfair practice. This tax is, in fact, the highest in the world. I am sure you have heard this from other commentators on the wine industry. Therefore, the recommendation is to make the playing field more level by providing excise tax exemptions for wineries making smaller production levels of VQA-only wines — in other words, the wines that are produced in Canada, not imported from outside offshore.
What needs to be done to increase the market share in export? In respect of Asia it has been straightforward, but in respect of access to the EU, other sectors in the U.S. and other export markets, they need to realize that when they buy Canadian, that product is consistent. My recommendation is to continue to support exporting marketing efforts while attaching some urgency to establishing national standards for wine as has been achieved for other agricultural products.
That leads me to my next question: What are the issues relating to national standards designed to increase quality, assure confidence and increase value-added? My recommendation here is to move forward on standards that will not only complement federal legislation as outlined by the Canada Agricultural Products Act but also bring together the provinces on an agreed upon national standard for wine products.
How are standards used as marketing tools? Not only has it been demonstrated in France, Italy, Spain, and all over the EU, but also in our own Province of Ontario, for instance, where the VQA is legislated in law, it has also alerted the public to the fact that Ontario makes premium wines from some of the world's finest vinifera grape varieties. It has also established a level of consumer confidence shown by the fact that VQA sales have increased by double digits every year since the creation of the system, and the system is so powerful it is now being emulated in several jurisdictions in the United States.
My recommendation is to encourage the provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia to establish standards of their own and, with the province of British Columbia, legislate those standards into law in order to have the ability to enforce the standards set. All that should be aligned with the national legislation of the Canada Agricultural Products Act.
My last comment today relates to the research being conducted locally and nationally. In Ontario, as I mentioned earlier, the erosion of government extension and research services with the demise of the Vineland Research Station has not only made it more difficult to keep up with the advances in the field, but also difficult to solve immediate problems and problems of a short-term nature. Government funding support is an integral part of the wine sector, as it is in many parts of the world. CCOVI, my institute at Brock University, is conducting research in several areas — in sensory evaluation, flavour development in the vineyard, icewine production, wine marketing, wine tourism, wine sales and service, climate and soil studies, and integrated pest management. However, it is not geared to serve the day-to-day extension needs of our producers.
Therefore my recommendation is to increase government funding support for extension services and research to enable the industry to respond more nimbly to practical problems.
I should be honoured and privileged to respond to any of your questions.
The Chairman: Dr. Bramble, thank you very much for that most excellent presentation. You have come up with many good suggestions that can be applied not only to wine but also to many other agricultural products.
You talked about the importance of tourism, doing more research, special projects for special chefs, information sharing, and one of them that really sticks out is what you called ``access to the rural experience.'' Three or four years ago this committee was in Europe with Senator Gustafson and one of the things that the European Community is doing and is funding is what they called the ``Doctrine of Multi-functionality.'' That is to say, you look at many things you can do in your rural community besides just producing a product to encourage people to go back to the farms and economically develop your rural communities. I was fascinated you raised that as one of your options today.
Senator St. Germain: You have spoken of the heavy tax burden that our industry has to face. It is borne out that if you buy wines and drink wines you will find that some of the imported wines have excellent quality and they are priced in such a manner that if you are seeking quality you have a tendency to gravitate toward these imported wines. I believe it is strictly on price. It is unfortunate. If we are taxed the highest in the world in our wine industry, what chance is there if there are two bottles of wine and one is imported and has a superior quality, logically that is the one that will move off the shelf.
Is there anything else that can be done? I know this for a fact because I drink red wines. I have noticed that in respect of some of the imported wines from Australia and South Africa, if you go dollar for dollar, you will end up often with a better tasting wine in the imported wines. It is not that there are not good wines in the Canadian version on the shelves but they are priced higher.
Ms. Bramble: Fifty-eight per cent of every bottle of wine goes back to the government, which is not the same in jurisdictions such as Australia or California. That means that far less money going back into the pockets of our producers can be reinvested into vineyards, technology, advancing sales and marketing, et cetera.
Senator St. Germain: Is our growing technology of grapes comparable to the Napa Valley? I use the example of Napa Valley because I have been there and I know they have technologies such as sensors and computers to monitor moisture. They have the whole gambit. Are we competitive in that way in our vineyards?
