End Moratorium on LRS Licenses to Stop Exodus From Rural Areas - Quick, Easy Fix

I don't know why it took so long for people to figure out the negative impact the elimination of the "no more than five kilometre" rule for the buying and relocating of private liquor store (LRS) licenses would have on rural areas in BC.

In Friday's Vancouver Sun, an article appeared with the headline "Liquor licenses being sold in anticipation of new rules" which has caused a bit of a stir in some rural communities and among those who are interested in the BC retail alcohol industry.

This is not really breaking news as this situation has been bubbling and boiling for months now, even before the change to the BC liquor laws concerning relocating LRS licenses was announced last March by Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) General Manager, Douglas Scott.

The old policy (which is still in place until some time next year) states that a LRS license can be sold and relocated, but that the new location can be no more than five kilometres from the old location. This ensured rural areas would not be abandoned and that there would not be an over-concentration of LRS locations in urban areas. The new policy, which is set to come into effect sometime in 2015, states that LRS licenses can be purchased then moved anywhere in BC, as long as they are not moved to within one kilometre of an existing LRS, government liquor store (GLS) or rural agency store (RAS).

My immediate thought at that time of the announcement was that LRS owners in smaller, rural areas, where commercial property is much cheaper than in urban areas, must be ecstatic as the value of their businesses just skyrocketed. In fact, before the announcement was made, I know there were big city types sniffing around in my town of Powell River, attempting to buy existing LRS locations and I do not think they were planning on leaving the big city for the fresh air and ocean views of the Sunshine Coast.

Obviously they were in the know and had been tipped off that this change was coming and they were trying to get in before the LRS prices trended upwards in the hinterlands of BC.

I remember sitting in my local, The Red Lion Pub, one of the LRS locations mentioned in the Sun article, discussing this fact with friends over a beer just after I had heard the planned law changes. It was as plain as day to me that sharp business folks were going to shop about in cheaper rural areas to buy LRS licenses and then move them out of their communities to more lucrative urban markets. The big city purchasers of these licenses do not care that the locals in the small communities are getting screwed and will be highly inconvenienced by the moving of their local LRS.

It was also obvious to me that smart LRS owners were going to increase the price of their businesses, if they were looking at selling, or be tempted to sell as their business was suddenly much more valuable and desirable on the market. LRS licenses are already a much-coveted commodity due to the moratorium on granting new licenses in BC and with the new policy, a LRS in Smalltown, BC was closer in value to those in say Vancouver, due to the fact that there were far less restrictions on relocating them.

This inflated value of all LRS locations and the and exodus of same from rural communities can all be blamed on moratorium on granting new retail liquor licenses. I see the solution to this problem as being quite simple - if a LRS license is sold and relocated more than a kilometre away, allow for another LRS license to be approved for the location where the license was moved from to replace that service for local consumers. The policy could stipulate that the new license could not be tied to anyone who had a financial stake in the license which had been sold and relocated to stop people from just opening up LRS locations and flipping them to those who want to relocate that license. The government could even put a stipulation that the new LRS license could not be relocated for five years...Hell, make it 10 years!

The Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) should have been yelling loudly at the government during their recently held convention but they were too distracted by the more pressing issues of saving rural, coastal communities by trying to right the BC Ferries shipwreck.

I think that allowing LRS licenses to be relocated anywhere in BC is not a bad decision, provided the government allow for the replacement of that service in the community the LRS is moved from.

As I have said in the past, BC liquor policy needs to make sense for all of British Columbians, not just those who live in urban areas.

Small BC communities are already struggling to attract and hang on to viable businesses and this stupid, short-sighted change to liquor policies is going to do just the opposite by encouraging small town business owners to flog their LRS's at falsely-inflated prices, to those who have no plan to keep that business in an area where it is much needed. Once again it is the consumers who are getting shafted by the BC Liberal liquor law reforms - specifically the consumers in rural areas. Like with the increase in the minimum drink price, which has impacted many rural areas negatively by driving the price of beer up, those who are drafting the new policies did not look at the impact this would have on British Columbian alcohol consumers outside urban areas.

Or if they did, the Liberals simply did not care that rural consumers, who already have limited choices, would be further limited and their communities without a successful business which provided  much-needed employment and services.

I cannot blame those who own LRS locations in small towns or those who wish to buy these licenses and move them. They are business people trying to maximize their assets. They are doing nothing shady or illegal. They are doing what is allowed under the law.

Those owners in small communities will have to deal with the fallout of selling what potentially could be the only LRS license in the area which would leave their neighbours and those they bump into on a daily basis without an outlet to buy booze outside of the local BC Liquor Store's restricted hours or the limited selection at the local rural liquor store (RAS) if there is one. But some cold stares and snide comments will be a little easier to take for these business folks due to the fact they probably were paid far more than they ever imagined they would get for their business.

Lift the moratorium and this all goes away. Those wishing to sell can still make a pretty penny for their businesses to be bought and relocated but at least there would be a mechanism in place for consumers in small towns to be somewhat protected.

Justice Minister Brushes Off Beer Consumer's Complaints About Being Cheated

British Columbia's Attorney General and Justice Minister, Suzanne Anton, recently told craft beer consumer
advocates, the Campaign for Real Ale  (CAMRA) of BC, that consumers are on their own, as far as she is concerned, if they feel they are being cheated or mislead about the serving size of their draft beer.

In a response to a letter sent by CAMRA BC to Anton (read here), imploring her to endorse CAMRA BC's Fess Up to Serving Sizes (FUSS) Campaign and to consider making a few more much-needed changes to the Liquor Control & Licensing Branch (LCLB) policies to help protect consumers and promote public health and safety, Anton wrote, via e-mail,

 "If a customer is not pleased with the service in an establishment, they have the choice of raising the issue with the licensee or taking their business to other bars or restaurants"

As a BC consumer, it does not make me feel very confident when the province's Justice Minister appears to be condoning or ignoring business practices that see consumers being defrauded and purposely mislead and misinformed about what they are purchasing.

In their letter, CAMRA BC also suggested having a policy requiring certified marked glassware, with "fill to here" (plimsol) lines indicating the volume, and having the alcohol content of beer (ABV) added to the legally-required serving size list. CAMRA BC believes that by making these two changes to BC liquor policy, along with the enforcement of the serving size list requirement, consumers and servers will better know exactly how much alcohol is being served and consumed which will help them better monitor over-serving and over-consumption, important in BC with the popularity of higher alcohol craft beers, strict Serving it Right rules for alcohol and tough drinking and driving laws.

Anton's response, which you can read in full here, was, at best, a brush off and seems to indicate that the Justice Minister and/or her staff:

• did not read the letter
• read the letter and did not understand what CAMRA BC was getting at 
• read the letter and simply did not care that BC draft beer drinkers are being lied to, short-poured and defrauded when it comes to draft beer serving sizes in this province.
• have no real interest in truly striking a balance between consumer wants/needs and public health and safety

Even though the focus of the letter was on getting enforcement concerning serving-size-price lists, Anton did nothing more than point out what CAMRA BC already knew, that this legal requirement for a list exists, and stated, "beyond that, government's focus is not on the array of serving sizes found within the province."

It seems to me that the Justice Minister is saying, "yes, we have that law, but no, we are not going to enforce it. We trust you, licensees of BC." 

To borrow an analogy from CAMRA Vancouver president, Adam Chatburn, isn't that like posting a speed limit then nailing a sign below the posted speed saying, "but don't worry, we aren't enforcing this. We trust you to comply with the speed limit"? 

