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.

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.

Will Beer Lounges Be Able to Exist in Vancouver Despite Provincial Go-Ahead

When Rich Coleman announced Feb 08 that breweries and distilleries, "can apply to have an on-site consumption area such as a lounge, tasting room or event area," to bring them in line with wineries who have enjoyed this option for years, the change was applauded, but many were cautiously optimistic at best, anticipating that it was not going to be an easy process.  

The concept, at face value, is a great idea and one that could produce even more growth in the craft beer industry, as having on-site beer lounges, with the ability to sell more than 12 oz of beer per person, per day, for on-site consumption, means that smaller breweries would have yet another revenue stream to help them stay in business. For nano-style breweries, with no business plan to grow significantly via off-site sales, not having to deal with distribution, major packaging or finding retail outlets to sell their brews means less hassle and overhead and an enhanced ability to stay afloat. 

It could be the change that would allow Vancouver to become a Portland North, with many small breweries within city limits.

But, in Vancouver, and most likely many other municipalities, it seems City Hall and the Provincial Government are not on the same page. From what I am understanding, Vancouver's municipal by-laws and zoning regulations, surrounding where breweries can be located and where liquor primary licenses are allowed, do not jive. It appears that breweries may not able to exist in zoning where liquor primary licenses are allowed therefore they cannot get approval from the city for on-site beer lounges which require a liquor primary license. 

I have tried to make sense of the Vancouver City Zoning Map but on first glance it looks like someone went on a bender of Blue Hawaiian cocktails, beet soup and corn chowder, then threw up on the page. There are so many zoning categories and sub-categories with different allowances and restrictions, I'm going to have to wait until the city gets back to me to confirm just what is allowed and where. 

As well, the city is very reticent to hand out new liquor primary licenses, so unless they change their attitude and look at the big picture in regards to supporting the craft beer industry within city limits, the changes in the law may have been for not, at least here in Vancouver. The process of getting a liquor primary is a long, difficult process in Vancouver and includes neighbourhood consultations, public meetings, telephone surveys in certain cases, council reports....it goes on and on. You can check it out here if you so desire.

It is not the first time one level of government has passed a law that conflicts with another level of government's laws or by-laws. Even though federally it was legal to serve a pint (20 oz/568ml), up until 2010 it was illegal in BC because the provincial serving size maximum for beer was 18oz/500ml. Again, when the Feds passed Bill C-311 allowing for the inter-provincial movement of wine, for personal use, many provinces, including BC at the time, did not allow inter-provincial movement of alcohol for personal use. The province has since tweaked their laws to be more in line with the Feds but if they hadn't, it basically would have rendered the Fed's change to the law a moot point.

This may be the case with beer lounges at breweries if something cannot be worked out by the city.

I am still in the early days of trying to clarify things. I have contacted Vancouver City Hall to try to clarify some things to see where they stand on the idea of beer lounges at breweries within city limits. I am not saying the city is against the idea, as I have no confirmation of that, but I am hearing that there are major road blocks. I just think that at this point the Provincial Government and the Vancouver Municipal Government may not be on the same page. Hopefully, at the local level, adjustments will be made for these types of licenses to be granted now that the way has been cleared by the province. It could be a great boost to the craft beer industry in Vancouver and with several small breweries, many who would benefit greatly from a small on-site beer lounge, in the planning stages or set to open in the city, it might be a great time for them to support this exploding industry.

In the meantime, don't expect to be enjoy more than a few taster glasses of beer at your favourite local brewery's tasting room any time soon.  It is going to take a while to figure out the logistics of this mess and you can bet it will be controversial with many NIMBY types and neo-prohibitionists against any support for small, local breweries with on-site consumption. I believe to get City Hall to support small breweries with beer lounges, both consumer and industry groups are going to have to lobby and advocate loudly.

CAMRA Vancouver, is this your next campaign? Campaign for Culture? It looks like it is time to start focusing locally instead of provincially in regards to advocating for the craft beer consumer.

