Can Ottawa end provincial alcohol meddling?

Bytowner · Post by **Bytowner** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:23 am

I have no idea, and think Brian Lee Crowley is usually wrong about most things, but this is an interesting read:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/co ... story.html

Who wants to order a truck of beer from Driftwood and start working on a legal fund?

atomeyes · Post by **atomeyes** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:10 pm

even better?
VICE had an article where it stated that it has been proven that the LCBO monopoly is illegal.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-lcbo ... ly-illegal

someone needs to hire the lawyers to fight the long, expensive legal battle

BlackRedGold · Post by **BlackRedGold** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:12 pm

atomeyes wrote:even better?
VICE had an article where it stated that it has been proven that the LCBO monopoly is illegal.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-lcbo ... ly-illegal

someone needs to hire the lawyers to fight the long, expensive legal battle

Wish these guys had the money to do so....

http://www.bartowel.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=111343

saints_gambit · Post by **saints_gambit** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:33 am

Here's the problem. Bringing that suit would require a comprehensive effort on the part of people who do not directly benefit from the status quo. This discounts immediately the large brewers who have all the money. It is vastly unlikely that enough small brewers could band together to finance the effort. You'd need a good lawyer to do it and they cost.

Also, since it's a constitutional case, the best that you can hope for is an amendment to the existing laws. If we take it as read that the importation of intoxicating liquors act would be replaced as a part of this challenge, then you have to remember that this doesn't merely effect Ontario. There are provinces with government stores and some with hybrid systems.

In fairness, the IILA was written during an economic depression when the population wasn't nearly as mobile as it is now. Of course it's not as relevant as we would hope for it to be. Besides which, what we're arguing here is a bureaucratic technicality that reflects two separate economic periods in the country's development. You really didn't want to stop the export of raw resources out of Canada in 1867 by having to account constantly for provincial tariffs.

The IILA is a post prohibition temperance minded document that does not reflect the initial period of swagger that the constitution does.

Should it be changed? Well, yes, ideally. Who will pay for it? Buggered if I know.

Bytowner · Post by **Bytowner** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:04 am

I'd imagine a combined Canadian convenience store association would have a hefty purse. Why haven't the grocery chains been outspoken about this? If the Westons wanted booze in their stores (and why wouldn't they) it would happen.

Kel Varnsen · Post by **Kel Varnsen** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:05 pm

Bytowner wrote:I'd imagine a combined Canadian convenience store association would have a hefty purse. Why haven't the grocery chains been outspoken about this? If the Westons wanted booze in their stores (and why wouldn't they) it would happen.

That is what I have often wondered. I mean between the loblaws companies (especially if they do merge with Shoppers Drug Mart), Costco and Walmart I would think you would have way more political power than any convenience store owners association would. I mean imagine how many voters there are that work for those three companies. And all three companies already sell alcohol in other locations too, so it is not like they wouldn't know how.

rejtable · Post by **rejtable** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:00 pm

Kel Varnsen wrote:I mean between the loblaws companies (especially if they do merge with Shoppers Drug Mart), Costco and Walmart I would think you would have way more political power than any convenience store owners association would.

I'm not arguing, but it strikes me that I wonder how often these companies really need to deal with governments in terms of lobbying. These aren't heavily regulated business right now, are they? And if not, why would they have strong political connections?

Kel Varnsen · Post by **Kel Varnsen** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:57 am

rejtable wrote:
Kel Varnsen wrote:I mean between the loblaws companies (especially if they do merge with Shoppers Drug Mart), Costco and Walmart I would think you would have way more political power than any convenience store owners association would.
I'm not arguing, but it strikes me that I wonder how often these companies really need to deal with governments in terms of lobbying. These aren't heavily regulated business right now, are they? And if not, why would they have strong political connections?

I think they are fairly heavily regulated. I mean food inspection alone probably has them dealing with the government pretty often. Not to mention most big grocery type stores like the one I mentioned have pharmacies. And on top of that throw in various tobacco and lottery sales.

rejtable · Post by **rejtable** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:20 am

Kel Varnsen wrote:I think they are fairly heavily regulated. I mean food inspection alone probably has them dealing with the government pretty often. Not to mention most big grocery type stores like the one I mentioned have pharmacies. And on top of that throw in various tobacco and lottery sales.

But in the big picture of government those things are pretty small potatoes, aren't they?

cfrancis · Post by **cfrancis** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:19 am

Small potatoes in the grand view of government but for a store like Costco that has such a big butchery in house, plus so many private labelled merchandise even a 1% reduction on imports is a multi-million dollar savings.

saints_gambit · Post by **saints_gambit** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:19 pm

Also worth remembering that the Weston stores actually have a beer brand of their own. If they wanted into the market they would have thrown in a long time ago.