Ms. Bramble: I would love to say that we are. Our producers are aware of the technological advances. They also come with a price. Technology is highly capital intensive. Inasmuch as our producers are young — we are only two and a half decades old — we do not have the same kind of evolution on which to base our history. In other words, it was only in 1975 when the birth of our modern industry really began. Jurisdictions such as California and Australia knew they could grow vinifera, which are the better quality grapes. It was not until the late 1970s to mid-1980s when we realized we could grow Riesling, Chardonnay and Pinot Noir. We are still discovering what other reds we can grow well. We are discovering we can grow Pinot Noir well. Believe it or not, we can grow Syrah well.
To your question, senator, when they can afford it, yes, the larger companies, such as Vincor, which is the fourth largest wine company in North America, and Andrés, which is the second largest in Canada, do have sensors in the field. They can sit in their bedrooms and know what is going on and at what temperature their fermentation tanks so, so that if one is too high, the vintner only has to push a button and the cooling sheets will start to pour down on the sides. However, our producers are much smaller, for the most part, and do not have access to that kind of technology. To answer the question of whether we are equal with Napa, no.
I would like to answer a question perhaps you did not, ask and that is whether the quality of our wines is equal to that of many of the wine regions in California. I can demonstrate to you that on many levels of types and styles of wines, indeed they are. On the basis of cool climate to cool climate, when we are compared to a climate such as Burgundy, I can demonstrate that. I have on many occasions. Just last November I had all of the CEOs and their regulators of all of the provinces in Canada gathered at a blind tasting. We have 14 wines, half Canadian, half international, and 13 out of 14 in a blind tasting preferred the Canadian wines. They were paired price for price, blend for blend and variety for variety. I had a Burgundy and I also had a Bordeaux. The Bordeaux was $29 a bottle and the Canadian blend came from the Okanagan — actually it was a Jackson-Triggs — and that was $14.95.
Therefore the answer to your question is yes and no.
Senator St. Germain: Would we improve our quality if we did go to the advanced technology that Napa has? Has Napa been subsidized by the American government?
I am asking particularly about California because I happen to live on the West Coast and the people of California are our natural cousins.
Ms. Bramble: Let me give you an illustration. You may know that California is in the process of being devastated by a little bug called the glassy-winged sharpshooter, which is a vector for Pierce's disease. There is no cure for it and once it hits a vineyard, the stock is wiped out.
In fact, in the late 1800s — 1890 I believe — it struck a little village called Anaheim and they were never able to grow grapes there. They were California's leading wine producer at the time. A few decades later, a fellow by the name of Walt Disney happened to buy property in Anaheim and turned it into a different industry. However, the American industry is putting in millions of dollars to fund research to try to stem and correct that pest problem.
In 2001, we were invaded by a little Asian ladybird beetle — a little orange bug that looks like a ladybug. When it hit the fermentation vats it tainted the wines. Our producers had to dump thousands and thousands of litres of wine because it was no good. We do not have the kind of support from our governments to invest in the research to come up with solutions. Our university has done the best it can with, I believe it was, a $50,000 grant; however, those kinds of grants do not lead to long-term results and long-term addressing the question. We do not have the same kind of support from our governments that they do in California.
Senator Mercer: I enjoyed your presentation. You mentioned that five universities are conducting some research. I assume Brock University is one. What are the other four?
Ms. Bramble: There is Guelph University, Ryerson, the University of Windsor, and Humber College.
Senator Mercer: Those universities — with the exception of Humber, which is located in Toronto — are all located in southwestern Ontario. I am from Nova Scotia, where I think we are at the infancy stage of our wine industry. I am very excited by what has happened in Niagara and the Okanagan. With our natural beauty, our beaches and all the other things that we have on the East Coast, and I think — if we can create quality wine — we can match the value- added stuff quickly because of what we have at our doorstep.
I am interested to know if there is a way of adding a university, particularly from Nova Scotia, but obviously British Columbia, and perhaps Quebec, would be another one to do?
My second question is in regard to the removal of the excise duty, which is something we have heard from others. I get nervous that if we remove the excise duty, the provincial government quickly moves in and bumps up the taxes to the extent that the price remains the same. It just means the revenues are going into the provincial coffers as opposed to the federal coffers in Revenue Canada. We talked about removing the excise tax, but we have not heard anyone talk about giving preferential provincial tax breaks to Canadian-produced wine. Has that been addressed by the industry, either from an academic point of view or from a producer's point of view?
