Stateside Craft Does the Right Thing by Their Customers

At least one Commercial Drive beer joint recently caught short-pouring customers have made a considerable effort to "serve it right" to give their customers what they are paying for and as a result have received  #FUSS Approved status from the Vancouver branch of the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) of BC.

Stateside Craft, located at 1st Avenue and Commercial Drive, have changed their glassware to a larger size in order to ensure they can fully deliver on their promised serving size of draft beer after it was posted on social media a few weeks ago that they were serving 12-oz pours when they were claiming serving sizes of 14 ounces.

Stateside had been advertising 14 ounces, but in fact, their glasses filled to the brim were capable of holding that volume so with head, as is essential with a good pour, and a little space to make sure the beer did not spill over when transported to the table, the pour came in at 12 ounces. This practice of advertising the glass capacity and not the actual volume of beer poured is a widespread practice in BC that actually puts licensees at odds with the law according to Measurement Canada.

I know 2 ounces does not sound like much, but for a 14-oz beer that is $7, which is not uncommon in craft beer places in Vancouver, being 2 oz short is the equivalent of short-pouring by $1  before tax and tip. Add that up over a year and see how much money for nothing you may be forking out at places skimming off the top of their beer servings.

Almost immediately after the short-pour video hit social media, Stateside representatives stated they would right the wrong and it appears they have followed through.

CAMRA Vancouver president, Adam Chatburn, who was on the original measuring adventure, went back to Stateside July 15th and found that the glassware had indeed changed. The measure posted also had changed from 14 oz to 400,000,000,000 picolitres, a cheeky but valid use of the metric system that is legal and works out to 400 ml or about 14 oz. Chatburn measured his beer and found the serving to be, "spot on." (see post here) He also found, that except for the cider, which is a very high quality and high priced item, the beer prices had not changed. 

Stateside have turned a negative into a positive by doing the right thing
and fixing serving size-pour issues. Lets hope they get consumer support
& other craft beer places follow suit

"It just shows that establishments that are committed to the craft beer community are prepared to do the right thing and give consumers the beer they promised," stated a very pleased Chatburn who posted here to give Stateside praise. "Congratulations to Stateside Craft and thanks for stepping up and doing the right thing for consumers, it’s businesses like this who are leading the way serving craft beer. 

Chatburn hopes this change to honest and accurate pours will garner consumer support and states in his post, 

"if you've not been there  (Stateside) yet I can give them the #FUSS seal of approval so you know that when you put your money down you’ll get every last picolitre of beer (or amazing cider) you paid for."

Stateside Craft was one of several Commercial Drive establishments found to be serving less beer than their serving sizes indicated when Chatburn and a friend headed out armed with a calibrated cup, high definition camera, their smart phones, a thirst for beer and a healthy curiosity on July 5th. The pair posted their findings, including videos (click here & go to bottom of page), immediately on social media which caused a bit of a stir in the Vancouver craft beer community. Out of all the tests posted that day from five different establishments, only one pour hit the mark, that being Tangent Cafe's 12-oz pour. The rest fell short of the promised volume including a "pint" at Vera's Burger Shack which measured only 16 ounces.

In Canada, if a pint is advertised, it must be 20 imperial ounces if ounces are used to indicate volume and that does not include head.

As a consumer, I know I will support the Hell out of Stateside for making this move, as long as they continue to offer up accurate serving sizes & pours and hope other craft beer consumers do as well. I also hope other licensees in the craft community take note of what Stateside have done and get on board with CAMRA BC's #FUSS Campaign and give their customers what they are paying for.

Chatburn is continuing to hit Vancouver area establishments who serve draft beer and carry out is "research". This move is apart of the CAMRA BC Fess Up to Serving Sizes (#FUSS) a consumer advocacy campaign aimed at getting licensees to post their draft beer serving sizes and then deliver the posted volume of beer. The #FUSS Campaign was mounted to try to combat the widespread practice of misrepresenting serving sizes and short pouring here in BC. The Campaign for Real Ale of BC are an independent, consumer advocacy group, with approximately 1,500 paid members, championing the rights of BC's craft beer consumers.

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.

  

Shit Storm in a Beer Glass

This past weekend there was a shit storm that hit the Vancouver craft beer community.

Draft beer consumers, fed up with their belief that they are systematically being mislead about serving sizes, collided with liquor licensees who pour, in a way they feel is acceptable, the craft beers we so love. This collision had social media buzzing as folks weighed in on the differences of opinion which I will get into below.

I learned something during the course of the discussion that, naively, I had never thought of before; consumers and licensees define draft beer serving sizes differently.

Somewhere along the way it has become somewhat of an industry standard in Vancouver for licensees to use the size of a serving vessel as the serving size they post on serving size/price lists and/or convey verbally to consumers while many, if not most, consumers consider that actual amount of beer that arrives in the glass to be the serving size.

And this fundamental difference of opinion is causing some great unrest in some quarters of the tight-knit Vancouver craft beer community.

What is the difference you ask?

Well, consider if a bar uses 14-oz sleeves for their draft beer and post 14-oz as their serving size.

That glass would have to be filled to the brim, without any head, to achieve the advertised volume and would be so full it would be impossible for a server to carry without spilling all over the place.

No craft beer lover wants their beer served without the appropriate amount of head and no craft beer lover wants to see their favourite brew end up on a serving tray or the floor. And no craft beer licensee wants the spillage that accompanies filling a glass to the brim.

Realistically, that 14-oz sleeve, if poured properly, will arrive with about 12 oz of beer in it. In this example, approximately one/seventh, or  a little over 14%, of the advertised serving is not being delivered to the customer, which for a $7 sleeve works out to $1, before tax, being paid by the consumer for nothing more than foam and air.

