I think I see some snow falling in hell... a Liberal back-bencher has proposed a bill to allow the selling of Ontario beer and wine in corner stores.
McGuintey's against the idea, but the Conservatives appear to be behind it. This might just have a flying chance.
Looking for the original Bar Towel blog? You can find it at www.thebartowel.com.
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
Liberal MPP wants to allow craft beer in corner stores
It would be nice, but this legislation ain't gonna pass.
For one thing, about 1 in a 1000 private member's bills pass. If the government side were truly committed to the idea, they wouldn't count on a backbencher to introduce his own legislation.
McGuinty has already said he doesn't support the bill.
The other big problem with this is that it almost certainly would have trouble passing muster under NAFTA; you can't discriminate against non-domestic products. Under NAFTA, once you open up a market to one company, anyone can have access. At the very least, a U.S. brewer would be able to sue for access. And sad to say, it wouldn't be Stone, or DFH. It'd be someone like Miller.
For one thing, about 1 in a 1000 private member's bills pass. If the government side were truly committed to the idea, they wouldn't count on a backbencher to introduce his own legislation.
McGuinty has already said he doesn't support the bill.
The other big problem with this is that it almost certainly would have trouble passing muster under NAFTA; you can't discriminate against non-domestic products. Under NAFTA, once you open up a market to one company, anyone can have access. At the very least, a U.S. brewer would be able to sue for access. And sad to say, it wouldn't be Stone, or DFH. It'd be someone like Miller.
Wouldn't the same apply to the wine stores? Similar arguments could apply to arguing that US companies should be allowed to compete for mail delivery or providing health care. NAFTA is not our friend.tuqueboy wrote:It would be nice, but this legislation ain't gonna pass.
For one thing, about 1 in a 1000 private member's bills pass. If the government side were truly committed to the idea, they wouldn't count on a backbencher to introduce his own legislation.
McGuinty has already said he doesn't support the bill.
The other big problem with this is that it almost certainly would have trouble passing muster under NAFTA; you can't discriminate against non-domestic products. Under NAFTA, once you open up a market to one company, anyone can have access. At the very least, a U.S. brewer would be able to sue for access. And sad to say, it wouldn't be Stone, or DFH. It'd be someone like Miller.
It likely wouldn't be a NAFTA issue because 1. alcohol appears to be an exempt from NAFTA and 2. access isn't limited so long as they can still sell to Ontarians through the LCBO and/or Beer Store. If NAFTA was an issue then it would have been raised in Quebec long ago because of their depanneur sales.tuqueboy wrote:It would be nice, but this legislation ain't gonna pass.
For one thing, about 1 in a 1000 private member's bills pass. If the government side were truly committed to the idea, they wouldn't count on a backbencher to introduce his own legislation.
McGuinty has already said he doesn't support the bill.
The other big problem with this is that it almost certainly would have trouble passing muster under NAFTA; you can't discriminate against non-domestic products. Under NAFTA, once you open up a market to one company, anyone can have access. At the very least, a U.S. brewer would be able to sue for access. And sad to say, it wouldn't be Stone, or DFH. It'd be someone like Miller.
Miller suing for access wouldn't be such a bad thing if it meant that other smaller players who wanted to could do the same. Look at the recent Quebec - Nova Scotia beer agreement - a deal created because Keith's wanted better access to the Quebec market, and NS was willing to push for it. Propeller certainly wasn't expected to benefit, but is likely going to be heading to the QC market as a result.
[quote="Bobbyok"] 2. access isn't limited so long as they can still sell to Ontarians through the LCBO and/or Beer Store. If NAFTA was an issue then it would have been raised in Quebec long ago because of their depanneur sales.
But Bobby, aren't the depanneur sales open to non-Quebec beers? And frankly, just because it hasn't been raised yet doesn't mean it won't be.
The other point with the Ontario legislation is that this is a new form of distribution outside of LCBO/Beer Store. Anything which is discriminatory isn't kosher under NAFTA.
But Bobby, aren't the depanneur sales open to non-Quebec beers? And frankly, just because it hasn't been raised yet doesn't mean it won't be.
The other point with the Ontario legislation is that this is a new form of distribution outside of LCBO/Beer Store. Anything which is discriminatory isn't kosher under NAFTA.
The wine stores could conceivably be an issue, but there'd be a more difficult time to make a case against them, because they're owned by the producers themselves; basically, they're an extension of the concept which allows a winery/brewery to sell on their own premises. granted, it's stretching that concept a whole lot. I think they were grandfathered into the NAFTA legislation.JerCraigs wrote: Wouldn't the same apply to the wine stores? Similar arguments could apply to arguing that US companies should be allowed to compete for mail delivery or providing health care. NAFTA is not our friend.
Anyway, this is very unlikely to pass.
To my knowledge, yes, they are, but only if the imports are represented by local brewers. For example McAuslan acts as the agent for the Liefman's beers which are sold in Quebec. Does the proposed legislation specify Ontario craft beers, or Ontario beers in general? If it's Ontario beers in general, then the big US brewers (Bud, Coors, Miller) are likely going to have access anyway due to their distribution agreements with Labatt/Molson/Sleeman.tuqueboy wrote:But Bobby, aren't the depanneur sales open to non-Quebec beers? And frankly, just because it hasn't been raised yet doesn't mean it won't be.Bobbyok wrote: 2. access isn't limited so long as they can still sell to Ontarians through the LCBO and/or Beer Store. If NAFTA was an issue then it would have been raised in Quebec long ago because of their depanneur sales.
The other point with the Ontario legislation is that this is a new form of distribution outside of LCBO/Beer Store. Anything which is discriminatory isn't kosher under NAFTA.
Legislation specifies Ontario craft beer, defined (by leg.) as less 250,000 hectalitres annually.Bobbyok wrote: To my knowledge, yes, they are, but only if the imports are represented by local brewers. For example McAuslan acts as the agent for the Liefman's beers which are sold in Quebec. Does the proposed legislation specify Ontario craft beers, or Ontario beers in general? If it's Ontario beers in general, then the big US brewers (Bud, Coors, Miller) are likely going to have access anyway due to their distribution agreements with Labatt/Molson/Sleeman.
Its as much a GATT thing as NAFTA. Before 1989, Quebec stores could only sell Quebec brewed beers, cider and Quebec bottled wine. As a result of these agreements, they now can sell imports as well. In Ontario it was the same deal with Ontario wine stores. Prior to 1989, Ontario wineries had the right to have as many retail locations as they could afford. With the advent of GATT and NAFTA, large American wineries (read Gallo) wanted to have wine stores here too. The LCBO quickly saw their grip on the wine market eroding, so they agrred to stop issuing winery store licenses period. The stores that were open could remain open as they were grandfathered. Anytime you see a new wine store open, it means that that winery has closed another location and tranfered the licence.
The same complications would arise with beer I'm afraid.
The same complications would arise with beer I'm afraid.
"Every day above ground is a good one."
Interesting - if you had one big specialty retailer, it would flourish - unrestrictive sales for good local micros, plus hassle-free importer sales through the store. Based on public WANT.JerCraigs wrote:I stand by my previous broken record that (our having) just one store in downtown Toronto that is allowed to sell whatever they want would be a huge step in the right direction
Nice fantasy, but such a retail model would make the LCBO appear look totally archaic and pointless - surely a concern for Ontario.
The NAFTA is fuly revocable, with 2 years' notice. While America bullies us with rather unfair softwood tariffs, we Canadians cower in the corner like a beaten dog and comply to the Agreement.The North American Free Trade Agreement, for instance, requires products, regardless of where they're produced, to be treated equally.
In Beerum Veritas