43% Price Hike Does Not Sound Like Happy Hour to Me

Friday afternoon the Liberals announced that BC alcohol licensees, as of the time of the announcement (read policy directive here),  are now free to have temporary drink specials, otherwise known as happy hour.

But before you run down to your local pub looking for a 2-for-1 special, know that with the new minimum
drink pricing of $0.25 per 28 ml (one ounce) that was tied to the happy hour announcement, many beer drinkers in BC will see the regular price of their pint increase significantly, especially in more rural areas of BC.

At $0.25 an ounce, a pint works out to $5 before tax. My local in Powell River, for example, charged, before yesterday, $4.50 a pint (yes a real pint), tax included, for craft beer on a regular basis. Now that price will have to increase to hit the new minimum standard.

I will now pay more for my pint at the minimum "happy hour minimum" price threshold, before tax, than I was on a regular basis, with tax included, in my local and many other establishments in my town.

Happy Hour my ass.

This situation is not atypical to my local as economies outside the Lower Mainland are completely unrelated to Vancouver and big city prices due to variety of reasons, like the lack of high paying jobs or the necessity to rely on seasonal work to make ends meet. This new minimum pricing did not take that into consideration, or the BC Liberals and their crew of civil servants and bureaucrats who wrote the policy just did not care that this price hike may mean less business for small town pubs and those establishments that cater to the less affluent here in BC and less opportunity for those with low income to get outside of the four walls of their homes to socialize over a beer at their local.

And in areas like the outrageously priced Vancouver, where a pint often can run $10 after tax and tip, those places with great daily specials, like Martini's on Broadway for instance where a pint is, excuse me, was $3.50 on Wednesdays, because the new minimum drink pricing they will have to increase their "special" prices.

Using Martini's as an example, the price hike will be 43%!

It is obvious that Justice Minister/Attorney General, Suzanne Anton, her Parliamentary Secretary, John Yap and those they charged with shaping the new BC liquor policy "modernization" caved to the pressure from special interest groups.

Certain hospitality industry associations have been pushing against happy hours from the start as increased competition from lower booze prices during happy hours means less dollars in the pockets of their members. Big chains do not want to have to compete with smaller, independent establishments which are more likely to lower their prices for happy hours in order to lure customers through their doors.

And I warned you all in the past to be wary of the fact that government were listening closely to health officials about minimum pricing for booze in BC.

Health authorities and their advocates have been pushing for higher booze prices and less access to alcohol from the start of this process using statistics from vague, unnamed studies and scare tactics to push their agenda forward. When I had the opportunity to discuss this issue on radio on CBC (scroll down to Oct 31st) head-to-head with Fraser Health Medical Officer, Dr Lawrence Loh, he ran out a stat that 37% of people who present at BC emergency departments have had a drink of alcohol within 12 hours arriving.

Sounds like a very ominous and telling stat.

My response - what percentage of people in BC who consume a drink of alcohol do not present at an emergency department within 12 hours? That is a stat I would like to see! I guarantee you it is the 99% or above range.

The good doctor had no response to that. Stats can be twisted and manipulated any which way in most cases, depending on how you pose the question.

Dr Loh, in response to me stating that alcohol in grocery stores work in many other jurisdictions, stated we have to be wary of using other jurisdictions and studies based in those jurisdictions to predict what will happen in BC because we may have different attitudes and a different culture in BC related to alcohol.

Actually, a great point, but then, to bolster his argument 5 minutes later, he started spouting off stats from studies done in other jurisdictions that supported his point of view, contradicting his warning not to look to other places where booze is viewed in a different light than conservative BC.

This happy hour-minimum pricing policy is an epic fail for consumers in many areas of BC. As with the issue of alcohol in grocery stores, John Yap and those involved in the process from the government side, have completely misunderstood or completely ignored the real wants and needs of the alcohol consumers in this province. I am not sure if they are believe their own bullshit that they are listening to consumers and giving consumers what they want because clearly, they are not.