If you take into consideration the 15% alcohol tax and a modest 15% tip you are looking at $1.30 vanishing into thin air for each beer you order using the above example.

Measurement Canada, who police this type of thing, told me in an e-mail a few weeks ago,

"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." 

The "applicable limits of error" mentioned in the e-mail is 2.5%. That is only 0.5 oz of error allowed for a pint and 0.35 of an ounce for a 14 oz pour.

It seems consumers legally, if they care about such things (and not all do), do have a legitimate beef.

In contrast, licensees, especially in Vancouver, are feeling pressure to do all they can to compete and attract customers in a highly competitive market.

I have been told by more than a few licensees that because using the glass size has become the "industry standard" in Vancouver for serving sizes, they are feeling compelled to advertise the glass capacity as the serving size is, even if they know that full measure is not arriving at the customer's table. They are feeling forced, they tell me, to make the decision to serve the way they are in order to compete with the next bar next door who is doing so. Being ethical and saying you serve 12 oz in a 14-oz glass for the same price as the bar next door who say they serve 14 oz in a 14-oz glass means the possibility of lost customers.

I don't think for the majority of licensees are dishonest and maliciously set out to cheat their customers - they are just doing what everyone else is doing in the Vancouver marketplace. I know some bar and restaurant owners very well; some are my dear friends, welcome in my home any time, honest and well-meaning and I support the Hell out of them and their businesses any time I can.

Unfortunately, the widespread practice, that has been adopted by even the most honest of folks out there, is illegal. It is not acceptable that consumers should be expected to donate money, from 15-20% at times, for goods they do not receive, to businesses so those businesses can compete in an industry that has little margin for error.

And it sucks that we have such a screwed up "industry standard" that forces honest, good-intentioned licensees to have to make this kind of ethical decision just to feel they can compete in the marketplace with unscrupulous types who operate with impunity due to government disinterest and consumer apathy.

Last Saturday a few craft beer consumers, including CAMRA Vancouver president, Adam Chatburn, who does care about getting what he pays for, headed out to a few of Commercial Drive restaurants and bars, armed with a calibrated glass and their cell phones, and proceeded to find out the posted or verbally conveyed serving size for beers, ordered those beers, measured the volume of beer they received, videoed the results and tweeted these videos and the numbers.

They found that most establishments- only Tangent Cafe was commended for their perfect 12-oz pour - served glasses of beer that fell short, well outside the legal margin for error, compared to the serving sizes promised. In one establishment they found a 20% difference between volume promised and volume delivered when the pint they ordered came in a sleeve.

The posting of these results initiated the above mentioned shit storm.

Some applauded, others booed. Some heaped praise on those posting, others called them down and got personal. I am not here to talk about the process, the reactions, the exact results or whether what these consumers did was right or wrong. You can go here to read CAMRA Vancouver President, Adam Chatburn's explanation of what went down, why they did it and what they found out from his perspective.

This whole thing has come to a head because of CAMRA BC's Fess Up to Serving Sizes Campaign (FUSS) which is nothing more than trying to get licensed establishments to accurately provide their draft beer serving sizes then deliver on that promise as required by both federal and provincial law.

That is what FUSS is - nothing more, nothing less.

I know because FUSS was an idea I came up with a little over 2.5 years ago.

I didn't just pull FUSS out of my ass; I came up with the idea when I was in the president of CAMRA Vancouver after receiving a bazillion complaints from members and non-members alike who believed they were getting much smaller measures in their glasses than they were being promised when they ordered. I thought it would be great for Vancouver craft beer consumers to get CAMRA friendly bars and restaurants to provide a list of their draft beer servings sizes, as required by law, and then lead the charge by producing said measures in hopes that craft beer consumers would be satisfied and these establishments would see increased business due to their transparency regarding what they were serving.

Easy, right? A win-win situation.

Well, not so much as this has turned into a mess with legal and consumer expectations conflicting with the need for licensees to compete in a very cut-throat and often dishonest market. There was, in fact, considerable push back from some on the industry side of the craft beer community, although I will say, most of the feedback was positive and in support of the campaign.

So how do we clean up this mess?

The best way would be for all bars to have marked glassware - glasses with plimsol (fill-to-here) lines so that both those serving and those being served could see that the promised volume was in the glass. CAMRA BC proposed this to John Yap during the liquor policy review and suggested it be phased in over two years so glassware could be replaced slowly when needed via attrition. BC used to have these types of glasses - I can remember them in my early days of going to the pub - but they have long since disappeared.

The government are not interested in legislating the requirement for marked glassware and I have been told by licensees that there is a problem with finding marked glassware and that these glasses are expensive.

The simple solution, which isn't perfect, but which could work, is for licensees to buy glassware that is larger than their planned serving size - i.e., a 16-oz sleeve for a 14-oz serving - leaving room for foam and eliminating the need to fill the glass to the brim.

It would mean eye-balling the amount going into the glass but it shouldn't take long for the bartenders of the city to figure out where on the glass they have to be to hit the mark.

Bars and restaurants who did this could then be uber-supported by CAMRA BC, CAMRA Vancouver, who could run campaigns lauding these places for their transparency and ethical choice to serve it right and be 100% honest about what they are serving. CAMRA could also continue to push the provincial government and Measurement Canada to nail places that do not comply with the law. The craft beer consumers and us who write about such things could support these places by tweeting, posting, writing and talking about them and more importantly, frequenting them over those establishments who choose the status quo.