Ms. Bramble: With regard to your first comment and question, I think you have pointed out a serious omission in the Conference on Culinary Tourism. When I go back — I am on the board — I will suggest that we add representatives from British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Quebec. Thank you very much, senator.
I am also happy to say that we have an arrangement with a university — I have now forgotten its name — in Nova Scotia, an articulation agreement whereby, following your two-year program, students come to ours to finish their baccalaureate degree. I have had three students from Nova Scotia and they are wonderful. I am happy that we have that agreement. We also have a similar agreement with British Columbia.
I am not sure, but possibly we have not explored some kind of support for our producers — in Ontario, in particular — because of NAFTA. I believe that when that was agreed upon, the Americans said that our producers could not have any kind of edge over American products. I think this is probably why that has not been revisited.
Senator Mercer: My final question relates to your comment very early in your presentation when you talked about A Taste of Niagara. My colleagues have heard me talk about a program called A Taste of Nova Scotia, which is a similar program where they are trying to blend the marketing of all the products of Nova Scotia, fish as well as agricultural. Our wineries are also involved.
Can that model be copied? Again, I do not think British Columbia needs as much help, but perhaps the Quebec and the Nova Scotia winery industries could use follow Taste of Niagara process. I know, having visited the Niagara peninsula and some of the wineries, how terrific the value-added that is put on the production of grapes and wine is, as it is in the Okanagan.
Is it a template that can be easily transferable and say, if you follow this model with certain adaptations, you should be successful?
Ms. Bramble: We started our program in 1996 when we started our program. We took our lead from Nova Scotia and Heather MacLean. She came down and taught us how you did it. We loved it so much that we copied it — it was a wonderful model, and it is a healthy model.
The answer to your question is yes, I would endorse it heartily. It works, and it generates hope for sectors such as our farmers, who were leaving the business. In the mid- to late-1990s and mid-1990s, the real unemployment level in Niagara was 16 per cent. Our farmers were leaving the land and going to General Motors for work. We generated this project with the hope to keep more on the land. Using that objective as a measure, that program was very successful because it kept a lot more of our families on the farm.
The Chairman: Could you tell us a little bit more about how the project works? How does it keep more people on the farm and what does it actually do? Does it include all the vegetable crops, and wheats and barleys and grains; and in what way does it involve and include them, and how does it add value?
Ms. Bramble: The organization put together an inventory of all the suppliers of those products that were grown, raised or processed in the Niagara region and in broader region including Hamilton or Stoney Creek — in other words, a certain radius where distribution would not be an issue.
That inventory of producers — there were pig farmers, cheese makers, wine makers, farmers, fruit growers, vegetable growers, onion producers and so on — was distributed to all the chefs through the chefs' association in Ontario. We had a number of seminars and meetings, which brought them together. We helped them learn what the others were doing. We facilitated various contracts between them. We acted as a kind of conduit for their business transactions.
The Chairman: Did it all have to be organically grown?
Ms. Bramble: Not necessarily organic in terms of certified organic, but several are organic even though they are not certified as such.
We have producers such as Lakeland Game Meats, where a woman turned her property from a peach orchard into a venison farming operation. Another operation raises quail. If you go to Niagara, you will find Joe Speck's quail in many of our leading restaurants.
Senator Callbeck: I have several short questions and one main question. The excise tax exemption was mentioned earlier and I noticed that you are asking for exemption for smaller production level wineries.
Ms. Bramble: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: Is it not for all wineries?
Ms. Bramble: No, it is just for the smaller producers who produce year-to-year and vintage-to-vintage. I have a radio show called Cheers Niagara that Senator Oliver was kind enough to mention in his introduction. Last Friday I talked to an organic grower whose winery is called Frog Pond. Two winters ago, we had a devastating cold snap in January and the temperature dropped to minus 26 degrees Celsius. This grower lost his entire crop of Merlot grapes. Out of 10 acres, that is a pretty substantial hole. Larger producers such as Jackson-Triggs, Château des Charmes, Hillebrand and Peller Estates have residual behind them. That is my recommendation for the smaller producers who do not have that same kind of cash flow.
Senator Callbeck: I want to ask about the standard you spoke to for Nova Scotia and British Columbia. Are you advocating different standards for each province or are you advocating that they be harmonized?