The government has quietly backed away from their promise to tie beer prices to alcohol content and instead have just nailed everyone. At the end of the day, the BC Liberals are not modernizing anything. They are making changes that look great but really have no effect in reducing the Nanny State that exists in BC related alcohol policy.

Now, if you don't mind, I am going to head down to my local and celebrate the return of happy hour in BC by paying $1.50 or so more for my pint than I did on Thursday.

Thank you John Yap, Suzanne Anton and all of those involved in this asshattery called the return of happy hour to BC.

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.

Changing the Culture of Fear & Paranoia: The Recommendation That Could Change How Liquor Policy is Enforced

For as long as I can remember there has been a dark cloud of paranoia that has hung over many BC liquor manufacturers & licensees who fear that their livelihoods, namely their liquor-related businesses and the licenses associated with them, are in jeopardy if they question provincial liquor policy and the decisions made the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB), the Liquor Distribution Branch (LDB) and their employees.

But all this may be about to change as a result of one of the 73 recommendations made by John Yap in his BC Liquor Policy Review Final Report. In his report, Yap is recommending the BC Liberals allow for,

 "applicants and licensees seeking a review of LCLB decisions should have access to a new and separate decision-making body outside the licensing branch. The Ministry of Justice should review current processes and determine how best to provide independent decision-making for those seeking appeal."

This recommendation, which is getting no press coverage or water cooler time, is the recommendation that could drag our liquor policies, and how they are implemented and enforced, into the 21st Century. This could also be the recommendation that allows liquor related business owners do what they want to do, namely run their businesses without undue interference and inconsistent application of BC liquor policy from alcohol related government agencies.

By creating an affordable, independent system for licensees and liquor licensee applicants to appeal LCLB & LDB rulings, inspectors & upper echelon bureaucrats will be held accountable for their decisions which may cause some of the less scrupulous and less knowledgeable types to think twice before acting. Those seemingly arbitrary and illogical rulings and decisions we all hear about will now be examined by someone who, in theory, will have a completely objective viewpoint. Licensees will no longer have to fear retribution as much as they will have an avenue for lodging complaints when they feel they have been done wrong.

It may also provide some consistency to how the policies and laws are applied and create case examples of rulings that could work similar to case law in the courts, setting precedents that can be used in the future when similar situations arise and there is conflict between licensees and the powers that be enforcing and implementing liquor policies.

By having rulings for specific issues on the record the ability to interpret and manipulate policies could be eliminated or at least decreased. And if a particular inspector or bureaucrat keeps having their actions and decisions hauled into and overturned by this appeal process, maybe, just maybe, problems will identified and actions taken to correct the problems like supplying proper support and education to those who are abusing their power or making questionable rulings. And if the problems continue to persist, maybe, just maybe, those not doing their job in an ethical and equitable manner, will be disciplined and possibly removed from those positions of power.

I know when I met with Yap, as a part of the CAMRA BC presentation during the review, he was very interested in the idea of an independent appeal process and he did acknowledge that he had heard from several sources that many licensees fear speaking out even when they believe they are 100% in the right. We had quite a long discussion about this and I got the distinct impression that Yap wanted to ensure that there were checks and balances in place in regards to enforcement of liquor policies. He also mentioned he would like to see liquor inspectors get more education about the policies they are enforcing and the mandate they are carrying out.

I get a regular flow of emails and telephone calls from liquor license holders and people trying to obtain liquor licenses, who ask me to look into questionable and at times seemingly arbitrary decisions made by our province's liquor bureaucrats and their minions, but almost all end their requests with the following stipulation, "Please don't use my name or anything I have told you because I don't want any trouble (from the LCLB or LBD)."

At the moment, licensees know they have little-to-no recourse if they find themselves on the wrong side of their local liquor inspectors or the bureaucrats who work in the LCLB & LDB head offices as currently there is no appeal process built into the system. Once a decision has been made and/or a penalty imposed, that is it, end of story, no matter how nonsensical or unjust. Licensees often feel helpless in this very unbalanced system and those enforcing and implementing policy know it.