Justice Minister Anton says
no to gov't required plimsol
lines for draft beer glasses

In addition, Anton advised CAMRA BC the BC Liberals would not consider requiring the use of certified, marked glassware, stating, 

"Government's resources and focus lay heavily on public safety issues, such as over-crowding, minors accessing alcohol, public disturbance, illegal activities, and so forth.  It would be a burden for provincial liquor inspectors and police to measure glassware in addition to their other duties."

Would liquor inspectors and police not have more time on their hands to deal with public safety issues, like such as over-crowding, minors accessing alcohol, public disturbance, etc, because they would NOT be burdened with measuring volumes in glassware because those that certified the glassware and placed the plimsol (fill-to-here) lines had already done that!

With the minimum price of a glass of beer tied directly to volume, $0.25/oz or 28ml due to new BC minimum drink price legislation, would the government not have a vested interest in knowing if licensees are reporting proper serving sizes so that the government gets an accurate amount of alcohol tax?

I don't understand a government that passes a policy tying drink prices to volumes served when they have no interest in the volume of serving sizes in the first place.

I know many licensees who think marked glassware is a great idea and the perfect way to level the playing field between unscrupulous licensees and those who want to serve it right and be honest.

Although there is a cost attached to replacing glassware, if brought into effect over a period of time so glasses could be replaced through normal wear & tear & attrition, the cost would be less burdensome to licensees. And although there is a shortage of suppliers at the moment providing glassware with plimsol lines, I am sure some clever business  person would quickly fill the void if they new that using such glasses was going to be a legal requirement for all licensed establishments.

For those not familiar with CAMRA BC's FUSS Campaign, the consumer advocates have been pushing the LCLB, which Anton is currently responsible for, to enforce their policy that all liquor licensees, in the Justice Minister's own words, "must have a list available showing drinks, drink sizes and prices," in order to give consumers the information necessary to make informed decisions and to help eliminate the misrepresentation of draft beer serving sizes.

The campaign was started in 2011 by the CAMRA BC Vancouver branch who were being inundated with complaints from consumers (some members, some not) that there was wide-spread misrepresentation of draft beer serving sizes - being told they were ordering a certain volume of beer and being served much less - and that the serving size list requirement was basically being ignored so consumers had no idea what volume of beer they were ordering before it actually arrived at the table.

The government talks about striking a balance between consumers needs and public health and safety yet they continue to ignore and brush aside complaints about dubious practices by some licensees which impact public health and safety negatively and violate consumers' rights. This call to enforce the existing law and make these changes would benefit everyone...except the dishonest licensees whose practices are now forcing industry-wide fraud as everyone must complete in the marketplace and being honest puts a licensee at risk of looking bad and losing customers.

BC beer consumers should be outraged that the BC Liberal Government, via their Justice Minister-Attorney, are completely ignoring this issue. Not all consumers care, but there are a great many who do. Not all licensees are unscrupulous, but those who aren't are feeling pressure to use questionable methods of making their draft beer pricing more attractive to consumers.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the LCLB and the Provincial Government do not take this problem seriously.

Maybe if if 1/2-litre carafes of wine started arriving with 350ml in them or 1.5 oz servings of scotch were arriving in one-ounce measures we might see some action...

Consumers Rejoice as Getting Good Head in Your Local Pub Should Be Free of Charge!!

Every  craft beer lover worth their weight in hops knows the head on a beer is an important part of the experience and a must for any good draft craft pour.

And even though the more discerning consumers demand their beer arrive with that essential froth and foam on top of the beer, many of them probably do not know that they do not have to pay for the privilege of having well-poured beer.

That's right - by law, the head/foam/froth, whatever you want to call it, that is on top of the liquid inside your beer glass is not considered part of the serving size volume you are paying for despite what many licensees, and consumers for that matter, tell you.

Measurement Canada is a government agency who, in their own words,

"is responsible for ensuring the integrity and accuracy of measurement in the Canadian marketplace. We:

• develop and administer the laws and requirements governing measurement,

• evaluate, approve and certify measuring devices, and

• investigate complaints of suspected inaccurate measurement"

I wrote Measurement Canada after the weekend hubbub (click the link to get CAMRA Vancouver president Adam Chatburn's version of events), what I have dubbed the shit storm in a beer glass, and asked specifically if the head of a beer was considered by law to be apart of the volume of the serving size.

The response from Measurement Canada was very clear; the foam at the top is not included.

I had also written them about clarification on serving sizes, acceptable  margins for error and what to do if you had a complaint.

Here is their response:

"Vendors are required by the Weights and Measures Act to deliver, within the applicable limits of error, the quantity of product they are claiming to sell.  This includes individual servings of beer sold in restaurants, pubs, bars, etc.

In Canada, a pint contains 20 ounces (568ml); therefore, a vendor selling a pint of beer must deliver 20 fluid ounces of beer. The limit of error for 20 fluid ounces is 0.5 fluid ounces.  So, if a vendor is claiming to sell a pint of beer, then 20 fluid ounces of beer should be delivered to the customer with a minimum of 19.5 fluid ounces of beer in the glass.

When a vendor is not advertising a pint and is claiming a lesser amount, e.g. 14 fluid ounces then 14 fluid ounces is the quantity that must be delivered."

That limit of error, if my math is right, is 2.5% of the serving size volume. Again, not much room for misinterpretation, especially when combined with the "no foam"  response. 


I only found out about Measurement Canada recently when a consumer - an admitted non-CAMRA member and one who tends towards non-craft beers but who has been following #FUSS closely - contacted me regarding a complaint about the Terminal Pub in New Westminster where he was convinced the pint advertised on the menu was actually being served in a 16-oz sleeve. He asked me where he could complain and I directed him towards the LCLB and his MLA, who he contacted. Both his MLA and the LCLB directed him to Measurement Canada who took his complaint, investigated and got back to him with the news that the Terminal was switching to the proper glassware to provide a pint as they were advertising.

I haven't heard back yet if the change has happened, but the point of the matter is, Measurement Canada received to complaint and acted.

To further clarify things, according to the Weights and Measures Act, both millilitres and ounces as long as those ounces are Canadian units which are based on the Imperial System, not the US measurements for ounces. 

So no, licensees cannot advertise a "pint" and serve you 16oz stating "that is an American pint". A pint in Canada is 568ml or 20 Canadian ounces end of story.

So there you have it folks - seems pretty clear-cut as far as the law goes. 

Now take that info and do what ever you want to do with it. Licensees do have the choice to ignore the above posted information from Measurement Canada and/or ignore the legal provincial requirement to have a serving-size-price list but if they do, they do run the risk of being complained about and/or exposed by consumers feeling they are not getting all that they paid for. I know this information will not be popular with a lot of licensees but they have had a good run, the field has been tilted in their favour for a long time and there should be no more excuses about "industry standards" or misunderstandings about what is considered a serving size and what needs to be delivered, "within the applicable limits of error"  to the consumer. 

Consumers can also choose to ignore short pours if they are comfortable with paying for beer that is not in their glass. Up to them. No skin off my nose. It is their choice to do what they want with their money.

But those who do care do seem to be within their legal right to politely bring up the issue to the licensee or their representative and if a reasonable solution is not agreed upon, take that complaint to the next level which is Measurement Canada for short pours and the LCLB for no serving size list. 

For those consumers who do choose to stand up for their consumer rights, see the info about where to lodge your complaints below.