Ms. Bramble: I am advocating that they be harmonized. British Columbia has not yet legislated its standards and I am advocating that they become law. In any case, those standards should be harmonized.
Some points of contention have gone on for so many years. I am suggesting that they simply get on with it and do it. I do not want to diminish their significance but what could be considered minor details could be worked out. It is necessary for the greater good to have standards set so that we are able to guarantee a certain level of consistency in our international exports.
Senator Callbeck: I want to ask a question about the first paragraph of your presentation. As we know, imports represent roughly 66 per cent of our domestic market. In other words, Canadians drink a great deal of imported wines. You do not feel that there is a general commitment by the liquor boards to buy Canadian wines. You have recommended that the government-controlled liquor boards should be given a strong mandate by the federal government to partner in a much more serious way with the domestic industry. How would the federal government do this?
Ms. Bramble: I had hope that this committee would come up with the answer to that. I do not know. It is a tough question because it is a provincial matter.
The Chairman: You are talking to a former provincial premier.
Ms. Bramble: Yes, but I do not know how that could be done. I am here to give you some recommendations on that but without superseding provincial jurisdictions, it is a difficult. Perhaps it could be done by moral suasion, by the report and by hearing from so many of the same people that you have listened to. I am sure that this is what all Canadians are requesting and now it is time to work together. I do not know if it could be done through legislation but I would expect not.
Senator Callbeck: I have another question on recommendations on page 6. You have listed a number of them, such as improved access to the rural experience. Do you see a role for the federal government?
Ms. Bramble: Yes, I do. About one decade ago, I went to a sheep station in New Zealand. I found that sheep station by going through their consulate to find out what kinds of experiences I might enjoy. This sheep station on the south island had worked with the government to take on visitors and teach them all about life on a sheep station.
Such an effort not only enables farmers to upgrade to market ready but also gives them ideas on how to promote their products. I believe that there is a role for government in this.
Senator Callbeck: All of your research is available to wineries. Is that correct?
Ms. Bramble: Yes, it is available.
Senator Lawson: I want to follow briefly on Senator Callbeck's question about Canadian wines on provincial shelves. In my former life a Royal Commission dealt with the B.C. situation many years ago at the onset of the B.C. winery. At that time, you could get Kelowna red wine by the gallon but not much more. Then they began to produce some good wines.
We had many complaints from consumers about why we were not on the shelves. We went to the liquor control board to speak to the person responsible. We asked who made the decisions, whether they had a committee or brought people in from the industry. He said that no, it was his bias that dictated what went on the shelves. We knew that was not good enough so we made a recommendation that mandated they make space for B.C. wines.
The federal government cannot do it unless you use that moral suasion you mentioned. You have to contact people in the province — not just in the wineries — you have to speak to the liquor boards to tell them what you want on the shelves.
They also need to take some of their partners. It is interesting in the Okanagan Valley because we have all kinds of golf tournaments but the major golf courses downtown are not available for tournaments, so we go to the interior. They plan for 150 or 200 people, contact a golf course to take care of the banquet. Sometimes they can do it and sometimes they cannot. However, sometimes they will say that they can take the golfers on a wine tour. In the last few years a number of wineries have come to seat 150 or 200 people. They have discovered that working in partnership with the golf courses is lucrative for the wineries. They have the benefit of both of those. They talk about approaching the provinces for more shelf space but they should also bring all those people altogether who make a good dollar in the industry. That might be a way of reaching the provinces.
Does anyone have the statistics? I would like to know the percentage of B.C. wine in the B.C. Liquor Control Board. I would like to know what percentage of B.C. wine is on the Ontario shelves, and vice versa. Are we being regional, keeping it all in B.C. and restricting Ontario to access and vice versa? It would be helpful if we had those numbers. It could put pressure on the government if we say to the people of British Columbia that their liquor stores have 15 per cent of this, they only have 2 per cent of that or 4 per cent of another. We might be able to embarrass them into doing something. Any of those things that bring pressure might be helpful.
The Chairman: Dr. Bramble, do you have these kinds of statistics or do you know where we can get them?
Ms. Bramble: I do not have them, but I would be happy to get them for you. I could not agree more. We do not have any wines from Nova Scotia. On our vintages shelves, we have maybe 10 to 15 wines from British Columbia. We have no wines from Quebec on our shelves in Ontario. That is a travesty.