Currently, front line LCLB liquor inspectors, if they are so inclined, have been free to make rulings as they see fit, interpreting the often poorly and vaguely worded policies and laws to their advantage, making rulings and decisions that cost licensees crippling amounts of money, with little fear of being held accountable and at times with little working knowledge of the policies and laws they are enforcing. I am not saying all liquor inspectors are like this, but it seems like licensees from all corners of the province have had negative experiences.

Those higher up the bureaucratic food chain are free to direct these liquor inspectors as they see fit. In the cases of those in positions of power, they, in certain instances, have the ability to write liquor policy on the fly, basically unchecked as the politicians who are supposed to be responsible have little-to-no interest or knowledge of what is going on and only pay attention when the shit hits the fan. Politicians rely heavily on the advice of the top bureaucrats and the top bureaucrats have a vested interest in making things as easy on themselves as they can, pushing their own private agendas knowing they have little chance of having to answer for their decisions unless something goes wrong and the media get onto a story that reflects negatively on the government's policies.

Laws are often enforced arbitrarily and inconsistently. Both the LCLB & LDB hide behind the often outdated and nonsensical liquor policies when it suits them to enforce them and ignore those same policies and laws when doing so suits their needs.

I know some of you out there think I am just being dramatic and trying to cause trouble here but trust me, I have sat down with liquor inspectors who have no idea what they are talking about, who make bizarre decisions based on their interpretation of the liquor policies or have an unwillingness to try to address problems without being unnecessarily heavy-handed. I have also seen cases where the LCLB & LDB have seemed to rule or act for no other reason than to put people who complain or question policy in their place. If you want some specific examples check out here, here, here and here.

Having said that, I know that there are many who work in the alcohol bureaucrat arms of government who are very honest, helpful and try to do what they can to be fair and equitable to licensees and liquor-related businesses but they are overshadowed by those others I have been talking about.

I hope the government looks hard at creating a system or appeal that will help create a far and equitable process for everyone involved in the BC liquor industry. Liquor inspectors, the LCLB & those who issue liquor licenses  and enforce the laws have a job to do, which is enforce liquor policy, but this enforcement needs to be consistent, predictable and both those abusing the policies and breaking the law and those enforcing the policies and laws need to be held equally accountable.

Help Feed Vancouver's Hungry by Drinking Craft Beer

If you are looking for a reason to justify a mid-week craft beer session, look no further than Liberty Wine Merchant's 2nd Annual East Side Beer Fest to be held Wednesday, March 5th at the WISE Hall, located at the corner of Victoria Drive and Adanac Street.

The event, organized by Liberty's Commercial Drive location, is donating all proceeds from the event to the Greater Vancouver Food Bank and is asking all who attend to also bring a non-perishable food item to the event which will also be passed on to the food bank.

Last year's inaugural event was a sell out which helped Liberty donate $4,287 to the Food Bank along with the food items donated at the door by thirsty craft beer lovers. This year's event has a great line up of breweries and beer importing agents lined up (see list below).

"For the 2nd Annual we have decided to go with a mix of new vendors and old, half from B.C. and half agents importing world class beers," stated Liberty Commercial store manager William Ford. "Some notable new additions are recent start-ups Four Winds and Bomber Brewing and new agents UnTapped, Modern Malt and new-to-us Bravo."

As an added bonus, Liberty have confirmed that their own nano-distillery, The Liberty Distillery, will be pouring samples of their vodka and white whiskey.

Food will also be available from various Commercial Drive businesses to help soak up all the great craft beers and artisan spirits on offer. Don't wait until the last minute as last year's event had no tickets available at the door due to being sold out ahead of time.

The event runs from 7-9 PM with tickets running $24.99 each or 4 for $80. For more information on the event and where to get tickets check out Liberty's event page here.