For Measurement Canada they wrote me, If you believe you received an inaccurate measurement, you can find information on how to file a complaint with Measurement Canada on our website.  In this case, the section “Other” applies.  Alternatively, you can call Measurement Canada’s Western Region Office at 1-855-666-3834 or email Peter.Wakeland@ic.gc.ca.

For the LCLB for complaints about no serving size list click the link here.

  

Storm Back to Full Force After LCLB's Quick Action

Luckily this sign was only in place for about 48 hours as LCLB
worked quickly to do the right thing

Storm Brewing's owner, James Walton, breathed a sigh of relief this afternoon after he was given the go ahead from the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) to carry on with business as usual after receiving his on-site retail endorsement and passing the LCLB on-site inspection.

This brings to an end a mercifully short and very unpleasant chapter in Storm's history after Walton was contacted Monday by a LCLB liquor inspector and advised his sales of kegs and growlers to the public, which make up 50% of his business, were in contravention of his license therefore he had to cease these sales immediately or he would be completely shut down (read here for background detail).

The tone of the cease and desist command and the often slow response times of the LCLB scared Walton and had him believing his business of 19 years was in jeopardy.

The root of the problem was a memo Walton received in 2008 (see end of post) notifying him  the LCLB had taken over the responsibility for direct sales and on-site retail for breweries from the Liquor Distribution Branch (LDB) and that licensing requirements were changing.

"I should have read the memo (more closely) a long time ago," admits Walton who has never dodged the fact he is ultimately responsible for the mess he found himself in this week. "I just assumed that the liquor board (LCLB) would just carry on with what was in place."

"The heavy handedness (of how he was treated by liquor inspectors and LCLB initially) made me pissed off," says Walton who believes, like myself and many others, that this could have, and should have, been handled differently, without the unnecessary threats to his livelihood as it was an honest mistake and he was doing all he could to comply once he found out he was in contravention of his manufacturer's license.

This is a prime example as to why our BC liquor policies and the way the LCLB and LDB operate need to be reviewed and overhauled. It is obvious from this example, and trust me, there are many more, that the LCLB do not communicate very well with the LDB and where one says, go ahead and sell and make the province money, the other says stop selling, that is illegal.

It is also an example of how liquor inspectors have far too much power and can make decisions, acting as the enforcement, judge and jury with little accountability as licensees are terrified of being targeted. These decisions often have huge, far reaching impacts on people who have not necessarily been trying to contravene LCLB policies.

Walton had no idea he had been selling illegally, believing that because he had been selling kegs to the public since opening in 1994, without issue from the either the LDB or the LCLB, and had recently been giving a sku by the LDB allowing him to fill growlers and sell them directly from the brewery to the public, that he was doing everything by the book.

I want to take the high road and say that the liquor inspectors involved and the LCLB expedited the process and fixed things for Walton in less than 48 hours because it was the right thing to do but rarely have I seen the LCLB respond so quickly or have I had politicians respond to social media the way they did in this case, which leads the cynic in me to think they realized this was a public relations nightmare.

The social media storm, public pressure and the attention from some major media outlets that occurred after the story got out certainly got the attention some high-ranking politicians and, no doubt, the LCLB brass who do not want this type of controversy during the current province-wide liquor policy review which has current LCLB policies and methods of operation under a microscope, along with everything else associated with alcohol policy in BC.

Yesterday, John Yap, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Justice Minister Suzanne Anton, reached out to me on Twitter to tweet, "I (Yap) understand that LCLB is expediting the process & expects the manufacturer will have the proper endorsement within 3 days," in response to my blog post and the social media support for Storm. Yap, is in charge of the liquor policy review and reports directly to Anton, who is ultimately in charge of both the LDB and LCLB.

Walton, despite his feelings that his treatment was heavy-handed, believes the LCLB acted in good faith but does acknowledge the public support played a role in holding the LCLB accountable for how they handled things.

"(The liquor inspector) said he would expedite the application and he did," states Walton. "The pressure from the public on social media was likely a factor but I've always had a good relationship with LCLB in Victoria. The guy that sent my receipt for the payment was downright friendly."

Before putting this to rest, I just want to clear up a few things.

Firstly, Walton did not approach me or ask me to write the original post. I was notified by someone in Powell River, where I live, who thought I might know what was going on because I have Walton for 15 years. My experience is that Walton is one not to seek the media spotlight. He is also one who owns his mistakes openly, as he has here. But this is a story with two sides and it is important that we, the public, hold politicians, and the bureaucrats who work under them accountable for their actions.

I will also say that the only voices of decent I had were from a people in the craft beer industry. Some thought I was making a mountain out of a mole hill and told me so. I was told "same law for all" by more than one person and my response is, yes, this is true, but when the interpretation and enforcement of those laws are arbitrary and inconsistent, as they often are with the LCLB, no one is safe, no matter how hard they are trying to comply with policy and regulations.

I'll be sure not to come on too strong with my support, r my efforts to mobilize support, for those who feel I was making a big deal about nothing when the liquor inspector knocks on their door and tells them black is white and up is down, jeopardizing their businesses and means of making a living.

On that note, on to more important things like cracking this growler of Brassneck white IPA that made its way up tot he Upper Sunshine Coast last weekend.

Memo from 2008

Gov't Seems to Have Gotten It Mostly Right With Tied House Changes

On Feb 08, Rich Coleman, the cabinet minister responsible for the province's alcohol portfolio, sent out a news release announcing several significant changes to the BC's liquor laws, including the relaxation of the tied house laws.

The tied house law reforms had been highly anticipated by some, who were hamstrung by the restrictions, and feared by others who were worried that complete deregulation would give deep-pocketed breweries the green light to buy licensees and cut out the smaller, craft brewery competition. 

But for once, it looks like the government got it right, stating in their news release, "(t)his change provides small and medium winery, distillery or brewery owners that also own an off-site restaurant or pub the freedom to serve their products in their establishments, which they were previously not allowed to do." The communique went on to explain manufacturers would only be allowed a maximum of three tied-house agreements and that these tied houses would be, "required to carry a variety of products from different suppliers to avoid particular products being favoured," thereby limiting any large manufacturers attempts to squeeze out the competition.  I know some do not think the legislation changes went far enough, as some manufacturers have more than three tied houses and would like to sell their products in all their off-site locations, but most seem satisfied.

Changes were supposed to take effect March 1st, but before you go rushing down to St Augustine's in hopes of enjoying a sleeve of Parallel 49's Vow of Silence or Lord of the Hops, be advised that there is an application process which, according to a communication from the Liquor Control & Licensing Branch (LCLB), will take 6-8 weeks to process. March 1st was the first day the LCLB werre taking applications so we are still a few weeks off.

LCLB Policy Directive, 13-03 explains all the details of the tied house changes, including the only negative I can see to the legislation that classifies medium-sized breweries as being those whose annual production up to 300,000 HL, which is a whole lot of beer and allows for breweries like Pacific Western Brewing to take advantage of the changes. The restriction of only three tied houses and the need for beers from competition basically stops in its tracks any attempts at BC beer domination by the bigger breweries.

The LCLB have stated there are no hidden criteria and what you see with the policy directive is what you get. The application process was a bit of a surprise for some, but not surprising as the LCLB is a bureaucracy and bureaucracies need paperwork and application fees to live. 

And obviously it is a great way to ensure that no one brewery tried to sneak past the three tied-house limit via subsidiaries or other nefariousness means and that they are indeed offering up the a variety of beers including those of some of their competition. 