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.

Gov't Announces Liquor Law Changes That Could Benefit Craft Beer Consumers & Industry

Today, Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for the province's alcohol portfolio, announced some long anticipated changes to BC liquor laws, many of which have a direct impact on the craft beer industry and craft beer related licensees.

In a press release issued today from Coleman's office, these are the changes I see as having the most impact on the craft beer consumer:

•  "Small- and medium-sized liquor manufacturers"  to have "three common ownership and business relationships with licensed establishments located off their manufacturing site." Translation, tied house laws have been relaxed and you will soon be able to enjoy Parallel 49 beers at St Augustine's come March 1/13.
•  ""Brewers and distillers now can apply to have an on-site consumption area such as a lounge, tasting room or event area." Translation, beer lounges at breweries are not far off.
• "Rules around how liquor manufacturers can promote their products in bars and restaurants have been simplified by removing the requirement for a buy-sell agreement." Translation, breweries can now buy tap and shelf space legally and bars restaurants will be able to demand inducements for the right for a brewery to sell their product via the licensee.

These changes are to take effect March 1, 2013. Some of the wording is somewhat vague, for example, what is a small-and-medium sized liquor manufacturer in regards to a brewery? 

My assumption is that they mean breweries who produce less than 160,000 Hectolitres per year, which means the big boys like Molson and Labatt cannot have tied houses. What is yet to be seen is whether Granville Island, owned by Molson, will be able to have three tied house arrangements, thereby giving Molson a way through the door.  But even if this is the case, the press release goes on to explain that tied houses must also "carry a variety of products from different suppliers to avoid particular products being favoured," meaning they cannot shut out the competition in these licensed establishments.

Another question I have is how is how difficult are the government going to make it for breweries to have on-site beer lounges, which are essentially liquor primary licenses. Does that mean over-19 years old allowed only? What hoops will the brewery have to jump to get these licenses? This is the most significant of all the changes for craft breweries, in my opinion as now small nano-style breweries can operate and exist without ever having to distribute their beer. Growler fills and bottle sales from the tasting room-lounge combined with lounge revenue could be enough for these smaller breweries, with no plan to expand, to exist. This is, as far as I understand, the business model for Brassneck Brewery, who, under the new laws, could also offer their products at the Alibi Room due to the tied house law changes (Brassneck and the Alibi both have Nigel Springthorpe involved in ownership).

I am going to dig more and talk a bit more about how these changes could impact the craft beer scene come March 1, 2013 after I do some digging and reflecting on the announcement. As with everything announced by this government, I will wait until the fine print is produced to see just exactly these changes mean. The BC Liberals have a habit of making announcements that look to be making big changes to liquor laws when in fact, they are little more than tweaks and minor adjustments when the full extent of the changes are understood.  

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.

CAMRA BC Speaks Out on LDB Privatization - Time For Craft Beer Consumers to be Heard

Disclaimer: For those who do not know, I am the current president of CAMRA Vancouver. I write this blog as myself and the opinions voiced here on VanEast Beer Blog are mine, not those of CAMRA BC, CAMRA Vancouver or another organization

In case you missed it, last week the Campaign for Real Ale of British Columbia (CAMRA BC) spoke out publicly against the current Liberal Government plans to sell off the province's liquor distribution warehouses and warehouse distribution system to the private sector, joining groups like the Alliance of Beverage Licensees of BC, the BC Government Employees Union and The Craft Brewer's Guild of BC and the NDP Party of BC in voicing their dissent.

In an email to Rich Coleman (see below) and many other major players in the current privatization process, CAMRA BC, a craft beer consumer advocacy group, voiced displeasure about the fact the the Liberals have not been able to guarantee that the privatization plans will not negatively impact the access to locally brewed craft beer or that alcohol prices will not increase for the craft beer consumers of BC. They also point to the absence of consultation with the private and public sectors of the province and to the fact that the Liberals have not produced a business case or cost-effect analysis to support their privatization plans.