List of confirmed breweries and agents
Breweries: Driftwood, Central City, Phillips, Howe Sound, Parallel 49, Four Winds, Mill St., Bomber

Agents: McClelland Premium Imports (Erdinger, Delirium, Rodenbach), Bravo (ie. Saison Dupont, Gulden Draak, Caracole), TruCraft (ie. Lagunitas, Super Bock, Brooklyn, Hopworks), Untapped (ie. Trou du Diable, Dieu du Ciel, Rev. Nat's), Modern Malt (ie. Occidental, Base Camp, No-Li), The Liberty Distillery (Vodka & White Whiskey), Peacock & Martin (ie. Westmalle, Tempelier, Fraoch)

The Beer is out of the Garden Part II: Recommendation Misses for the BC Craft Beer Industry

Recently, citizens of BC were privileged to see the great reveal in regards to what direction the province is considering alcohol-wise as the Liberals released the BC Liquor Policy Review Final Report  outlining all 73 of John Yap's recommendations for modernizing BC liquor laws and policies.

While many of the recommendations look promising in regards to hauling our liquor policies into the 21st Century, it is important to remember that at this point they are nothing more than recommendations and the real test as to how modernizing these policy changes will be comes when the actual policies are drawn up and implemented by the bureaucrats working on behalf of our elected officials.

And have no illusions, it is not the politicians who are drafting these policies, as few of them have any idea what the issues really are and most depend heavily on the advice and direction given by their top dogs at the LDB and LCLB who the politicos trust. It is also the bureaucrats and their staff that implement, regulate and enforce the policies so without them on board, it is possible little could change.

Yap is probably the most learned politician in BC regarding to issues related to our current liquor laws and policies, after sitting down with the 66 stakeholder groups for their direct input and feedback, and the countless social media and on-line submissions from citizens of our province. Hell, why the BC Liberals do not give him the alcohol portfolio at this point is beyond me.

There is a chance that many policy changes will be very positive for our exploding craft beer industry (read here) but there are a few recommendations hidden away in the 59-page report that could have a negative impact and a few misses, recommendations that were not made, that, by their absence, failed to hit the mark in supporting BC craft beer.

The first one to come to mind is going to be very unpopular with both manufacturing and consumer sides of the craft beer community. Recommendation #18, in Yap's report, states:

"LDB should consider tying minimum prices to the amount of alcohol (e.g., a beer with seven per cent alcohol would have a higher minimum price than a beer with four per cent alcohol)" 

This is not surprising for many reasons and you can bet that the various health authorities, addictions-based stakeholders, all of whom are looking solely from the public safety and health perspective, and the big, national breweries, who churn out endless volumes of 5% swill, pushed Yap & Co. hard on this one.

The negative impacts are obvious I would think. Whether breweries are taxed at a higher rate for higher alcohol beers, or the minimum price is just increased once the beer is in the hands of the LDB, consumers will be paying more for these beers which could see a decrease in sales. It may also limit beers what brewers will be allowed to brew as brewery managers/owners may shy away from the higher alcohol beers if price increases start impacting sales numbers and the brewery's' bottom lines.

But let's be honest, the alcohol content listed on labels are, at times, closer to suggestions than actual fact as it is so this may have little impact. The enforcement of verifying the actual strength for all beers for every batch being sold is next to impossible and the LDB will have to depend on the good will of the breweries to tell them the truth.

One positive from this for fans of less boozy brews is that breweries might start looking at making more session beers than the high octane craft brews we see dominating the market at times.

I have always felt that the breweries were living on borrowed time, with the "mark-up" or tax being the same on beers up to 11.99%. I was just waiting for the government to realize that they could make a tax grab from breweries under the guise of promoting public health and safety. That time may have come and considering all the potential great changes for breweries and consumers, this may not be too hard to swallow, again depending on the actual breakdown and policy.

Another recommendation I believe many breweries will find annoying, especially those who have splashed out lots of money to create hip & happening tasting rooms, is the recommendation that would, "allow private and public retail liquor stores to sell growlers (refillable bottles) and operate refilling stations."