I do know Parallel 49 has already applied so lets hope we can be enjoying their beers at St Augustine's by mid April. I, for one, want to be there to drink from the first tapped keg/cask for the historic moment in BC liquor history.

Open Letter to CAMRA Vancouver Membership

Last Friday, when I read the media release from Rich Coleman's office announcing changes to BC liquor laws, I felt proud to know that CAMRA Vancouver had a hand in bringing those changes about.

CAMRA members, you may not realize it, but we, as a consumer advocacy group, did play a role in educating politicians about the issues and did put pressure on the government to make these changes regarding both tied houses and the on-site tasting room-lounge consumption areas. These changes specifically benefit craft beer consumers and they were issues that were particularly targeted by your executive over the past few years. We may not have been the major players that helped prompt these changes, but I, as a past president can tell you we were definitely in the mix.

Although every member may not have played a direct role, or even known what was going on with the executive in regards to advocacy, they did play an indirect role in that CAMRA Vancouver was able to state to both government and bureaucratic officials in various communications that we were representing a group of concerned consumers that numbered close to 800 members. As such a large group, and one that continues to grow and expand, those in positions that can make decisions to effect change have to pay more attention.  Your support and membership in CAMRA Vancouver gives those advocating on behalf of your consumer rights more strength, legitimacy and power.

Our voice in regards to tied houses was heard loud and clear, starting with then President Martin Williams's letter to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch in Feb/11 voicing CAMRA's concerns about completely deregulating tied house and trade practice laws.

Myself and former CAMRA Vancouver VP, Dieter Friesen, took CAMRA's concerns forward again about a year later to then alcohol critic, NDP MLA Shane Simpson. That meeting led to CAMRA Vancouver arranging for Shane to tour three breweries in his riding to meet with brewery representatives and talk about their concerns and what changes would benefit their businesses. One of the topics that was discussed was tied house rules and how having some sort of controlled-limited tied house opportunities for some small breweries would be beneficial for businesses and consumers alike.

This original meeting and tour led to Mr Simpson raising the subject of tied house restrictions in the BC Legislature bringing the issue to the attention of Rich Coleman, minister responsible for LCLB/LDB. CAMRA Vancouver then arranged a second meeting with Mr Simpson and players in the local craft beer industry to again discuss pushing for some modifications to the tied house laws. The tasting lounge, on-site consumption issues was also discussed at this meeting. Mr Simpson once again wrote a letter to the LCLB querying as to what was being done in regards to tied houses and pushing for limited allowances for tied houses to exist.

CAMRA Vancouver has also been liaising with other advocacy groups such as Modernize Wine and The Campaign for Culture and these meetings were very informative as all three groups were able to share information and coordinate on issues where we have common concerns such as tied house deregulation. We were looking at moving forward together to some degree, but that need, in regards to tied houses was nullified by last Friday's announcement.

In regards to the on-site consumption and lounge laws, CAMRA Vancouver did play an active role in contacting many craft breweries to help them coordinate and encourage them to write the LCLB when the call went out for consultation last June. This coordination helped prompt a huge response from the industry which led to the government making the changes to bring breweries and distilleries in line with wineries in regards to on-site consumption opportunities. Pushing to get the craft beer consumer and the craft beer industry the same rights and freedoms that the wine consumer and industry enjoy has been something CAMRA Vancouver has been hammering away at in communications with the LCLB and the Liberal Government. This one change to the law gives me hope that if CAMRA Vancouver, CAMRA BC and the CAMRA membership keep advocating for the same rights, freedoms and privileges that wine consumers enjoy, one day corkage for beer and inter-provincial importation of Canadian craft beer, with no provincial markup on cost, will be allowed as it is for wine consumers.

CAMRA BC and CAMRA Vancouver were also among the throngs protesting about the proposed privatization of the LDB warehouses. Letters were sent to many Liberal politicians and to the LCLB voicing our concerns about how the move may negatively impact consumers. I was asked to appear twice on CKNW radio to represent CAMRA and talk about these concerns as well, raising awareness as to how this move may be bad for consumers. As you all know, the government eventually trashed the idea to privatize and backed away. The huge outcry and protest from various groups, including CAMRA, the only group speaking on behalf of the craft beer consumer, played a major role in the privatization idea being abandoned.

Be proud CAMRA members, we have accomplished a lot the past few years. I have no illusions that we have been solely responsible for any of these positives changes as there have been many different groups lobbying the government both publicly and behind closed doors, but I do believe 100% our group has contributed to the push towards reforming our outdated liquor laws. Continued CAMRA growth will bolster numbers and provide CAMRA Vancouver and CAMRA BC with more money to educate and advocate and continued-increased support of our executive will help CAMRA Vancouver be more successful in their quest to protect the rights of craft beer consumers.

Because at its core, that is what CAMRA is all about: educating about craft beer and advocating on behalf of craft beer consumers. We are more than just a beer drinking club and whether you realize it or not, by supporting CAMRA Vancouver, you are making a difference and are apart of the solution.

Just think about what a difference we can make as an organization if we as members all commit to being more engaged, to answering our executives call to support campaigns, participate in social media blitzes and get more involved. It only takes minutes to make your voice heard and the more voices heard by the government, the more they are likely to listen.

VEBBie Awards - VanEast Beer Blog 2012 Year in Review

The fog brought on by too many barley wines over the holidays has finally lifted and the synapses are once again firing so now is as good a time as any to look back at 2012 and hand out the first ever VEBBie Awards. The award winners have been selected by the VEBB Awards Committee, a committee made up of, well, me and like 99% of all awards given out, mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things beer-related or otherwise.

The David Slays Goliath Award

The story of independent business owner Corinne Lea's battle with the LCLB in regards to the Rio Theatre and their liquor primary license set the tone for 2012. Lea applied for and was granted a liquor primary license for the Rio Theatre so they could serve alcohol at over-19, nighttime events and then was told by the LCLB she could not show movies, any time of the day or night, whether the alcohol was locked up or not, because of a decades-old, Prohibition-era law that prohibited liquor licenses in movie theatres. The ensuing public uproar at the ridiculous decision by the LCLB caused a huge backlash that saw support coming from NDP MLA Jenny Kwan, Vancouver City Council, the media, CAMRA Vancouver and thousands of angry citizens and eventually led to the provincial alcohol portfolio being passed from Shirley Bond to Rich Coleman who, after dragging his feet and screwing around with half-measure solutions, did the right thing and allowed for alcohol licenses in movie theatres but not before making Lea suffer due to having her business basically closed down for several weeks.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm Award

This award, hands down goes to the post I wrote entitled "Politics Make Strange Bedfellows" which saw VEBB break the story that the Ontario-only-based chain of liquor outlets called the Beer Store, owned by Molson (49%), Labatt (49%) & Sleeman (2%) had donated over $150,000 to the BC Liberals since 2005. I found it quite strange as to why an Ontario-only chain of beer stores would have such an interest in the BC Liberal Party but when you look at who owns The Beer Store and the fact that the big, national breweries are loosing ground quickly to the smaller, craft breweries.....hmmmm

Jackass of the Year Award

There was a lot of competition for this award but for me, in the end, there was one person who stood head and shoulders above the rest, that being restaurateur Chris Stewart, otherwise known as the Wine Snob. I encountered Mr Stewart while out for dinner with my wife and daughter and was amazed at just how arrogant, insulting and well, downright ignorant this man was. To sum things up, he stated to me, knowing full-well I was the president of CAMRA Vancouver, that craft beer drinkers were not worth enticing to his five restaurants because those who drink craft beer only order yam fries and basically had no idea what good food was all about. 