The email came one day before NDP Alcohol Critic Shane Simpson dropped a bombshell by releasing documents showing the BC Liberals had no current plans to privatize before being approached last summer by Exel Logistics, who made a pitch to take over the province's alcohol distribution which they had been pursuing for years. For excellent coverage of the whole affair check out Bob Mackins blog 2010 Goldrush #LiquorLeaks.

I hope the CAMRA BC (CAMRA Victoria, CAMRA Vancouver, CAMRA Fraser Valley) membership at large pick up on the cue that it is time to start voicing their dissent individually as well. It is all well and good when organizations speak out as a whole, but the voice becomes much louder when the individuals who make up the membership of these organizations take it upon themselves to make some noise themselves.

One email from CAMRA BC to Rich Coleman, et al, is essential. One thousand emails from CAMRA BC members will have Coleman and all involved sitting up and taking notice as each voice of dissent is a vote and in politics that is what counts.

This whole affair has the same stink to it that the HST did when the BC Liberals did another about face about face, changing their position from "no HST" prior to the 2011 election to announcing implementation of the since shot-down tax shortly after being voted back in.

Maybe it is time for an another HST-type, grassroots revolt here in BC to show the Liberals once and for all, we will not tolerate being lied to and deceived. The necessary emails are all below for anyone who feels it is important to speak out in order to try to stop this process until the government provides some evidence the move is good for British Columbians and determine that this is indeed what the citizens of BC want.

Democracy only works if there is participation from the masses.

From: CAMRA President <pres@camravancouver.ca> Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM  Subject: Campaign for Real Ale of British Columbia position LDB Distribution Warehouse Privatization
To: rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca 

Cc: <Shane.Simpson.MLA@leg.bc.ca>, kevin.falcon.mla@leg.bc.ca, margaret.macdiarmid.mla@leg.bc.ca, Roger.Bissoondatt@bcldb.com, office@macauley.ca, <Karen.Ayers@gov.bc.ca> 

Dear Mr Coleman   

I am writing you this letter on behalf of the Campaign for Real Ale of British Columbia (CAMRA BC), a craft beer consumer advocacy group who represent more than 1000 individual and 100 corporate members here in British Columbia and of which I am the Vancouver Branch President and member of the BC Executive.  

Since the announcement of the BC Liberal Government’s plan to sell off the Liquor Distribution Branch’s warehouses and with them the province’s warehouse distribution system, many groups have come out against the plan, including the opposition NDP Party, Alliance of Beverage Licensees of BC, the BC Government Employee’s Union and the Craft Brewer’s Guild of BC.   

There have been complaints of the complete absence of consultation with BC’s liquor industry or the general public, and the lack of guarantees that this privatization plan will not negatively impact the alcohol industry and alcohol consumers of this province.   

It is now our turn, the craft beer consumers of BC, to voice our dissent due in large part to  the lack of information as to how this privatization will affect the craft beer industry and craft beer consumers and because the current government cannot guarantee 100 percent that this privatization deal, when completed and implemented, will not have a negative impact on the craft beer consumers of BC.   

No business case has been presented. A clear cost-effect analysis should be completed and presented to both the liquor industry and general public in order to clarify exactly how privatization will affect liquor prices before this process goes any further.   

No study has been done and no guarantees have been made as to whether privatization will affect access to BC-brewed beers from local, craft breweries.  

At the moment, the Provincial Government has a mandate to make these beers accessible, but will this continue after privatization?   

In short, CAMRA BC cannot currently support this privatization plan and will continue to voice dissent until the following steps are taken:

1. Conduct a study to provide objective data showing how this move will impact the craft beer consumers of BC  

1. Make public a business case and/or cost-effect analysis

1. Have a full and meaningful consultation with both the private and public sectors of the province in regards to the planned sale and privatization of the Liquor Distribution Branch's warehouses and warehouse distribution system  

If, after those steps have been taken and it is shown that this privatization plan will not negatively impact the craft beer consumers of BC, CAMRA BC will be willing to support this move publicly on behalf of our membership. 