This could be construed as a negative because, for starters, giving liquors stores the ability to sell and refill growlers, be them private or government run, could potentially draw customers away from the above mentioned tasting rooms which could cut down on consumers, specifically beer tourists, buying other merchandise and products offered in the tasting room.

Secondly, growler fills are a unique way of connecting the consumer directly to the manufacturer and those who work directly for the breweries. By allowing liquor stores to sell and fill growlers, the beers being poured may not receive the same respect from the retail outlets and the staff pouring or selling the beers may or may not be knowledgeable about the products on the same level that brewery employees will be expected to be. Control of the product will be relinquished to a third party whose only interest in the beer could be to sell it to make a profit.

On the other side of the coin is the fact that by allowing liquor stores to sell and refill growlers, breweries will have more outlets to market and sell their products, but, if the listing process for government stores remains the same, the added opportunity will most likely be at the expense of another product which will have to be de-listed to make room for the growler sku on government liquor store shelves.

I also think that Yap missed a few opportunities to help support local breweries. The first one that comes to mind is recommending that the government appoint a special beer envoy, like the did for the wine industry last February, with the "with a mandate to work to complement existing efforts to open up domestic markets" for B.C. beers (see announcement here). I am not sure if this would benefit all craft breweries, as many are small scale and have trouble keeping up with local demand, but it would help those who are growing and looking to expand their markets and customer base outside the province.

Along those same lines, I do not know why the government is recommending to "work with other Canadian wine-producing jurisdictions to jointly develop thematic wine promotions in each jurisdiction’s liquor stores to promote Canadian wine," and not apply the same recommendation to craft beer to jointly promote Canadian craft beer as well especially considering that other craft beer jurisdictions across the country are starting to come into their own and flourish like ours has in BC.
  
I am sure there are a few more negatives among the 73 recommendations as far as the manufacturing side of things goes, but for me, those are the highlights, or maybe more appropriately, the low lights of the report. If there are more that are obvious that I have missed out on, I would love to hear from brewers, brewery owners, managers, etc to get their perspective.

The Beer is Out of the Garden! Yap's Report Revealed & Some Good News for Craft Breweries

Friday the BC Liberals finally quit teasing us and released John Yap's BC Liquor Policy Review in full for all to see what came out of the massive consultation process that took place between Yap and BC liquor stakeholders, including the general public, last August through October.

Yap's final report was released in full as a part of a third announcement from the Liberals which highlighted proposed recommended liquor policy changes in regards to beer gardens at festivals, special occasions licenses (SOL) and U-brew/homebrew, among other things. The announcement also stated that all 73 of Yap's recommendations have "the full support" of the BC Liberal Government and that "significant policy work and implementation planning," will be done over the coming months to change these recommendations into official policy and law.

These recommendations, at this point in the process, look like they could prompt the government to take some significant steps towards modernizing our antiquated liquor policies and move towards treating adults who consume alcohol like, well, adults. When all is said and done, we may have more European-style liquor policies than 1920's Prohibition controls and consumers will have more freedoms and opportunities to enjoy a drink on a broader stage than is now allowed in our Nanny State.

Much depends on the actual policy that is drafted and if the Liberals hedge their bets and play it safe, like they seem to be doing with the idea of selling alcohol in grocery stores, these recommendations may not have much impact at all. But lets see the pint glass as half full at this point and move forward with the expectation that the government are really committed to making meaningful changes in regards to modernizing BC liquor policy.

Some of the more controversial recommendations, like booze in grocery stores, the return of happy hours, no more fenced beer gardens at festivals and allowing kids in pubs during the day, are grabbing all the media attention but I think these sexier policy changes will have little impact on craft beer sales and may, in the case of grocery store sales and happy hours, have a slight negative effect (more on that in my next post).

