Bill C-311 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (interprovincial importation of wine for personal use)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 3, 2011
- Debated in principleDec. 7, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 6, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 17, 2012
- Became lawJune 27, 2012
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Bob RuncimanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Dan Albas12 interventions in debateHe moved the bill and thanks members for unanimous support to pass it.
- Ron Cannan2 interventions in debateHe expresses pleasure speaking to and supporting the bill and his colleague.
- Alex Atamanenko2 interventions in debateHe is pleased to speak in support and thanks the sponsor.
- Peter BraidHe states the amendment in Bill C-311 is clearly long overdue and highlights its advantages.
- Justin TrudeauHe is fully supportive for the wine industry and thanks the sponsor.
- Scott BrisonHe states he supports the legislation wholeheartedly and intends to second it.
- Malcolm AllenHe thanks the sponsor and endorses the bill while noting only a minor regional preference on wine quality.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass. · 2012-06-06 · Passed
How it changed on the way
75% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (283 words introduced, 299 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only minor textual adjustments, such as removing the subsection number before the new paragraph. No changes were made to the substance of the amendment allowing interprovincial importation of wine for personal use.
- Removed the subsection number from the amendment text.
Before: “I-3 5 (h) the importation of wine from a province by an individual, if the individual brings the wine or causes it to be brought into another province, in quantities and as permitted by the laws of the latter province, for his or her personal consumption, and not for resale or other commercial use.”
After: “I-3 (h) the importation of wine from a province by an individual, if the individual brings the wine or causes it to be brought into another province, in quantities and as permitted by the laws of the latter province, for his or her personal consumption, and not for resale or other commercial use.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The amendment carves out a clear exception for individuals moving wine across provinces when it matches the destination province's own quantity rules and is kept for personal use only. It avoids broad federal discretion by tying the permission directly to existing provincial laws rather than official opinions or vague harm tests.
Open to argument
“for his or her personal consumption”
The phrase relies on a purpose-based test that could require evidence of intent and invites argument over what counts as personal versus shared or gifted use.
Clear-cut
“in quantities and as permitted by the laws of the latter province”
The condition points to objective, pre-existing provincial rules instead of new subjective standards or ministerial judgment.“not for resale or other commercial use”
The prohibition uses a binary factual distinction between personal and commercial purposes that can be verified by transaction records.
Discretion. No power is granted to federal ministers or officials; the exception operates automatically once the individual meets the stated factual conditions and the destination province's laws.
Challenging the law itself. The text uses defined factual triggers rather than open-ended terms such as 'likely to' or 'in the opinion of', making a successful vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter unlikely.
Disputing a charge under it. A person could dispute whether the wine was truly for personal consumption by pointing to quantity, packaging or statements, though the provincial-law reference supplies an external benchmark that narrows the dispute.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.