Thank you for your time. 

Paddy Treavor  

President, Vancouver Branch - CAMRA BC

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. 

Craft Beer Drinkers Getting Short Poured Again

About a month ago I wrote about the discussions being held by provincial politicians looking at possibly changing liquor laws to allow for a Bring Your Own Bottle-style program in BC restaurants.

In that post I pointed out that most of the focus was on including wine only to be allowed to be brought by patrons to participating restaurants and I have since had confirmed that the BC craft beer industry is once again being given no support by the Provincial Government while the wine industry is getting preferential treatment.

But this latest snub of the craft beer industry has a lot to do with the fact that the craft beer industry and the craft beer consumers of BC are just not as organized as their counterparts in the wine world.

NDP MLA and critic for the LCLB/LDB, Shane Simpson brought up the subject in the BC Legislature, prompted in part by discussions and email communications with CAMRA Vancouver who are pressing to have beer included in any BYOB discussions. When asked directly by Mr Simpson if beer, particularly craft beer, is being considered as a part of any future law reforms in regards to BYOB, Liberal Cabinet Minister Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for the LCLB/LDB, replied, "No. We (Liberal Government) have not even had any overtures from restaurants or bars in BC, with regards to that."

So, a combination of a lack of organization and desire to lobby on their own behalf by the Craft Brewers Guild combined with a lack of respect for the BC craft beer industry from the Provincial Government has once again placed beer lovers in this province in the role of second fiddle.

Those involved in and who support the craft beer industry and those who love craft beer need to get active and need to do it quickly. Check out what the wine folks have been doing to make sure the government knows they are interested in BYOB.  Sign the CAMRA Vancouver petition to show your support for craft beer and BYOB. Tweet Rich Coleman @colemancountry, email him at rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca or contact LCLB General Manager, Karen Ayers at Karen.Ayers@gov.bc.ca to let them know we want craft beer included in BYOB talks.

If not, we craft beer drinkers are soon going to be crying into our pints about how the government has once again short-poured the craft beer community in BC while local wine lovers are busy enjoying their favourite BYOB wine while out enjoying a meal.

CAMRA Vancouver Making a FUSS in the Legislature

Disclaimer: For those who do not know, the writer of this blog is also the president of CAMRA Vancouver

CAMRA Vancouver may have finally arrived on the political scene last week when their FUSS Campaign was raised in the BC Legislature by NDP MLA Shane Simpson.

Mr Simpson, during debate in the legislature, asked Liberal MLA and Minister of Energy and Mines, Rich Coleman, who also oversees the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch and the Liquor Distribution Board, why the LCLB was not enforcing their law requiring licensees to provide serving size-price lists to patrons, citing that it is in the interests of public safety and consumer protection that this law be properly enforced.

Although CAMRA Vancouver, or the FUSS Campaign, were not mentioned by name, this issue was raised as a direct result of a meeting held a few months ago between myself, CAMRA Vancouver VP, Dieter Friesen and Mr Simpson who is the NDP critic for all things alcohol in BC. During the meeting, Mr Simpson stated he saw value in the FUSS Campaign, what it stood for, and stated he would support the initiative, a promise he has followed through with by writing a letter to Mr Coleman, asking for governmental support of the FUSS Campaign and then by raising the issue in the BC Legislature.

In his comments to Mr Coleman, Mr Simpson pointed out that there are no standardized measures in BC for draft beer and without serving size lists, customers often have no idea what they are paying for.

"We know glasses can be of mighty different sizes," stated Simpson in the legislative debate. "People should know if it's a real pint, or is it 12 ounces, or what is it?"

Simpson then went on to state that licensees should not only have serving size lists available, but that they should be posted for people to see, stating there is "the need for the establishment to display a sign that says, 'When you get a mug of beer here, this is the size that you're buying,' and you'll know and you'll (the customer) pay accordingly."