I have heard that one of the bars called out on Saturday has, as a result of the incident, decided to go this route and order 16-oz glassware to properly fit the 14-oz pours they advertise. Good for them. I hope they follow through, I hope they get the recognition they deserve for turning a negative into a positive and I hope consumers and CAMRA BC support the Hell out of them to both reward them and encourage others to follow suit. I know when I find out they have followed through I will be giving them my support.

Something has to give as this issue is not going to go away and CAMRA BC and CAMRA Vancouver are not going to go away. It is a mess, caused by consumers not standing up for their rights for decades and government not giving shit, and it needs to be fixed.

Let's work together as a craft beer community, consumers and businesses together, to find a workable solution instead of pointing fingers at each other. It really sucks that friends are finding themselves on the opposite side of the fence on this issue when all can be on the side of fixing the problem.

I know some of you out there are going to bash me for this post...give er. This is how I see it and I think it is important. I don't like being expected to accept a situation that is fundamentally wrong and I won't.

If you don't care about this, good for you. Carry on paying for foam and air. But remember, that payment for nothing could be going towards your next, already-expensive sleeve.

This, at its core, it what CAMRA BC is all about. CAMRA BC is a consumer advocacy group, not a beer club or a kiss-industry's-ass club.

If you are a member and feel FUSS is misguided and wrong, get involved, get elected and change the course of your society.

Will The BC Libs Risk Tax Revenue or Make a FUSS About Serving Sizes?

As most of you reading this will know, last week the BC Liberals announced policy changes that would allow BC licensees to have "happy hours" but the trade off was that there were new minimum drink prices put in place, the highest in Canada by the way, that would see the price of a drink increase for many BC alcohol consumers at their local water hole.

I will not go into how disgusted I am with this move that sees many paying 30% or more for a pint of beer in their local, but you can read my original post here and my open letter to Justice Minister & Attorney General, Suzanne Anton and her parliamentary secretary, John Yap, here.

I will tell you that Anton's assumption that there may be the "occasional case" where a licensee has to raise the price of there drinks is dead wrong, even in  grossly, overpriced Vancouver. I recently found a website that lists all drink specials in Vancouver and, for example, on a Monday there were 261 specials listed and out of those, I stopped counting at 20 those who would be in violation of the new policy.

What I am wondering at this point is if Anton & Co decide to stick with this ill-thought-out and misguided policy, where the minimum drink price is directly tied to the volume of the drink, is Anton going to press the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) to pay attention to serving sizes and enforce the LCLB policy that all licensees must provide a drink price and serving size list for all alcoholic beverages served in the establishment or is she just going to trust that these licensees, many of whom have been misleading consumers for years, are going to suddenly become honest about how much they are serving?

If she leaves the licensees to regulate themselves, she is leaving the fox in the hen house. Many licensees will manipulate the situation to suit themselves, claiming smaller serving sizes so they can have lower drink specials to draw people in and so as not to alienate their regular customers by raising the price of their pint by 30%. This obviously benefits the consumer but means government will miss out on alcohol tax revenue and I have never seen a government that does not take an interest in maximizing their tax revenue from consumers.

On the flip side of things, some will be claiming larger serving sizes than they are actually providing, as is the widespread practice now, so they can continue to gouge the consumer during their happy hours and now they can blame it on the government's new drink minimum.

The Campaign for Real Ale of BC (CAMRA BC), with their Fess Up to Serving Sizes (FUSS) Campaign, has been pushing for years to have the LCLB enforce this serving size list policy, and ensure the serving size volumes that are listed are accurate, but the LCLB and the BC Liberals have repeatedly said they don't care about serving sizes and that licensees can self-regulate in regards to complying with the serving size list requirement.

In fact, in a recent response to a letter by CAMRA BC suggesting that the serving size list policy be enforced and the government consider legislating that certified, marked glassware (indicating volume of the glass) be required, like in Britain and many European nations, our Justice Minister wrote:

"For public safety reasons a licensee's terms and conditions guide states the maximum serving sizes that an individual or group of people may order at any one time. In addition, the licensee must have a list available showing drinks, drink sizes and prices.  Beyond that, government's focus is not on the array of serving sizes found within the province.

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.  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."

So if the government is not going to concern themselves with the size of drink an establishment serves, other than making sure they do not offer more than the legislated, maximum drink size, how are they going to enforce this new minimum and insure they are getting their fair share via alcohol tax?

Or more to the point, what the Hell is the point of the new policy if they have no way, or no desire to enforce it due to limited resources and limited desire?

I can imagine this conversation happening all over BC:

Liquor Inspector: "That looks like a pint glass and you are selling it for $4. You need to charge $5!"
Licensee: "Why you are mistaking, kind liquor inspector. That glass only holds 16 oz therefore the minimum I can charge is $4."
Liquor Inspector: "OK, I trust you completely. Thank you for clearing that up. Carry on"

Now that government revenue can potentially be compromised, maybe, just maybe, the LCLB liquor inspectors will be directed to take a little more interest in just exactly how much beer is in your glass and the practice of misrepresenting serving sizes will be eliminated.

Time will tell, and who knows what the government is thinking. By the looks of this, they really were misinformed and badly advised as to how this new policy would impact consumers and obviously, they did not think things through.

Also, as an aside, by advising customers that if they don't like getting defrauded and ripped off they should raise the issue with the licensee and/or take their business elsewhere and not bother the Justice Minister's office, is BC's top cop, the person charged with overseeing justice and law enforcement in this province, not condoning dodgy business practices and fraud?

It certainly seems she is not interested in making sure British Columbians get what they paid for but I could be mistaken as to what the Justice Minister condones and what she does not. I can only go by the e-mail I received.

The Beer Consumers On-going Acceptance of Being Robbed - Ignorance Is Not Bliss!!

For reasons I will never understand, for years draught beer consumers in BC have blatantly been ripped off

and consumers have accepted this practice without much complaint.

