Month: April 2012

Bill C-311, which is the Bill that would amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, to permit the inter-provincial shipment of wine direct to consumers in limited circumstances (see earlier stories: Wine Shipping Law Reform Progress in Ottawa and Reform Process for Wine Shipping Law Begins) is progressing well at the federal level in Ottawa. The Bill received unanimous all-party support at a vote in the House of Commons Finance Committee and has also received widespread support from the public and the media. However, the Bill only has the support of a single provincial liquor board: the BC LDB. The lack of support at the provincial level is frustrating because the Bill is a very reasonable compromise aimed at modifying, in a limited way, an arcane 1928 law which prevents the free trade of wine within Canada. In most countries in the world, this problem would be inconceivable (can you imagine the French putting up with a law that prevented the shipment of wine from Bordeaux to Paris?). Even within Canada, the restrictions imposed by the law are viewed, at best, as outdated and are likely unconstitutional (see Shipping Law is Unconstitutional?).

One would hope that the other Canadian liquor boards would come around and accept the fact that the Canadian public wants this change. Indeed, the liquor boards should support this reform, if only to temper the hypocrisy of their own actions. For example, during a strike at the SAQ (Quebec\’s liquor board), the LCBO proudly trumpeted the growth of its own inter-provincial sales, which were illegal as soon as the customer drove across the border (see Tear Down Interprovincial Barriers to Wine and You Get My Vote). The SAQ too should not throw stones from the comfort of its glass house. About a year ago, and using the security and wealth of its monopoly government status, it purchased control of a leading U.S. online retailer J.J. Buckley in San Francisco … which specializes in, wait for it … the inter-state sale and shipment of wine to the American market (see La SAQ prend pied aux Etats-Unis and part 26 of the SAQ annual report). Is the SAQ happy to promote and profit from the direct to consumer market in the U.S. but would deny similar advantages to its Quebec customers from which it obtains its life blood?

And most recently, at the House of Commons Finance Committee hearings, the liquor boards collectively told Members of Parliament that the changes in the Bill were not needed because most liquor boards had changed their own policies so as to permit wine (and some other liquor) to be personally transported (but not shipped) between provinces in limited amounts. This last assertion catapults the debate into the realm of fantasy since some of these very same liquor boards were denying the legality of such actions until Terry David Mulligan made his now infamous cross-border run. In addition, and significantly, their assertion stretches the bounds of legal reality to unheard of levels: it is simply beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of a provincial liquor board to over-ride a federal criminal law using a \”policy announcement\” (see Rule of Law Missed by Liquor Boards on Shipping Issue).

Finally, perhaps the Premiers should consider reigning in the liquor boards on this issue … it was recently reported that Dalton McGuinty (and other Premiers) may have violated the federal law by accepting gifts of BC wine while at a conference in Victoria and then taking them home (see Bootlegging Premiers Should Support Shipping Law Fix). Do our provincial leaders really want to be sending a message to their electorate that it is okay for them to break an arcane federal law on dubious grounds but then permit their own liquor boards to try and stop Canadians from doing something as innocuous as ordering wine from a neighbouring province?

In my view, this is a no-brainer. Provincial liquor boards should be supporting this inherently reasonable compromise and, if they drag their feet, then the various Premiers should pull rank and demand that they do so. If you agree, please contact your provincial MLAs or MPPs and tell them that you feel the same way: this Free My Grapes Take Action Page makes it easy to do so. 

The BC Government has announced that is is amending the Liquor Control & Licensing Regulation to permit liquor to be served in movie theatres. The press release is here: Movie Theatres Now Eligible for Liquor Licenses. The last attempt at addressing this issue ran into problems when it made matters worse in some respects: see Liquor Regulation Amendments.

The actual amendments are contained in Order-in-Council 217. They simply state: \”…s.8 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation, BC Reg. 244/2002 is amended by repealing subsections (2)(b), (2.1) and (5).\”. As a result, the changes remove subsection (2)(b) of section 8 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation, which was the subsection that prevented the issuance of a liquor primary license to a movie theatre. They also remove subsections (2.1) and (5) of the Regulation which are the provisions related to \”live event theatres\” which were recently included as part of the earlier problematic effort to address the issue referred to above. The effect of these changes will be that the LCLB can now change their \”policy\” such that movie theatres can serve liquor. A new policy directive 12-02 (PDF) has also been issued which repeals policy directive 12-01 and largely fixes the problems that were generated earlier.

Last week on April 3rd, the House of Commons Finance Committee met to consider Bill C-311, which would amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act to permit the inter-provincial shipment of wine for personal use in certain circumstances (see earlier story: Reform Process for Wine Shipping Law Begins). A number of presentations were made to the Committee in support of Bill C-311 including from Shirley-Ann George (FreeMyGrapes.ca), Miles Prodan (BC Wine Institute) and myself. You can view the video of the meeting here (if you have Windows Media Player) and it will also be broadcast on CPAC this Thursday April 12th at 8 am PST. The Committee unanimously approved the Bill with all party support and sent it back to the House of Commons for third reading and a final vote (which should occur sometime in the first part of May). Following its expected approval by the House, the Bill will then go to the Senate, where it may or may not be dealt with quickly (the Senate has its own separate procedural system and it is not clear whether any additional hearings or meetings will occur in the Senate). As a result, while it is possible that the Bill may obtain all necessary approvals before the summer recess, that is by no means assured … it could be some time in the Fall before the final stretch is reached and continued support for the Bill is essential as it progresses. The sponsor of the Bill, MP Dan Albas, provides his comments and additional links here: Post Committee Discussion on Bill C-311.

It is also important to remember that the amendment, if and when it passes, will permit each province to set a limit for the amount of wine that can be shipped or transported into that province. As a result, if real progress is to be achieved, it is essential that the provinces set reasonable limits for these purposes. As one of two leading wine producing provinces (and as the only one that is actively supporting this Bill), British Columbia is in a unique position to take leadership on this issue and to establish a precedent for the other provinces which I would suggest should be 2 cases per person per month (which is the same limit as Oregon – both CA and WA have no limits for personal consumption).

Bill C-311 continues to attract considerable support from the public and the media, the latest of which was a supportive editorial running in both the Vancouver Sun (Open Provincial Wine Barriers) and Ottawa Citizen (Free Our Wine).