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.  

Is the BC Beer Market About to Become the Wild West?

If the rumours I have been hearing the past few weeks are true the BC beer market may resemble the Wild West by the middle of January.

I have been informed from two completely different sources that the BC Liberals will finally be making an announcement in regards to what course of action they will take two years after the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch.put out a consultation paper requesting industry input in regards to proposed changes to the laws regulating tied house and trade practices.

If the information I am getting is correct, and I do believe it to be so, the changes are to be announced by mid-January and will completely deregulate tied houses and trade practices, leaving the BC market wide open, reminiscent of the Wild West, for the highest bidders to lock down pubs, restaurants and liquor stores by either buying these outlets or offering large amounts of cash, or other inducements, for exclusivity rights (bars/restaurants) and preferential shelf placement (liquor stores).

The original call for input outlined three options for tied house law changes, those being to eliminate tied house prohibitions altogether, permit tied houses between the same corporate entity, but limit the number of tied houses a person can hold to limit risk of market consolidation or to permit tied houses with public interest restrictions.

They also laid out three options in regards to trade practice regulations, those being to eliminate trade practice restrictions altogether,  reduce or eliminate most trade practice restrictions or to streamline some trade practice policies and procedures

For better explanations as to what those options mean, click on the consultation link above.

There has been a great divide among the players in the craft beer industry as to whether deregulating tied house and trade practice restrictions will have a negative impact on the industry or not. You can read in more detail what this is all about here and here.

The biggest fear is that the larger, deep-pocketed, national and multinational breweries will simply buy pubs and restaurants, or pay licensees to favor their products, to stop the growth of the local craft beer industry which has managed to claw their way from 7% to about 15% of the domestic beer market in BC over the past five years. That growth may not sound much, but when you consider that each percentage point represents over $8 million dollars in sales, you can see why the bigger, national macro-breweries do not want the smaller breweries get any stronger. There are also some concerns that the more aggressive and growth-oriented local breweries, willing to incur short-term losses for long term gains, might just try to buy a larger share of the market by stepping on their competition who are more focused on sustainability and producing great beers.

There is also the fear that licensees will begin to demand cash, free product and kickbacks for the right to sell beer in their establishments which will prohibit smaller breweries from being able to sell their beers in those types of establishments.

Many others say that the deregulation of the tied house laws will not impact the major craft beer markets like Greater Vancouver and Victoria and will give craft breweries in smaller markets, where marco-beers dominate, another outlet to sell their beer if they have the means to invest in a pub, restaurant or liquor store. There is also the argument that the practices of bribery by breweries and demanding payment of some type by licensees are alive and well in the beer industry because the laws are impossible to enforce and that deregulating will have little impact.

If the laws are wiped from the books, it will be interesting to see what happens. As a consumer, I would like to see a middle ground approach, where their are some safeguards in place to stop the larger, richer breweries from simply buying tap, fridge and shelf space to the point of restricting their competition similar to what happened in the UK in the 1990's. But I think, at least here in Vancouver, there are too many licensees who are committed to craft beer because it is simply a better product, because selling craft beer is profitable and because there is a great thirst among local beer drinkers for superior craft beer products.

In the end, as a consumer, I can only hope that if there is deregulation, it does not result in restricted access to locally brewed craft beers or higher prices. If so, it will have to be the consumers who rally and demand a further review by which ever political party gains power in the upcoming election as the industry is too divided on these issues.