The majority of time we are confronted with the decision of whether or not to order a draught beer, we are being forced to so with out being given the basic information to make an informed decision.

How much beer is being offered per serving? What is the strength of the beer? How do I know I am getting what I ordered as far as a serving size?

These are all basic pieces of information we, as consumers, should be supplied before we even order the beer and take our first sip.

Yes, I am on about the serving size issue that exists in this province, the same one that has existed for decades. Check out this Vancouver Sun newspaper article from January 29, 1958 (3rd page over under headline "Beer Glass Plimsol Line Is Half Inch From Top") where the then president of the BC Restaurant Association, J.J. Custock, pointed out draught beer consumers were, in many cases, "being robbed".

Custock's advice at the time, if consumers were not getting their full measure of beer in their glass they should "get up and walk out" of the establishment. Although this is good advice, I propose consumers take things further and begin to stand up for their rights.

Due to the fact that the government and the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) will not step in the enforce their own rules and protect consumers' rights and because we, the draught beer consumers of BC, are such a passive and willing-to-be-screwed-over bunch, it has become the norm for licensees leave their patrons in the dark in regards to how much beer they are serving. And even when serving sizes are established, they are often misrepresented, whether intentionally or not, leaving the consumer with less than they think they have in their glass.

Last week the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) of BC relaunched their Fess up to Serving Sizes (FUSS) Campaign, sending off a letter to various politicians & a press release to various media outlets in BC advocating for the protection of basic consumers' rights and the enhancement of public safety.

CAMRA BC has beefed up and expanded their campaign - originally FUSS pushed to have the LCLB enforce their legal requirement for licensees to either post, or keep handy, a serving size/price list for all alcoholic beverages they serve, which must be produced upon request by a consumer - by adding that the alcohol content of beer (ABV) should be included on the serving size list and that draught beer glassware should have a "fill-to-here" line, known as a plimsol line, so the consumer knows they are getting the pour they ordered.

By enacting legislation requiring a serving size-ABV list for all draught beer and marked glassware, consumers will be able to make informed decisions about what they are ordering so they can determine:

• if they are getting value for their money
• just how much alcohol they are consuming
• whether they should be driving their vehicles or not based on exactly how much alcohol they have consumed
• if they are over consuming according to Canada's Low Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines
• whether they are getting what they paid for

Servers and licensees will also be more informed as to just exactly how much alcohol they are serving their customers and better be able to judge whether they are over-serving or not. With the new liquor policies about to be enacted, more legal responsibility will be placed on the licensees and servers, making them possibly financially liable if someone leaves their establishment after having a drink and gets into trouble due. BC is looking to enact a "last drink" style of legislation that puts the onus of responsibility on the establishment that serves a consumer their last drink, which means licensees will have to be more vigilant as to whether a consumer has been drinking prior to arriving at their establishment. This makes it even more important, as a licensee or server, to monitor just how much alcohol they are serving.

I don't know how many times I have spoken to bartenders and servers who have absolutely no clue as to the size of glass they are serving or the strength of the beer! It makes quite a difference to a person's blood alcohol level if they are consuming 16oz of 7% beer over 12oz of 5% beer!!

It also impacts the wallet significantly being offered a 20oz pour (pint) and being served a 16oz sleeve. When the bill comes and states you owe $10, try paying $7.50 and see how far you get!!

This campaign was originally launched in 2011, when I was president of CAMRA Vancouver, and FUSS worked its way all the way to the BC Legislature, but Rich Coleman, then overseeing the province's alcohol portfolio, did not care that consumers were being ripped off. Coleman basically stated that the LCLB gets very few complaints from the public about this issue and when they do, they investigate, but otherwise it was up to the licensees to police themselves.

I had several e-mail communications with then LCLB General Manager, Karen Ayers and she brushed the issue off as unimportant, even though she stated preventing over-serving was a LCLB priority, which, if CAMRA's ideas were implemented, would be far less likely as both consumers and servers would know exactly how much alcohol was being served. Ayers did state that she would "remind" licensees and liquor inspectors of their obligations via the LCLB's newsletter, but I never did see any evidence that she did so and when I talked to a liquor inspector, one known for being an unreasonable hard-ass who looks for any excuse to hassle licensees, he denied ever having any direction to enforce this policy.

Coleman and Ayers have moved on and others are now holding the reigns of power related to overseeing and enforcing alcohol policy in BC on so hopefully they will see the importance and practicality of these suggested changes.

I took a lot of abuse from a small segment of licensees when FUSS was first launched in Vancouver and I know they will again complain CAMRA is misguided, but to be perfectly blunt, I really don't give a shit. This is about consumers' rights, not licensees' rights. The playing field has been slanted in the direction of licenses for longer than I can remember and unscrupulous and/or uncaring licensees have been taking advantage. I can hear licensees stating this will cost them money, but no, it will not as producing a printed list or having a chalkboard list costs next to nothing and glassware could be phased in over a two-year period, with current glasses being replaced with plimsol-lined glasses as the establishment replaced glassware, which happens constantly due to breakage, wear and tear, theft, etc. As well, branded glassware should not be impacted and you only have to look to Europe to see that plimsol lines have been ingenuously inserted into brand logos or placed elsewhere on fancy beer glasses without impacting the branding.

In other parts of the world I have visited, not being given the information about how much beer you are ordering, how strong that beer is and then not being given the measure you were told you would receive, would cause great unrest among consumers. Here, we accept this practice while grumbling into our sleeve glass of undetermined size about being short-poured and ripped off.