I would be happy to supply the committee with those statistics if you would care for me to track them down.
Senator Lawson: Please do. Some of us feel very strongly. We talk about free trade with the U.S. and Mexico, but it would be nice to have free trade with Canada.
Another pet peeve of mine is Air Canada — even when it was government owned. I am one of those who only drinks Riesling wines, like a German or Ontario or B.C. or California Riesling. They never have them on Air Canada. They have not had them for years and years. You can get them flying overseas but they do not have them here.
Over a period of time, I had 50 complaints. I went to them, they put me in touch with the wine purchaser, and so on. He explained to me why he did this. I said, ``Wait a minute, now. Why would you not have some Ontario Rieslings? It is less costly than the French ones. Why not the B.C. Rieslings? It is a good wine that costs less. You are a Canadian airline, funded by Canadian taxpayers. Do you not think you have an obligation to do that?'' He replied, ``But people prefer French.'' I said, ``They prefer French because there is nothing else to drink. We go back and forth to California all the time. On the California run, go to any grocery store in California and you get a $5 Riesling, for heaven's sake, for less cost. Why can you not have California wines going that way and B.C. wines coming back this way?'' They gave me reasons why they could not do it.
After all my 50 complaints, I was at the APEC conference and I met the president and CEO of Air Canada. I said, ``I want a word with you.'' He said, ``Senator Lawson. You are the one with all the complaints about wines?'' I said, ``Yes.'' I said, ``Why do not you have them on there?'' He said, ``Well, senator, nobody drinks Riesling any more.'' I said, ``I knew you were going to give me that answer. Before I came here, I went to the Library of Parliament and asked tell me how many litres of Riesling wine we imported into Canada last year.'' He said, ``Did you get the numbers?'' I said, ``Yes; nine million litres. If no one is drinking it, who is pouring it down the sewer?'' He said, ``Oh, I did not know that.'' I said, ``Yes, but why will you not change it?'' They still have not changed it. I wrote and complained. I am paying business class fare, which is now $4,500 return, and I am getting zero class wine service. Why would they not just have one? I can order a special meal and you can put that out for me. When I want a special meal, get me a bottle of B.C. or Ontario Riesling and put it on there. I cannot do that.
I get very upset because it is our own airline. They are looking for all kind of financial support, and so on. If I give them any support, it will be conditional. That is a pet peeve.
The Chairman: Dr. Bramble, you came here to give us some information and now you have a real problem that we are asking you to solve. What is the answer to Senator Lawson's riddle about the non-service of Riesling wines in Canada? What is the answer to that?
Ms. Bramble: I would disagree with the president of Air Canada. Riesling, on the contrary, is on the rise.
Senator Lawson: Very much so.
Ms. Bramble: It is a wonderful, wonderful varietal wine. What was the question again, senator? I got sidetracked. I love Riesling.
Senator Lawson: Why will they not carry Canadian wines on the airline?
Ms. Bramble: It is what I call the pitfall of the label. Wine is a very intimidating product. It is a sure thing, if you like French wines, because all French wines, the assumption goes, are better wines. You will not be embarrassed or humiliated if you ask for a French wine.
I think it is as simple as that. It is also, what other countries call the ``tall poppy syndrome.'' Many Canadian consumers, if they feel that any one of our own industries gets a little too tall and too big for its own breeches, they will knock it down. We do not have enough faith in our own product. That is another barrier of attitude that we do have that is being reflected on our liquor shelves — probably because our consumers need to be educated that to buy Canadian is not only a national thing to do out of national pride, it is also a wise thing to do out of quality and flavour.
It is the task of education and many of us are engaged in just that.
Senator Lawson: The only other question relates to federal regulations. One of the presenters told us that the regulations we have nationally are so outdated and so far behind the industry that they need to be updated. Do you share that view?
Ms. Bramble: I do.
Senator Lawson: With all your successes and all the things you have done in your career, was the Bramble bush named after you?
Ms. Bramble: They describe Zinfandel as having a brambleberry flavour. My only regret is that we do not grow Zinfandel in Canada.
The Chairman: Dr. Bramble, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you very much for a most enthusiastic and interesting presentation, and an excellent response to the variety of questions. It has been very enjoyable and informative. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.