As an alcohol consumer who lives in BC, I am grateful that these headline-grabbing proposals have been "supported", but as a supporter of the local craft beer scene, I see many of the "lesser" or more boring recommendations, if they are followed through on, as being more beneficial to our BC craft breweries which will have the trickle down effect of being beneficial to craft beer consumers in this province. It looks like the BC Liberals are beginning to address the fact that they have basically ignored craft beer industry while putting the wine industry up on a pedestal, giving it and the BC wine consumers preferred treatment.

I think the following recommendations, if the government does follow through and create meaningful and effective policy changes, coupled with a change of attitude and commitment to support our craft beer industry in the same way they have supported the wine folks, will help strengthen our local craft beer community which is essential if all these new and soon-to-be-opened breweries are going to survive.

These are some of the most important recommendations I think will have a positive influence on the BC craft beer scene:

• LDB should improve its marketing of B.C. liquor products in stores, developing new opportunities for product placement and innovative promotional and educational materials. 
• Government should work with industry and tourism associations to develop promotional materials such as maps, apps and brochures on B.C. wineries, breweries and distilleries.
• Government should discuss establishing a quality assurance program for B.C. craft beer and artisan-distilled spirits (similar to the VQA wine program). 
• Manufacturers should be able to establish low-risk tasting venues such as a picnic area as part of their existing licence without the need to apply for a specific endorsement. Government should work with industry, local government and First Nations to increase flexibility for tasting options for manufacturers while being sensitive to potential negative impacts, such as noise, on the community.
• Government should consult with industry and review the minimum requirements to obtain a brewery, winery or distillery licence. Government should also consider how these requirements are regulated by LCLB and LDB to ensure transparency and an effective regulatory system.
• Government should permit B.C. liquor manufacturers to offer products for sample and sale at temporary off-site retail locations (e.g., farmers’ markets), with appropriate conditions. The decision about whether to allow vintners, brewers and distillers to showcase their products at a particular location will be left to the location management (e.g., farmers’ market association). 
• Allow patrons to buy bottles of liquor to take home that are showcased at festivals or competitions. Consider amending SOLs issued to festivals and competitions, or allow BC Liquor or private retail stores to operate a temporary store on site as the means to provide for these sales.
• Allow manufacturers to have off-site locations where they can sample and sell their products to the public (e.g., permanent tasting rooms in a downtown store).
• LDB warehousing and distribution systems should be modernized and streamlined. The wholesale ordering processes should be improved with the goal of better and more efficient service to clients.

Our breweries can make the best beer in the world, but if they do not have the opportunity to operate and creatively market/distribute their products, free of bureaucratic red tape and stifling liquor policies, and get those beers to consumers at a competitive price, they will struggle to survive.  These recommendations help highlight quality BC craft products, create more avenues for craft breweries to get their beers directly to their consumers and hopefully will help improve distribution via the Liquor Distribution Branch.

I am particularly excited by the governments commitment to "develop new opportunities for product placement and innovative promotional and educational materials," for BC made liquor products. It is one of the items I personally presented to Yap & Co. during our CAMRA presentation. I have been appalled in the past when government bureaucrats have been heading to the US to lure American craft breweries up here to compete with our local craft breweries when our BC craft breweries are struggling to get listed and sold via our BC Liquor Store outlets (read here).

I also love the fact that the recommendations are looking for more creative ways of breweries getting their products to their consumers, via farmer's markets, off-site tasting room locations and "low-risk tasting venues such as picnic area".

Many of the recommendations are vague and the word "should" appears far too often, so we need to hold off on the celebrations and congratulating the government until we see just what comes down the policy pipeline. The real proof will come when the policies are actually drafted and will depend a lot on whether or not the government bureaucrats, who will be advising the politicians on how to write the policy and proceed, are on board and in agreement that changes need to be made. The LCLB and LDB will also need to change the culture of how they operate and make the shift from being Big Brother, Hell bent on imposing their will unchallenged and in an arbitrary manner, to industry supporters who do what they can to help our home-grown booze industry flourish while maintaining public safety and promoting health awareness.