Complaints about serving sizes and getting short-poured is still the Number One complaint I receive from consumers but if consumers really want to evoke change, they have to force the issue and take Coleman's statement, that the LCLB will investigate if they get complaints, to heart. The LCLB are obligated to investigate. Instead of complaining to the person next to you at the bar, or passivity accepting "getting robbed", take 30 seconds to send an email to the LCLB & Justice Minister (see addresses below), naming the establishment, time, date and issue.

Remember, this is not about pushing for the return of the pint! FUSS is about getting licensees to inform consumers exactly what they are offering and then delivering on that promise.

If this issue is important to you, take matters into your own hands and defend your consumer rights. The LCLB will not act in regards to this matter until directed to by the government and the government will not direct them to act until consumers become a pain in the ass for the politicians.

It is up to us to force this change. What do you have to lose...other than the continued practice of being ripped off?  

E-mail complaints to:
Douglas Scott - General Manager of the Liquor Control & Licensing Branch
douglas.s.scott@gov.bc.ca
Suzanne Anton - Justice Minister & Attorney General
JAG.Minister@gov.bc.ca

Use social media

Take a photo (or video) of your less-than-a-20oz-pint next to the sign that says “pint” and email or tweet it to @VanEastbeerblog, @CAMRABC @CAMRA_YVR along with the hashtags #FUSS and #servingitwrong and CAMRA & VanEast Beer Blog will help spread the word.

BC Liquor Law Reform Post Election: Where Do We Go From Here?

The election hangover has long past and British Columbians who were excited about the possibility of the NDP taking charge and following through on their promise to reform and modernize our provincial liquor laws "one practical step at a time" have come to grips with the reality that we have four more years ahead of us with the Liberals steering the political ship.

Hopefully not four more years of the same old, same old in regards to BC liquor policies, liquor law enforcement and support of the craft beer industry.

Liberals have made some positive changes to our liquor laws and policies over the past few years but have not "overhauled" them as they claimed in press release in Feb of this year (read press release here). The Liberal approach has been haphazard at best and reactionary, described by the NDP as a "piecemeal approach to liquor policy," and not a part of a systematic, comprehensive plan.

The NDP had made it loud and clear before and during the election that they were committed to a full-on review of current BC liquor laws, which would have included a comprehensive consultation with the BC liquor industry, to work out an effective strategy to modernize our liquor policies which even the Liberals have described as our archaic. They have, to this point, also been very open to listening to consumers and I have had several meetings with several NDP MLAs where we discussed issues that negatively impact craft beer consumers.

We will never know if the NDP would have been able to keep that election promise, but my sense  is that the commitment is real and that they are ready to continue to push the Liberals, from the opposition side of the BC Legislature, to start a full review.

So where do we go from here?

Let's start with looking at those who will be playing the modernize BC liquor law game and how this may impact the craft beer scene, at least in the short term.

Starting Line-up:

Former Vancouver City Councilor, Suzanne Anton, has been appointed the new Attorney General and Justice Minister and the alcohol portfolio now falls under her ministry's umbrella. Anton may bring a new perspective and energy to old issues as she is new to provincial politics. A government backgrounder introducing the new Liberal Cabinet states Anton will, "(b)egin consultations to modernize B.C.’s liquor laws". When Anton was running as an NPA mayoral candidate during the 2011 Vancouver City Municipal Election she stated in an email to CAMRA Vancouver she, “would work closely" with organizations like CAMRA Vancouver and "review opportunities to expand and support" the craft beer sector in Vancouver. 

Let's hope she still has this mindset on the bigger provincial stage where she is actually in THE position to be a game changer for the craft beer industry and the consumers who support it.

Anton will not be solely responsible for overseeing the massive task of reviewing and modernizing BC liquor laws. John Yap, probably best known as having been the minister in charge of multiculturalism who stepped down as a result of the recent Liberal ethnic voter scandal, has been appointed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Liquor Policy Reform. According to the government backgrounder, Yap will "(l)ead the stakeholder consultation on modernizing B.C.’s antiquated liquor laws and recommend improvements to the minister to take to Cabinet. 

I don't know much about Yap, nor do many I have talked to who are activists and advocates related to craft beer, so we will have to wait and see how consultative and invested he is in regards to liquor law review and reform. Liberals historically have not put much stock into what consumers want and have instead pandered to their political cronies or made changes to quell issues where media and public pressure was getting just a little too much. I am not very confident that the former multicultural minister who claims to not have known about anything about the ethnic voter scandal until the NDP exposed it will be on the ball enough to tackle the massive task of consulting with all the various sectors of industry that often have conflicting wants and needs in regards to liquor law changes. 

Great news for the craft beer scene in the BC is that NDP MLA Shane Simpson is back in the game and has been tasked with being the official critic in regards to the Liberal liquor modernization strategy. Simpson has been a great supporter of the BC craft beer industry and consumers in the past and supported campaigns such as CAMRA Vancouver's Fess Up to Serving Sizes  (FUSS) and Bring Your Own Craft Beer (BYOCB), bringing these issues up for debate in the BC legislature.  As well, Simpson played a huge roll in halting the Liberal's controversial plan to privatize the BC Liquor Distribution Branch's warehouse system and he has a vested interest in supporting the BC craft beer industry as he has four craft breweries in his constituency. Simpson is stand-up kind of guy and one who, at least as far as my dealings with him, follows through on what he says he will do.


On the bench:

With Suzanne Anton and John Yap being tasked with overseeing the Liberal liquor policies, this means Rich Coleman is no longer in the game, at least for the moment. Coleman has been the minister in charge of the alcohol portfolio on and off for almost 10 years and it always seems to fall back in his lap when any whiff of controversy arises. Coleman has not particularly been the champion of the craft beer consumer and, at least from my perspective, is very wine-centric and does not take the craft beer movement very seriously. 