Political Friend of the Year for the Craft Beer Consumer Award

This award goes to NDP MLA Shane Simpson who, when I made contact with as a result of my CAMRA Vancouver President duties, was the official NDP alcohol critic. Mr Simpson was kind enough to take the time to meet with myself and CAMRA Van VP Dieter Friesen and actually listened to what we had to say. During that original meeting, Shane stated he liked what CAMRA was doing and asked us to produce a top-priority list of no more than three or four issues and stated if they made sense, he would take them forward to Rich Coleman, the Liberal minister responsible for the province`s alcohol portfolio.  And true to his word he did, bringing up CAMRA`s FUSS Campaign, the Bring Your Own Craft Beer campaign and the tied house and trade practice issue in the BC Provincial Legislature. Shane also wrote several letters to both Coleman and the LCLB in support of issues brought to him by CAMRA and members of the craft beer industry and also took the time to meet with myself some of the local brewers who have their breweries located in his riding of Vancouver Hastings. 

It was also Shane who, in July, put the Provincial Liberals under severe pressure in regards to their ill-fated warehouse distribution privatization plan by making public 39 pages of documents that showed the Liberals had no plans to privatize the liquor distribution warehouse system until approached by Excel Logistics personnel, who happened to be very interested in taking over BC`s alcohol distribution as they had in Alberta ans who had hired Liberal insiders to lobby for the privatization. 

Political Enemy of the Year for the Craft Beer Consumer

Rich Coleman, that man just does not give a shit about the BC craft beer industry or the BC craft consumer...enough said.

Best Supporter of BC Brewed Craft Beer Award
This past year Tap & Barrel restaurant opened up in the Olympic Village on the south side of False Creek. Besides having a killer patio that will be the envy of every other restaurant in the city next summer, they have a great 24-tap selection of craft beers all from BC breweries! I know that the Alibi Room, St Augustine's and a handful of other establishments have more taps and a better selection, but none are exclusively BC beers. I love the fact that the Tap & Barrel gang are sticking local and letting our great BC beers take centre stage...I wish more places would follow suit.

Whistler Blower Award
Journalist Bob Mackin, without a doubt, was the single biggest reason the province's liquor warehouse distribution system did not get sold to Excel Logistics, a company that had been lobbying and Liberals for years and who had basically, using Liberal insiders, talked the Liberals into thinking it was in the government's and public's best interests to privatize. Despite the fact almost everyone but Excel and the Liberals were against the move, Coleman and the Liberals plowed forward but with his series of posts hash tagged #Liquorleaks, Mackin led the charge of protest, went at the Liberals relentlessly with some stellar investigative journalism and exposed what NDP MLA Shane Simpson called a "tainted process".

Biggest About Face Award
Due to the above mentioned Bob Mackin, Shane Simpson along with many other journalists and special interest groups, the Liberals quietly announced they were dropping privatization plans for their liquor warehouse system while announcing having reached a tentative agreement with BCGEU in regards to a new contract.This announcement, hidden in the tentative agreement with the unionized government workers came out of the blue, just like the announcement to privatize did some seven months earlier. No real explanation was ever given as to why the plan, which had been heavily defended despite huge criticism from almost everyone, was dropped like a hot potato.

Biggest Shitstorm in the Local Craft Beer Community Award
Probably the worst kept secret in the BC craft beer community was exposed by blogger Barley Mowat in his post "The Grinch Who Stole Cascadia" when he wrote about how Steamworks owner Eli Gershkovitch was attempting to stop other craft breweries from using the descriptor Cascadian Dark Ale as he had trademarked the word Cascadia some years back. This blog post caused a shitstorm the likes that have never been seen before in the local craft beer community and resulted in a ton of negative, on-line bashing of Eli, Steamworks and the evils of corporate greed. For me, the actions of Eli and his "Steam Team" were a sign of how the local craft beer community is changing as the stakes get higher and the competition grows.


Well there you have it folks, the VEBBie Awards. It has been quite a year and there has been so much to write about. I only touched the surface of what is going on in the BC craft beer scene and now that I no longer have the responsibilities of being CAMRA Vancouver President, I hope to dedicate more time to this blog and writing. The readership of the blog has really grown and the more I write, the more I get people contacting me with great story ideas and inside tips about what is going on. Keep the flow of information coming and I will do my best to do what I do, which is offer up my rantings, ramblings, ideas and opinions in relation to the politics of the BC craft beer scene.

LCLB Protecting You From Gang Violence While Your Are Being Robbed by Licensees

Next time you are sitting in a bar or restaurant quietly enjoying your 12-ounce "pint", be sure to say a quiet thank you to the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch for allowing you to sip your short-poured brew without fear of being caught in the cross-fire of some violent gang shoot-up.

Yes, apparently LCLB General Manager, Karen Ayers and her crack-force of inspectors are, "focusing on keeping gangs, gang related activities and violence out of licensed establishments" as one of their priorities and therefore they have no time to stop you from being robbed blind by some licensees who see fit to serve you about 60% of what they are promising you as a serving size, this according to an email she sent me October 10, 2012.

Whew, that is relief! Here I thought only fully trained and appropriately armed police officers were protecting us from the bad guys. Now I can again safely venture out and have a beer of unknown quantity knowing liquor inspectors, armed with business cards and a LCLB Licensing Policy Manual, are keeping me safe in this province's local watering holes.

I had emailed Ayers, on behalf of CAMRA Vancouver, asking her, yet again, to direct LCLB liquor inspectors to enforce the law requiring licensees to provide serving size lists for alcoholic beverages in order to protect BC beer consumers who are routinely mislead and often lied to about the volume of beer they are being served. CAMRA Vancouver has been pressing this serving size issue since launching their "Fess Up to Serving Sizes" (FUSS) Campaign a year ago but have been consistently told by Ayers and Rich Coleman, the Liberal Minister responsible for the liquor portfolio, that protecting consumers from being cheated deceived and over-charged is not something they feel they need to address.

Ayers and Coleman have consistently stated that the LCLB has had four key public safety priorities: over-serving, serving to minors, over-crowding and the sale of illegal alcohol. Now you can add keeping gangs, gang activity and violence out of licensed establishments to that list. As a result of focusing on these priorities they have advised me, because of limited resources, they cannot address less important issues, such as protecting alcohol consumers' rights even though to do so is apart of their licensing policies. But somehow, in between sending 18-year-old kids who look 25 into bars, restaurants and liquor stores in order to trap licensees into serving minors and focusing on keeping gangs out of licensed establishments, the LCLB has had time to ensure public safety is maintained by tackling such important issues such as prohibiting a restaurant from allowing patrons to enjoy a burger and a beer while playing video games.

The LCLB are so arbitrary in what laws they enforce and liquor inspectors so prone to interpreting the laws to suit their needs, that it is laughable at times. I sat down with one liquor inspector last Spring to talk about holding a cask festival and it was quite obvious that the inspector had no idea about the laws he was supposed to be enforcing. The directives he was giving, to comply with the law, had absolutely nothing to do with the LCLB licensing policies that applied to the situation and myself and others at the meeting had to correct the liquor inspector several times. This same inspector has been known to tell restaurant employees that when their establishment is showing a televised Canuck's game, they are not to cheer when the Canucks score a goal as this may incite patrons to over-consume alcohol in their excitement.