Posts soon on: some of the recommendations that could be seen as negative for the BC craft beer industry; the one recommendation that may change the culture of paranoia and fear in this province among licensees and the official recognition that homebrewing is legitimate.

CAMRA BC Craft Beer at Farmers Market Campaign Close to Reality

Yesterday, Premier Christy Clark made an announcement highlighting government support for 12 recommendations made by Parliamentary Secretary John Yap in his report to Justice Minister and Attorney

Clever CAMRA BC campaign, spearheaded by Vancouver
president, Adam Chatburn, put craft beer at farmers markets
on the Liberal radar

General Suzanne Anton related to liquor policy changes.

One recommendation endorsed by Clark's Liberals, the allowance of tastings and sales of craft beer at local farmers markets, has the executive for the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) of BC smiling from ear to ear and I should know as I am one of those executive members.

In a press release from the Office of the Premier and Minister of Justice, it was announced that, "(m)anufacturers will be able to sample and sell their made-in-B.C. liquor at venues such as farmers’ markets, festivals and off-site tasting rooms."

This announcement, which the government hopes will help, "growth of the wine, craft brewery and craft distillery industries by allowing the sale of products at locations like farmers’ markets," and help promote BC tourism, as many visitors to our province take in local farmers markets and festivals, is one CAMRA BC has been pushing for and I do believe CAMRA's campaign to get BC craft beer into BC farmers markets has played a huge role in making this idea a reality.

It all started last March when CAMRA BC representatives met with several NDP MLAs in Victoria to present a list of wants to who CAMRA thought were going to be the ruling party after May's provincial election.

On that list was the idea of having craft beer and wine made available for sale at local farmers markets, an idea, that at the time, was a pipe dream at best.

Well, as we all know, the NDP failed miserably in the election, but that did not deter CAMRA BC, specifically Vancouver president Adam Chatburn who took this on and pushed further by securing booth space at several Vancouver-area farmers markets this past summer.

Chatburn cleverly drew people to the CAMRA booth by having an empty cask of beer on the table with a sign, "Free Samples", and once at the table, market goers could see in fine print, "not available here" at which time Chatburn and his CAMRA representatives educated their audience on how BC liquor policy made this sort of activity illegal and offered them form letters to sign requesting that craft beer be allowed for sale at farmers markets.

According to Chatburn, that letter writing campaign resulted in Yap and Anton receiving over 400 letters, a number large enough to immediately get the attention of any politician and in this time of liquor policy review in the province, I can guarantee you Yap and his team were looking at this idea before the consultation even began.

In fact, I had been told from a very reliable and well connected source that beer and wine in farmers markets had already been rubber stamped as a "go" before the consultation was even in full swing and that this would be one of the first announcements, something that appears to be true. The fact that Clark herself made the announcement tells me this is a done deal as Anton is not going to upstage and over-rule her boss by watering down the recommendation or by putting the kibosh on the idea.

The farmers market idea was also apart of the CAMRA BC presentation to Yap and his team during the stakeholder meeting phase of the review and I can tell you the idea was very well received and I, for one, was surprised when it became apparent that the Liberals were considering allowing free samples to be given out as well, which, as you can see by yesterday's announcement, seems to be what is coming down the pipe.

I know this is apparent victory is not 100% due to CAMRA BC and Chatburn pushing as the wine industry were advocating for BC wine sales at the markets as well, and now that Christy Clark is representing Westside-Kelowna, prime wine country, the wine folks will even have more influence on the Liberals than before. Having said that, CAMRA BC members should be proud of what their executives have done to put this on the Liberal radar, especially Chatburn and his Vancouver Executive who took this on and raised awareness by getting the booths at the markets.

This is why CAMRA exists, to advocate on behalf of the craft beer consumer of BC, and it appears they have chalked up one major victory for those of us who enjoy great BC craft beer.

Lets hope they have many more successes!