Coleman completely dismissed the FUSS  and BYOCB campaigns and has continually snubbed the BC craft beer industry such as when he recently reported BC will appoint a special wine envoy charged with the task of finding new markets for BC wines while allowing his BC Liquor Distribution Branch to send a high ranking representative to Washington DC to give a talk on how American craft breweries can break into the BC market to compete with the locals who are already struggling to get shelf space in BC Liquor Store shelves. During the BYOCB campaign I sent Coleman an email trying to advocate for the inclusion of beer in the corkage program. In his response, he basically summed up his argument against corkage for beer and attitude towards the BC craft beer scene  writing, "while we appreciate the evolving nature and uniqueness of the variety of beer, it is not in the same category as wine". 

Seeing Coleman distanced from the liquor scene is a huge positive in my opinion. 

Also out of the game is Karen Ayers who has been the General Manager for the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB). Ayers and is seen by many as the person who has been most resistant to liquor law changes and who has the power to right liquor policy as she sees fit in some cases. From a distance, the LCLB appears to be like a fiefdom, with little to no accountability to the consumers and voters of the province. She has used the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot as a scare tactic to continue justifying how all BC alcohol consumers should treated like children who have no self-control to act appropriately. 

Ayers announced her retirement just before the recent election and is to step aside at the end of this month. Under her watch, a culture of intimidation and bullying has been cultivated in the LCLB to the point where licensees and those with a financial stake in the liquor industry do not want to publicly raise issues or voice complaints for fear of retribution. The LCLB, under her direction, has enforced laws in a very inconsistent and random manner, hiding behind the often-outdated laws when convenient and ignoring them as insignificant when it suits them. You have to look no further than how Ayers has treated the Great Canadian Beer Festival (read here) while ignoring consumers' rights and consumer issues (here). There are many who were literally celebrating when Ayers announced her retirement and hopefully her replacement will be more open to change and considering other points of view other than her own.

Wildcard game-changer:

Christy Clark could play a major role in how our liquor reform is shaped if she is successful in her bid to be elected in the Westside-Kelowna riding in the by-election that has been called for July 10th. This riding is smack-dab in the middle of wine country, so you know that if Clark is elected as the area's MLA, she will have the wine industry representatives whispering in her ear about what that particular sector of the liquor industry desires. This may prompt Clark to push for changes to happen sooner than later, but I fear that the craft beer industry will continue to play second fiddle to the wine folks and will not have their voices heard as Clark tries to soothe and woo her constituents   


It will be interesting to see where this all goes. It seems both sides of the BC legislature are committed to reviewing BC liquor laws and it appears the Liberals are going to consult with the various sectors of the alcohol industry. Let us hope they include consulting with consumers and CAMRA BC, who have already reached out to the Liberals politely demanding to be included in the process.

I do not hold out great hope that the craft beer voice will be heard as loudly as the other sectors of the alcohol industry here in BC, but I guess we will have to wait and see.

VEBB Post & CAMRA Vancouver Campaign Prompts NDP Promise to Scrap Growler Mark-up Increase

Yesterday the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) BC - Vancouver Branch  scored what could become a major victory for BC craft beer consumers and craft breweries when NDP liquor critic Maurine Karagianis announced that if elected the NDP would scrap the increased mark-up for growlers being implemented by the BC Liquor Distribution Branch (LDB) as a result of them reclassifying the 1.8 litre, refillable jugs as "packaged" product.

Classifying growlers as draught would help
support small local breweries like Townsite
in Powell River

Growlers are, as mentioned, refillable jugs, used by consumers to buy fresh, draft beer directly from the brewery to be taken away for consumption elsewhere. Growlers date back to pre-Prohibition and have made a huge comeback in recent months with the opening of numerous small, craft breweries around the province. Growlers are unique in that consumers travel to the actual brewery to buy beer directly from the brewer and are usually cheaper than six-packs which are of comparable volume. The growlers are reusable, therefore great for the environment and cut down on a brewery's carbon footprint as the beer does not need to be transported to liquor stores, bars or restaurants to be sold.

The story of the reclassification and impending mark-up increase was first broken here on the VanEast Beer Blog and on the same day CAMRA Vancouver President Adam Chatburn launched the "Save the Growler Campaign" aimed at stopping the increase which will either result in less profits for breweries selling growlers or increased consumer prices, depending on whether the breweries decided to eat the increase or pass it on to their customers. 

The campaign quickly gained momentum as mainstream media picked up the story. CAMRA's "Save the Growler" petition has over 1900 signatures as of today, gathered in four weeks since the launch of their campaign. March 11th saw CAMRA BC President Rick Green and CAMRA Vancouver President Adam Chatburn travel to Victoria to join up with CAMRA BC VP Maureen Blaseckie, who had arranged for the three to meet with several NDP MLAs, including Karagianis, at the BC Legislature with the growler issue being front and centre of the issues they discussed. 

"This is unfair tax on small business and a sustainable industry has to go," stated Karagianis in a media release. "When it comes to liquor policy, this government (BC Liberals) just doesn't get it. Just weeks after a long-awaited announcement of a handful of liquor law changes, they are at it again, slipping through a tax that will make life harder for the growing (craft beer) industry."

To give a little back ground, breweries must pay a mark-up per litre of beer to the LDB and the amount they pay depends on their brewery's annual production levels and whether the product is sold as "packaged" product, which according to the LDB are "products that are packaged for customer consumption off-site," or "draught", which is product consumed at the point of purchase. 