And this is the type of person who is out there preventing gang related activities and violence in licensed establishments? He has time time throw a wet blanket on bartender-server hockey enthusiasts but no time to make sure you are getting what you ordered and paid for.

I understand the LCLB's focus on important issues like over-serving, but even here Ayers confused me with her explanation that, "(i)t is the duty of all licensees and their staff to provide safe and responsible liquor service. They are responsible for ensuring patrons are not over-served during a visit to their establishment, regardless of serving sizes."

Okay, the LCLB cannot deal with such trivial issues such as blatant robbery and deception because they have to concentrate on ensuring licensees are not over-serving, yet licensees are responsible for policing themselves in regards to liquor service and ensuring patrons are not over-served.

Things that make you go hmmmmm....

Ayers did say in her email that, "if someone is upset with serving sizes at their local restaurant or bar they can make a formal complaint to this (LCLB) branch and the area inspector will follow up with that establishment."

With the added responsibility of curbing gang violence, it sounds to me like the liquor inspectors will be too busy to deal with our complaints...maybe this is a job for the Pint Police.

If you want change, get vocal, get involved. If the LCLB gets continuous complaints about licensees who are misrepresenting their serving sizes, or not telling you how much they are serving, the LCLB will be forced to do what they should be doing as a regular part of their duties, that being protecting the alcohol consumers of BC.

Vancouver Licensees Beware the Pint Police

A sleeve is not a pint, or even close to one,
so don't call it one!!!
In Canada, 20oz = pint, nothing more, nothing less

I don't know about you but I am getting fed up with being mislead, whether intentionally or not, by bars and restaurants who advertise pints and serve sleeves.

Twice in the last few weeks I have seen restaurants on Commercial Drive advertising "pint" specials when they were serving sleeves, which are between 20-40% less in volume depending on which version of the hated glassware is being employed.

This pisses me off to no end as it is misleading at best and downright dishonest if the misrepresentation is advertised knowingly.

A few Mondays ago I notice Falconetti's tweeting about an all-day "pint" special. I tweeted back a few times asking if they were in fact serving 20oz pours and was met with silence. Later in the day, I walked past the restaurant, on my way to the park with my kid, and noticed a "pint" special advertised on their sidewalk chalkboard outside the restaurant. Curious, I stuck my head it the door and there was not a pint glass to be seen. Just to be sure, I called to enquire, and was told "pints" were apart of the Monday special and when I asked if it was actually a 20oz pour or a sleeve, the response was, "technically, I guess you are right, we serve 16oz sleeves."

Technically, really?

I wonder if I offered them $3.60, which is 20% of the $4.50 they were advertising their "pints" of lager for on Twitter, if I would have been told I was technically right as well?

I don't think that would have been acceptable to them as it should not be acceptable for consumers to be mislead. I would have been very pissed off if I had seen their tweet, traveled specifically to Falconetti's for this great pint deal only to receive a sleeve.

Eventually, after yet another tweet, where I pointed out that their tweet and sidewalk chalkboard board were inaccurate, whoever is in charge of Falc's Twitter account corrected their mistake and tweeted to clarified that they did, in fact, serve sleeves.

A few days later, while walking down Commercial, I noticed Timbre advertising "all draft pints $4" on their sidewalk chalkboard out front of their establishment.

'Wow, what a great deal," I said to my wife, better check this out." I stuck my head and was not too surprised to see that this too-good-to-be-true offer was in fact too good to be true.

Later, when I got home, I queried on Timbre's Facebook page if they did serve pints and immediately they answered back that they did serve sleeves. When I mentioned the chalkboard advertising, they responded it must have been an "oops" and that they would correct the problem.

I don't know if these mistakes, which are not isolated to Commercial Drive or these two places, are a result of some generational information gap for those raised on the metric system, failure to pay attention to detail or intentional misrepresentations. The Imperial System is as foreign to some as hops are to Alexander Keith's IPA, but that should be no excuse for attracting patrons into their establishments with what is basically false advertising, whether intentional or not.

I come from an age when a pint was a pint, sleeves did not exist and millilitres and litres were weird European concepts, but the majority of today's generation of servers and bartenders are from a different era, the era of the metric system and the non-standardized sleeve glass. But they need to learn that "pint" is not just a generic term for a serving of draft beer, no matter the size. The term pint has the official and legal volume in Canada of 20oz (1 gallon is 160oz, pint is 1/8 gallon), as per the Federal Weights and Measures Act, or in today's money, 568ml.

The term sleeve has no legal or standard volume attached to it in Canada and is a term invented by the pub and restaurant industry to decrease serving sizes and increase profits.

I am not stating that either Falconetti's or Timbre were intentionally misrepresenting their serving sizes because frankly I don't know, and I commend them both for publicly admitting and fixing their mistakes, but obviously someone at both locations did not know that a pint is an actual measure, at least I hope that was the case. I am quite sure these same folks would not advertise a dozen chicken wings knowing full-well that a dozen is defined by the number 12 and knowing that their serving sizes were much less than 12 wings.

So why is it okay to do this with beer?

CAMRA Vancouver, with the Fess Up to Serving Sizes Campaign (FUSS), have tried to address the misrepresentation of serving sizes here in Vancouver and even had the cause brought forth in the BC Legislature by NDP MLA Shane Simpson, but the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch have done little to ensure licensees do not mislead consumers and Rich Coleman, the Cabinet Minister responsible for alcohol, basically stated it did not matter.

But it matters to this consumer and as a result of being fed up with this problem, I am going to start waging a one-man war against this misrepresentation of draft beer serving sizes. It is us, the consumers, that must put pressure on licensees to change if we want to see change. I know others out there are frustrated and even angry about this issue. I, for one, intend to start trying to apply some pressure.

Stay tuned for future posts related to the Pint Police... 

LDB Privatization - A Guide to Some Great Reporting

Since February, when Liberal  Finance Minister Kevin Falcon dropped the bomb that the Provincial Government were going to sell off the province's two liquor distribution centres, and with them, the province's warehouse distribution system, it seems everyone associated with the local liquor industry has been voicing concerns about how this is going to negatively impact the BC liquor landscape.

The Alliance of Beverage Licensees of BC, who represent more than 1,000 pubs, bars and private liquors stores has come out against the privatization. The BC Government Employees Union has come out against the privatization. The NDP have come out against the privatization, with NDP alcohol critic Shane Simpson stating in the BC Legislature "the whole process is tainted". CAMRA BC, on behalf of craft beer consumers, is about to officially come out agianst the privatization. Heck, even the mostly inert Craft Brewer's Guild of BC have gotten in on the action and gone public with their displeasure of how this will negatively impact the province's alcohol industry.

This sale is being fast-tracked, with the Request For Proposals (RFP) deadline coming up June 29th. The government hopes to have this whole sale wrapped up and signed by March 2013.

The simple fact is that it looks like the Liberals are ramming through the sale, which most likely is going to result in higher prices for alcohol consumers, without consulting those directly impacted or doing any sort of case study on how this move will be advantageous and impact the BC alcohol industry. 

I wrote a post a while back which highlights connections between Liberal insiders, our country's large national breweries and those vying to be the successful bidder but there are much more competent, and in-the-know-and-connected journalists than myself shedding light on all the cloak-and-dagger, shady, back-room goings-on in regards to this process.

Probably the most comprehensive and in-depth coverage I have found is provided by Bob Mackin, on his 2010 Gold Rush blog, with his series of posts called #LiquorLeaks.. The whole incestuous, sordid, complicated mess is being laid out for all to see and if you have any interest in how this move by the Liberals is shaping up, I would give Mackin's blog a read. He has gained access to many sensitive documents and memos that really highlight how this privatization process may rival the BC Rail scandal and in fact has many of the same players.