Public safety was also raised as an issue, with Mr Simpson pointing out that many of the craft beers on the market are much higher in alcohol content compared to the traditional, massed-produced lagers, which could lead to accidental intoxication if a customer does not know exactly how much he is consuming.

"There's a difference here, if you're having a couple of these (higher alcohol beers) versus a couple of Coors Lights, in terms of making a decision about your conduct, particularly if you're going to go out and get in a car," stated Simpson. "Is there any thinking about enforcing that more rigorously or encouraging that enforcement through your inspectors?"

Mr Coleman was frank in his response, stating he was aware of the serving size issues, but the the LCLB was focusing their resources on four major enforcement issues, those being service to minors, overcrowding of licensed establishments, sale of illegal liquor and over-serving. Coleman did not acknowledge that Mr Simpson did link serving sizes to possible over-serving, even if that over-serving may be accidental.

"Those are the four priorities," stated Coleman. "They (licensees) are required to do the serving sizes and post the price list, and we will continue to remind them through the newsletter. The odd time we might get a complaint that we would actually spend some time on, but for the most part that's the expectation."

So although the LCLB is aware that this law is being flaunted, it will not act unless they are forced to by getting specific complaints against specific licensees. The LCLB are bound by policy to investigate all complaints. So in their mind, the LCLB will not prioritize this issue unless complaints for the public begin to roll in.

I guess not all laws are meant to be enforced equally, even though "it is a law, we have no choice" is the party line of the LCLB when they are enforcing ridiculous laws like no dancing in liquor primary establishments and they are questioned as to why they are cracking down on something so harmless.

At this point in time, CAMRA Vancouver has not made any specific complaints against particular licensees, although I have personally been tempted more than a few times when I have seen a sign or menu advertising a "pint" and then the server brings over a sleeve and brushes off my complaints that they did not deliver on  what they promised. If you find yourself in this situation and are unhappy with the response or explanation you get, you now know how to prompt the LCLB inspectors into action.

CAMRA Vancouver received confirmation this week that the LCLB is following through via their newsletter "Liquor Line" which goes to all licensees and LCLB employees in the province. LCLB General Manager, Karen Ayers, via email, advised me, "the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch has included a reminder to licensees and to our staff," stating, "the newsletter is the most effective and cost efficient method we have of communicating to licensees."

A mention in a newsletter does not seem like a huge result for CAMRA Vancouver, but I would argue differently. I do not think CAMRA Vancouver has ever been able to get political support at the level of the Provincial Legislature, or has been successful in grabbing the attention LCLB and prompt them to any sort of action. It is not much, but it is a start and the FUSS Campaign has definitely made both politicians and the LCLB aware that CAMRA is out there advocating on behalf of the craft beer consumers of BC.

CAMRA Vancouver needs to take a pause to see if there are any changes as a result of the newsletter reminders and if not, will decide how to take this issue to the next level. I know there are some out there that think we are missing the mark with this campaign and who believe it is a waste of energy, but those few are in the minority and are usually not looking at the issue from a consumer's point of view.

As long as I am president of CAMRA Vancouver, I will continue to raise this issue until we get compliance and enforcement. I am not one for pushing for the LCLB to be heavy-handed with their enforcement unless the law being enforced makes sense.

Knowing what you are being served and what you are paying for, stamping out misrepresentation of serving sizes/short pouring and promoting responsible drinking/public safety do make sense to me and at its core, that is what FUSS is all about.

Open Letter to Honourable Minister Rich Coleman

Dear Mr Coleman

As a person who has been advocating long and hard for the review and reform of BC liquor laws and the way alcohol is controlled and distributed in this province, I would like to thank you for finally taking notice of the loud and persistent calls for changes.

For a while there I was wondering if the government's strategy was to allow us liquor-law naysayers to scream ourselves hoarse and fall silent due to sheer exhaustion, but your quick call to action after being put in charge of both the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) and Liquor Distribution Board (LDB)  has me thinking there is a glimmer of hope that BC can begin to treat those who can legally consume and those who distribute and sell alcohol in BC like the adults that they are.