Mark-ups as of April 1/13 (HL is 100 litres)

Breweries (>160,000 HL)

Packaged  - $1.63 

Draught - $1.12 

Breweries (>15,000 ≤ 160,000 HL)

Packaged - $1.08 

Draught -    $0.75 

Breweries (≤ 15,000 HL)

Packaged - $0.97 

Draught - $0.67 

For the most part, breweries that sell growlers are in the 15,000 HL or less category of production so the increase from draught to packaged is going to rise from $.67 to $.97 per litre. That may not sound much, but if you have a brewery that sells mainly growlers, which many new nano-breweries are planning to do, then this $.30 increase becomes thousands of dollars more being paid to the LDB each year, a number that can really impede small breweries operating on a tight budgets.

There has been mass confusion lately about how mark-ups regarding growlers are implemented, with some breweries being charged the lower draught rate per litre and some the higher packaged rate for growler refills creating an uneven playing field in the marketplace. Some brewery representatives were shocked when they found out they had been paying the LDB 30% more of a mark-up than some of their competitors, all at the direction of LDB officials.

It was obvious that the LDB had no handle on what was going on with breweries selling growlers. 

When I found out about this reclassification and put in a media request to the LDB for information about growler mark-up policy, I was told repeatedly for three weeks that no one from the LDB could supply me with an explanation as to how growlers were marked up, information that should be very easy to access and explain. 

When I finally did get an explanation in an email Feb 28/13, I was told, "currently, the packaged mark-up rate is applied to the first Growler fill and the draught mark-up rate is applied to refills," but that, "it was determined that Growlers, both the first fill and all refills, should be subject to the packaged beer mark-up rate because they are packaged for customer consumption off-site."  

In another email forwarded from LDB General Manager Blaine Lawson March 26/13, it was explained that, 

"Growlers were subject to the packaged beer mark-up rate for over a decade, until January 2012 when an error was made that created a distinction between the first fill and subsequent refills.  We recently reviewed the application of mark-up on Growlers and reaffirmed that the packaged rate is the correct rate that should be applied.  The packaged mark-up rate is applied to products that are packaged for customer consumption off-site. Growlers clearly fall within this category.  The Liquor Distribution Branch has a responsibility to apply mark-up equitably within product categories and the correction of this error was done for that purpose."

It seems that if the NDP are elected, all this will be a moot point as they have committed to lower the growler rate back to the draught rate in order to help support small businesses in one of BC's fastest growing industries and help promote the sale of these ecologically friendly jugs. But it is pre-election, so promises will be coming from all political sides at a fast and furious rate and we all know how many times these pre-election promises get forgotten about post-election.

If the promise is kept and the roll-back implemented, it will be the first major campaign victory for CAMRA here in BC and hopefully the beginning of CAMRA being included in any future consultations in regards to reviewing and reforming liquor laws. It may also help CAMRA get some support in regards to their other existing campaigns like FUSS and BYOCB, both of which the NDP have shown interest in  over the past year, or any future issues they see fit to tackle on behalf of the province's craft beer consumers.

Open Letter to Mayor Robertson & Vancouver City Council

Dear Mayor Robertson and Elected Vancouver City Councillors:

First of all I want to introduce myself as Paddy Treavor, a long-time Vancouver resident and one that takes his civic duty to vote in elections very seriously.

Democracy only works with participation and that participation, on both the voter and politician side of the equation, reaches beyond election campaigns and the act of voting. Once the votes are cast and the candidates chosen for public office, it is of paramount importance that those elected to office are held accountable by the citizens they represent and that the politicians take this responsibility seriously, and not consider themselves above the people who hold the power of returning the politicians to office or replacing them with other, more responsible and accountable candidates in the next election.

It is because of this concept of political accountability I am writing you all.

I recently sent an email entitled "Vancouver City's Lack of Support for Local Industry" outlining how supporting the new provincial liquor law allowing for on-site beer lounges at breweries could be a great way for the City of Vancouver to support local, small businesses, promote local tourism, provide more opportunities for local employment and attract businesses to locate in Vancouver in the future. The email was a follow-up on a blog post I wrote entitled "No Fun City Bureaucracy Stands in the Way of Beer Lounges", a story that highlights how current Vancouver City zoning by-laws and liquor licensing polices are prohibiting local breweries from taking advantage of this great opportunity. Even if you did not read my blog post, and I encourage you to do so, the story was picked up by The Province newspaper a few days later so you may be familiar with the problem.

Almost two weeks have passed and the only response I have received is one from the city clerk stating they had forwarded my email to Mr Mayor and City Councillors. This is not the first time I have received no response to emails sent to Vancouver City Hall regarding issues involving the rights of local craft beer consumers and the local craft beer industry, so I am beginning to think that Mayor Robertson's appearances at Vancouver Craft Beer Week, to tap the first cask, were more photo opportunities than a true desire to support the local craft beer industry and that Vancouver City Council does not take the craft beer industry and the consumers who support it, very seriously.

When I was president  (2011-2012) of the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) BC - Vancouver Branch, a Vancouver-based consumer advocacy group which currently boasts a membership of close to 1000 members, either myself or a member of my executive sent several emails asking for City Council support on campaigns like Fess Up to Serving Sizes (FUSS), addressing the common practice of liquor licensees misrepresenting their draft beer serving sizes in your city and Bring Your Own Craft Beer (BYOCB), asking for your support to have beer included in changes to provincial liquor laws involving corkage which would have been great for craft beer consumers in your city and would help spur on the local hospitality and craft beer industries.

Silence. Not even the courtesy of an email saying, "not interested". That doesn't seem very accountable to me.