 The Province newspaper columnist Michael Smyth has also written quite a bit on the subject and exposed that cabinet minister, and the man ultimately responsible for the LDB, Rich Coleman, cannot 100% guarantee consumer prices would not rise with privatization. Smyth, in another column, also highlights how the Liberals have even stooped to 1950's- McCarthy-style "red baiting" and Communist bashing in attempts to discredit NDP and deflect attention away from the facts.


I know I am not really enlightening anyone with new information here, but I wanted to point those who are interested towards some informative sources and resources. I hope you take the time to read through the material, especially Mackin's posts and take the time to voice your concerns to Rich Coleman and LCLB General Manager Karen Ayers. 

No Consular Privilege for GCBF's 20th Anniversary

The Great Canadian Beer Festival is celebrating their 20th anniversary this year and to mark the occasion the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch have decided that the festival is not eligible for the Consular Privilege Program.

For two decades festival organizers have been using Consular Privilege, which allows alcohol to be imported tax and duty free into Canada by foreign consulates for registered charitable events, but this year they have been told by LCLB General Manager Karen Ayers that beer will have to be sourced through regular channels, namely the Liquor Distribution Branch, meaning the festival will have access to beers listed with the LDB or they can try to access unlisted beers through "special orders" which are never guaranteed to be brought in by the LDB.

"The federal government requires that all proceeds go to a registered charity, and the province requires that you have to be a registered charity to apply," stated a LCLB spokesperson, contacted via email. 


"The Great Canadian Beer Festival is not a registered charity. The Province has concerns the festival does not meet the criteria for a consular liquor event because it is not a registered charity. This concern has been communicated to festival organizers."


So by that rational, as I see it, the GCBF does qualify for Consular Privilege under federal rules, as they do donate proceeds to two registered charities, but do not qualify according to provincial requirements because the applicant has to actually be a registered charity.

Hieter states another reason cited by the LCLB for not granting Consular Privilege is that the alcohol consumed at the GCBF is not done so on consular property. This issue was not specified by the LCLB in their communications with me as being part of the reason for their decision.

The LCLB also pointed out that the GCBF had not applied for Consular Privilege this year, but that seems to be a moot point due to the stance being taken by provincial liquor regulators.

This move by the LCLB cannot be too much of a surprise as last year a warning shot was launched by the LCLB last year when they unexpectedly pulled Consular Privilege less than 24 hours before the 2011 GCBF was set to begin, then reversed the decision just a few hours prior to the gates opening (for full story go here). It was a somewhat bizarre move, considering the timing, but definitely a hint of things to come. If the LCLB had stuck to their guns with their original decision to pull Consular Privilege, the GCBF would not have been allowed to let any of the US beers to be poured and would have had no time to work out an alternative, leaving a massive hole in the festival's line-up.

This year Hieter had reached out to the office of Liberal Cabinet Minister Rich Coleman and the LCLB to try to arrange meetings to ease the tensions and clear up any misunderstandings. They were granted a meeting with Lori Wanamaker, Deputy Minister to Rich Coleman and Karen Ayers. According to Hieter, he felt that meeting was somewhat positive.

When GCBF organizers were granted a second  meeting with Ayers and a few others from the LCLB, Hieter was excited that him and GCBF organizers may finally be getting somewhere with opening a dialogue with the LCLB GM about Consular Privilege and a number of other issues, but those hopes were soon dashed when Hieter and his team realized the meeting was a one-way communication with the LCLB delivering bad news on all fronts.

Hopefully the impact of no Consular Privilege will be negligible as there has been sufficient warning given for Hieter and his team to source other beers. It will mean that festival goers will not be able to sample those US beers that do not make it north of the border except for special events like the GCBF, but there still will be an American presence..

"We will be looking more to the east instead of south," said festival organizer Gerry Hieter, during a recent phone interview, meaning that there may be a decidedly more Canadian flavour to the beers poured at this year's event, to be held in Victoria's Royal Athletic Park Sept 7-8. Hieter also believes that the line-up of beers being poured will remain top-shelf. "More and more (beers fro the US & Canada), are getting listed in BC all the time."

For their part, the LCLB report they will work with the GCBF organizers to get the beers they require to host a top-class event.

"The Province recently met with Greater Canadian Beer Festival officials and offered to work with them to bring in casked and/or kegged beer from outside the province (US or other provinces) through the Liquor Distribution Branch," stated the LCLB spokesperson via email.


It seems once again that both sides see things from completely different angles and Consular Privilege is only one of many issues that concern Hieter but I will address some of the others in future posts.


Lets hope there are no other surprises in store for the GCBF from LCLB officials and inspectors so that we can celebrate Canada's longest-running beer festival's 20th birthday in style.

Tied House Laws Revisited - Middle Ground May Be the Way to Go

With the recent opening of East Vancouver's Parallel 49 Brewery, the dilemma of whether or not to relax the tied house and trade practice laws has once again become a topic of discussion in Vancouver and BC craft beer circles.

For those not familiar with what tied houses and trade practices are, "a tied house is an establishment that has an association, financial or otherwise, with a liquor manufacturer or its agent that is likely to lead to its products being favoured," according to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch's Tied Houses and Trade Practices Consultation Paper, released January 2011. If a tied house situation exists, the manufacturer is not allowed to sell its alcohol through the tied house.


Trade practices laws regulate "commercial interactions between liquor suppliers and licensed establishments including restrictions on promoting specific manufacturers and their products in exchange for benefits provided by the supplier" (LCLB Consultation Paper, p.2).These trade practice restrictions are meant to stop producers of alcohol from basically bribing licensed establishments by offering freebies to them in exchange for exclusive or preferred sales deals.  

Vancouver's newest craft brewery

Because of these laws and the fact that Parallel 49 Brewery and St Augustine's Craft Brew House and Kitchen have some common owners, St Augustine's is considered a tied house and are not only prohibited from pouring Parallel 49 beers from any of its 40 taps or sell any of the brewery's bottled products, but are also prohibited from placing so much as single Parallel 49 coaster, poster, beer umbrella or any other Parallel 49 promotional swag in the restaurant. This is not an isolated problem as there are other tied houses here in BC where small breweries and wineries are being hurt by the laws that are meant to protect them.


"Quite simply I can't do any sort of cross-promotion, cross-branding, cross-anything with my 2 businesses," states Parallel 49-St Augustine's co-owner Anthony Frustagli.  

Vancouver's newest tied house

"I don't know of any other industry this applies to.  If you own a farm and grocery store, can you not sell your veggies in your store?  If you own coffee roaster and a cafe, should you not be able to sell coffee made from your beans?"

Frustagli makes some good points, but then the alcohol industry, especially in BC, is like no other industry out there in regards to unique regulations, restrictions and government control.


The existing tied house-trade practice laws date back to the 1950's and were put into place to stop the larger, national breweries from using their deep pockets to buy up pubs or bribe them in order to feature and favour their beers. The laws were meant to protect the smaller, local breweries by allowing them compete on a level playing field, but as the craft beer industry grows here in BC and more and more entrepreneurs, with varied business interests get involved, these laws, in some cases, are actually harming those smaller businesses they are meant to protect.

When asked if he felt the tied house and trade practice laws were protecting his newly-opened, craft brewery, Frustagli was not really in support of maintaining the status quo.

