Bright’s Wines Limited fonds, 1983-1989

One of the oldest wineries in Ontario, Bright’s Wines is now a part of Vincor International Inc. and still producing wines today. In the year 1874 Thomas G. Bright and Francis A. Shirriff came together in a partnership and formed a wine company in Toronto, Ontario. As the company began to prosper the gentlemen decided to move the location to Niagara, Ontario. Sixteen years later the Niagara Falls Wine Company opened on Dorchester Road. In 1911, Bright bought out all of Shirriff’s shares in the company and the name became the T. G. Bright and Co. Limited. A few years later in 1933 Harry C. Hatch bought the wine company from the Bright family and began changing how Bright’s operated through greater, more diverse wine production, as well as research and development. Bright’s leadership in wine research and development in Canada helped bring Canadian wines to their position of respect around the world. In 1934 Bright’s began a viticultural and vinicultural program, changing the way the Canadian wine industry worked. They put more money into research and development than any other winery in all of Canada. Soon, gold medals and “best of class” international designations were being awarded to Bright’s wines. As a result of their success, the founders soon discovered that they needed additional money to develop their business. So they borrowed money from a local bank and other lenders, or creditors, and used the funds to expand the business. Subsequent acquisition of other companies and consolidations in the wine industry led to the creation of Vincor International in 1993. Today, Vincor has established itself as a major participant in the North American super-premium wine market. By acquiring other companies, Vincor has fuelled growth in its sales from $114 million in 1995 to $654 million in 2005. The company’s success attracted the attention of its competitors. On September 27, 2005, Constellation Brands, Inc. announced its intention to buy Vincor and subsequently acquired the company in June 2006.

Multinational drug corporations, intellectual property rights and the Canadian state : a historical and critical analysis

This study critically analyzes the historical role and influence of multinational drug cotpOrations and multinational corporations in general; the u.s. government and the Canadian state in negotiating the global recognition ofIntellectual Property Rights (IPR) under GATT/NAFTA. This process began in 1969 when the Liberal government, in response to high prices for brand-name drugs amended the Patent Act to introduce compulsory licensing by reducing monopoly protection from 20 to seven years. Although the financial position ofthe multinational drug industry was not affected, it campaigned vigorously to change the 1969 legislation. In 1987, the Patent Act was amended to extend protection to 10 years as a condition for free trade talks with the u.s. Nonetheless, the drug industry was not satisfied and accused Canada of providing a bad example to other nations. Therefore, it continued to campaign for global recognition ofIPR laws under GATT. Following the conclusion of the GATTI Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS) in 1991, the multinational drug industry and the American government, to the surprise of many, were still not satisfied and sought to implement harsher conditions under NAFTA. The Progressive Conservative government readily agreed without any objections or consideration for the social consequences. As a result, Bill C-91 was introduced. It abandoned compulsory licenses and was made retroactive from December 21, 1991. It is the contention of this thesis that the economic survival of multinational corporations on a global scale depends on the role and functions of the modem state. Similarly, the existence of the state depends on the ideological-political and socioeconomic assistance it gives to multinational corporations on a national and international scale. This dialectical relation of the state and multinational corporations is explored in our theoretical and historical analysis of their role in public policy.