I understand you are all busy running our great city, but these issues have been important enough to illicit responses from other busy politicians such as Liberal Cabinet Minister Rich Coleman, and NDP Caucus Chair, Shane Simpson, to name but a few, as well as from Liquor Control and Licensing Branch General Manager, Karen Ayers. These issues I wrote you all about were also important enough to be brought up and discussed in the BC Legislature, but not important enough to get any response from yourselves even thought they are issues that impact the voters this city on a daily basis and which, with your support and attention, could be resolved here in Vancouver.

The only time I have received any response to emails sent to Vancouver municipal politicians was just prior to the last election when I sent out an email to all candidates asking them a specific set of questions regrading how they would support the local craft beer consumer and craft beer industry. During that pre-election period, when politicians are doing their best to connect with as many voters as possible in attempts to get their votes, I did receive email responses from several candidates, including current City Councillors:

•  George Affleck, who stated he "would be happy to take a lead" on the subject of allowing for "smaller pubs spread around the city like they are in the UK," which supporting beer lounges would do quite nicely.  
• Jerry Jang, who stated Vancouver City Council can, "encourage the establishment of the (craft beer) industry through zoning,", the same zoning that is prohibiting beer lounges at this time. He also stated, "neighbourhood pubs are important not only because they add to the character of a neighbourhood, but also prevents drinking and driving as one can walk home!". Hmmm, beer lounges are not neighbourhood pubs, as the legislation states they are "endorsements" on manufacturing licenses, but they sure would function in a very similar way.
• Heather Deal, who stated she would "like to see more small pubs in neighborhoods throughout the city.” Again, beer lounges could be a great way to have these small, licensed establishments dotted around the city. To Heather's credit, although she has ignored all emails sent post-election by myself or CAMRA when I was president,  has kept her pre-election promise to "work with" CAMRA, having just taken a meeting with current CAMRA Vancouver President, Adam Chatburn. Whether that meeting comes to anything is yet to be seen, but at least she responded.

I am a very active advocate, championing the rights of BC's craft beer consumers and the vibrant and growing craft beer industry here in our province. As I mentioned, I am a blogger, the author of the award-winning VanEast Beer Blog, the very blog you are reading now, a blog that reaches thousands of people each month, many of whom live in Vancouver and will be voting in the next election. I am not saying I can persuade these readers to vote one way or another, but I do think that those voters knowing you are ignoring these issues that they are so passionate about may cause them to rethink whether they want to re-elect politicians who so blatantly ignore their voices.

Yes, I am but one person, one vote, but there are thousands of others who think the same way as I do on these issues and these people are my readers.

And just to let you know that I was on to something when I wrote in my post that is Vancouver City does not embrace the idea of beer lounges ASAP, they will lose businesses to other municipalities,  the exodus has started. I already know of one person who has recently scrapped plans to open a small brewery in Vancouver, in favour of a neighbouring city, because of your restrictive zoning by-laws, stifling liquor licensing policies and unnecessarily complicated and onerous process of opening a brewery here in Vancouver City.

If you do not start paying attention to people like myself who are advocating on behalf of one of the most vibrant consumer markets and industry segments of this province, you are going to see many more breweries opening in neighbouring cities, paying their taxes and luring tourism and business away from Vancouver City. That would be a travesty as Vancouver, if politicians have enough vision, could become the Portland North, attracting millions of tourist dollars a year because of their great craft beer scene.

I can tell you, politicians at the provincial level are listening and meeting with people like myself and CAMRA Vancouver President Adam Chatburn and listening to what we have to say. I hope, for the sake of our great city, you all start to take some notice as well before it is too late for both the craft beer industry in this city and yourselves come the next election.

That's How it is Done - Paying Attention CAMRA Members?

If you have any interest in the BC craft beer scene and have any sort of connection to social media, you will know that there has been a bit of controversy stirred up by a recent post by Barley Mowat involving who Steamworks Brewery owner Eli Gershkovitch and the trademarking of Cascadia in regards to brewed alcoholic beverages.

The post caused a huge backlash against Eli and Steamworks from the local craft beer community who took to social media in droves to voice their displeasure regarding the whole situation. The reaction to Barley Mowat's post was swift and fierce and, even though it was not always on point, or in complete understanding of what was going on, prompted a quick response, which you can read here, from "The Steam Team", who were forced into damage-control mode as the good reputation of Steamworks was being unmercifully bashed.

Every action has a reaction. 

Action: Eli requests local brewers not use "Cascadian" when naming, labeling, marketing Cascadian Dark Ales. 
Reaction: Local craft beer breweries start renaming their Cascadian Dark Ales weird names which peaks Barley Mowat's curiosity and prompts his post.

Action: Local craft beer enthusiasts are outraged after reading the post and take to social media to voice their displeasure with Eli and Steamworks creating a whirlwind of bad PR for Steamworks.
Reaction: The Steam Team respond, explaining their position, a touch late I might add, and implement some damage control measures by offering up a resolution in an attempt to save face and pacify the angry mob.

This is how it is done folks. That is how you support a cause to effect change. 

I hope craft beer consumers, particularly CAMRA BC, CAMRA Vancouver and other CAMRA branch members took notice. If craft beer consumers want to effect change to the laws and get the same governmental considerations wine consumers do, they need to be just as vocal, angry and active, targeting the LCLB and Rich Coleman, as they were yesterday in regards to Barley Mowat's post. A focused campaign with huge support will be more likely to prompt a positive reaction from government than not.

Think about it, who is more reactionary than the government?

The is absolutely no value in CAMRA BC having over a 1,000 members if 950 of them are passive and do not support their organization's actions past paying $25 a year for a membership. If CAMRA Vancouver had received the same type of vocal and passionate social media support for their FUSS and BYOCB Campaigns, Coleman, LCLB General Manager Karen Ayers and licensees may have taken CAMRA's positions more seriously. 

Just saying....