For as long as I have been aware of alcohol and liquor laws, I have been aware of BC residents and alcohol-related businesses crying out for changes to our out-dated and over-bearing liquor laws and system of alcohol distribution. The way in which these laws restrict the freedoms of those who choose to partake in downing a few adult beverages here in BC and the seemingly arbitrary way the LCLB enforce these laws, may have made perfect sense in post-Prohibition British Columbia, circa 1925, but sir it is now 2012 and if those who believe the Mayan calendar may indeed be predicting the Apocalypse on Dec 21, of this year, would like you to hurry along with these promised reforms.

By announcing that the BC Liberals are finally looking at "a number of issues on liquor", so that changes can be made, has many of us advocating for changes collectively holding our breath. Can real change and the end to the Orwellian, Big Brother style of controlling the liquor industry and liquor consumption in BC be just around the corner?

You seem to be a man of action and I am sure it is no coincidence that the shift of responsibility for all things alcohol in BC to you, from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, came at a time when a grassroots movement and a groundswell of support calling for reforms to liquor laws was growing, rallied by the ridiculous and short-sighted decision by the LCLB and General Manager Karen Ayers to cripple The Rio Theatre's ability to show movies even when alcohol was not being served.

My only fear is that this promise to review and "fix" liquor law problems is motivated by the Liberal government's fear of populist, grassroots' movements, as you are still stinging from the whole HST debacle and the Bill Vander Zalm-lead campaign that resulted in the hated tax being repealed and not by truly recognizing that there is a need for change. There will be huge disappointment and a further decline in Liberal popularity with BC voters, if this review and reform turns out to be nothing more than a few superficial changes, made to give the appearance of listening to voters and acting on their concerns, to quell voter unrest, when in fact nothing really changes.

A few band-aids slapped on as a quick fix  will not suffice when total reconstructive surgery is required.

It will take more than allowing us to enjoy a beer while watching a movie in a theatre to "fix" and "reform BC liquor laws.

For instance, why does the LDB have complete control over what alcohol is sold in this province, for what price and how it is distributed? Why must private liquor stores complete on an uneven playing field, having to buy all their liquor from the LDB who mark up the price so that these private stores must sell their alcohol at a higher price than the government run BC Liquor Stores? Why, for that matter, does the LDB mark-up booze well over 100% before selling it off to bars and restaurants who must again mark up the price to make a profit and cover their operating costs? Why does the LDB, not consumer demand, get to dictate what products the general public and the hospitality industry can and cannot buy? Why is it illegal for freedom of movement in regards to alcohol across provincial borders? Why can consumers not BYOB to restaurants like in other provinces like Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec? Why, in the name of public safety can there not be dancing and plugged in, live music in restaurants? Why can I bring my daughter into a restaurant with a wine and beer list ten pages long, with those wines and beers being consumed on all sides of us, yet I cannot take her into a small, quiet, local neighbourhood pub which may feature a tenth of the alcohol selection and offer a great food menu? Why is it so difficult to open small, local microbreweries and brew pubs?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

I really hope you have taken the time to read this letter Mr Coleman as I am one of a legion of voters who feel the same way. We are fed up and we are tired of having our enjoyment restricted because a few out there may abuse the system and serve/consume alcohol irresponsibly. Let those of us who are responsible sell and consume responsibly, without government interference and punish those who do serve to minors, over-crowd their licensed establishments over-serve and over-consume. I hope during your "review" of liquor laws you take the time to consult with the hospitality industry, to listen to people like myself and include consumer advocacy groups such as CAMRA Vancouver and CAMRA BC who promote and educate about responsible consumption of alcohol.



Yours Truly
Paddy Treavor
Cautiously Optimistic Citizen of BC
President, CAMRA Vancouver
Authour of VanEast Beer Blog