"Does it (tied house-trade practice laws) protect P49 (Parallel 49),  debatable," stated Frustali. "Giving the big boys the green light to open up their cheque books is a bit of a scary thought, but at the same time the rule isn't exactly being enforced right now anyway.

"I'd like to see a reasonable middle ground.  Perhaps capping a percentage of taps/bottles in your bar/restaurant/LRS that can come from your brewery/winery/distillery, and something ensuring that they are marketed competitively with other products."

This seems to me like a reasonable middle ground, allowing the alcohol manufacturer to offer their products in licensed establishments linked to them, but prohibiting them from favouring their products by mandating them to offer competitors' products at a competitive prices. This would restrict the bigger breweries from squeezing out competition by monopolizing all the taps and cooler/shelf space and still allow the smaller breweries to offer their products in these tied houses.

In my original post dealing with this issue, I came out as against loosening up the laws due to a fear that the big breweries would open up their wallets and try to stifle the competition, namely the craft beer industry, which is slowly eating into their market share here in BC. But in the past year the craft beer market, at least here in Vancouver, has changed so much, with craft beer getting support from a variety of new establishments, including unlikely sources like The Donnelly Group, The Cambie Malone's Group and Earls. I believe the smaller local breweries will have no problems finding licensed establishments that are willing to ignore the big breweries. There are just too many places committed to serving locally produced, quality craft beers and there are more and more coming on board the craft beer wagon every week. Some are motivating by money, just wanting to cash in on the craft beer craze, some are motivated by wanting to serve the best local beers they can source because, quite simply, they are superior products, but either way, more and more taps are becoming available to pour craft beer.

As mentioned above, the BC Liberal Government issued a consultation paper asking for written feedback on three proposed options to loosen up laws and/or deregulate in regards to tied houses and trade practices. Since that time, not a word has been spoken about the tied house rules. At the time when the deadline for the written submissions passed, the whole HST debacle was in full swing and the Liberals were in survival mode so "non-important" issues, like tied houses, were put on the back burner where they have seemingly been forgotten about.

 I recently asked the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch directly as to what happened to the proposed changes and received an email from a LCLB spokesperson saying, "the Province (government) is reviewing possible changes to tied house regulations that specify how liquor manufacturers can promote their products in licensed establishments. Meetings have been held with industry associations to seek their views. Results of the consultations have been mixed and the Province is continuing to review the matter."


In other words, nothing has been done. I don't know who these "industry associations" are, but I certainly have not talked to anyone who has been involved, including a few people I know who are directly impacted by the tied house rules. I spoke to one LCLB Liquor Inspector a few months back and he stated to me the government would "never" relax or change the tied house or trade practice laws, but offered no reasons as to why he believed this or where his information came from.


Let us hope that the government gets it right if they are indeed going to include these issues in the upcoming review and promised changes to the province's liquor regulations. If they choose to not make changes, small breweries like P49, who are motivating by making great beer and not by crushing the competition, will continue to be restricted by the laws that are meant to help them and if they deregulate completely, it may leave the door open for the big, national breweries, owned by gigantic, multi-national corporations, to attempt to throw their financial weight around in order to crush the craft brewing industry. 


I think even if the market is opened up completely, the local breweries are producing enough great beer and have enough loyal support to withstand the onslaught, but why even put them in that position. The government should be supporting this local, viable industry and encouraging it to grow, not stifling it or allowing it to be swallowed up by mega-conglomerate corporations.


And on a more person level, I would love nothing more than be able to walk 200 metres from my front door and enjoy a P49 IPL in my favourite local craft beer establishment, which happens to be St Augustine's.

BYOCB to Restaurants - A Win-Win Idea

Have you ever been seated in your favourite restaurant, noshing on your favourite meal and thought to yourself, "this meal would go perfectly with (insert name of craft beer or wine of your choice here), I wish it was on the menu"?

Yes, I speak of the fabled Bring Your Own Booze (BYOB) to restaurants, which is not just some far-out concept realized in liberal European nations. It is a reality in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba where no longer is there a need to salivate about what could have been, as you can, in participating restaurants, simply turn to your server and order one of the bottles of wine you purchased legally elsewhere, brought with you and handed over to the restaurant personnel upon arrival. It seems only wine has been included in the BYOB category at this point, but why not BYOCB (Bring Your Own Craft Beer), as there is no logical reason why beer could not be included.

Although the laws vary slightly from province to province, the basic idea is that restaurants have the choice to allow patrons to bring in their own bottle(s) of wine, which they turn over to the restaurant upon arrival. They can then order that bottle(s) of wine, as they would any bottle off the menu, and pay a "corkage" fee for their wine to be served to them.

All other facets of the liquor laws remain the same in regards to serving the BYOB wine. Servers must not serve to minors, must not over-serve, cannot serve to intoxicated patrons, the alcohol has to be purchased through legal channels, etc. The advantage to the restaurant is that they do not have to carry a large inventory of wines in an attempt to satisfy a wide range of pallets. Restaurants still make a profit charging the corkage.

The advantages to patrons is that they get to drink the wine they want to drink with their meal and are not restricted to what the restaurant may or may not carry on their menus.They may pay less for that wine as well, depending on the corkage fee charged. From the research I have done, the corkage fees run from nothing, in places like Montreal - yet another reason to love this great city - to up to $50 in Toronto - yet another reason...okay, I'll remain silent. Some restaurants in Ontario were even advertising reduced prices on traditionally slow nights during the week to try to lure in patrons.

With the Liberal Government's current promise to review the province's current liquor laws, it is not out of the realm of possibility that a BYOB law could be passed. In an email communication with VEBB, a Liquor Control and Licensing Branch spokesperson stated that the Liberals, "will consider 'Bring Your Own Wine' as a part of a larger review of liquor policy in the province." When queried specifically if the review was considering beer as well be included in the BYOB review, a "no decision has been made," response was all I received. I think it is imperative that those in the craft beer industry, consumers of craft beer and advocates for the consumers (are you listening CAMRA BC) make some noise and let the government know that it is not acceptable to make these changes without including beer in any BYOB program. I can guarantee you wine advocates are on this issue and making their voices heard, which is why wine was mentioned by the LCLB in their email.


Cafe Kathmandu owner, Abi Sharma, whose small Commercial Drive eatery does not have the room or the operating budget to inventory a large variety of wine or beer, is all for the concept of BYOB. His restaurant, which serves amazing food, is the perfect example of an establishment that would benefit greatly from allowing BYOB.


"It (BYOB) is a mutually beneficial arrangement for both patrons and restaurants so long as the (corkage) fee is reasonably good enough, for sure," stated Sharma. "I am willing to participate."


I can only think of one way to improve upon the experience of eating one of Abi's goat curries, that being able to enjoy the IPA of my choice with it. If BYOB came into effect, that experience could become a reality.


As the government would still be collecting their tax from the sale of the wine and beer originally and the corkage fee, they would not be out any tax dollars and as for the restaurants, if they do not see this as being beneficial for their bottom line, they would not have to participate. But for those who want to offer BYOB, like Cafe Kathmandu, this is a win-win concept that could only further enhance BC's growing reputation as a tourist destination and for cities like Vancouver, which is becoming somewhat of a Mecca for foodies and craft beer lovers, it would be a natural fit.


Let's hope those reviewing our liquor policies are thinking along the same lines. I, for one, cannot wait for the opportunity to take in a few of my favourite IPA's to compliment my already-out-of-this-world goat curry at Cafe Kathmandu.