jsburbidge: (Default)
 It may seem to be focussing on the trivial when so many other initiatives of the new Ontario government just call out for justice in response (anti democratic civic council changes; breaking contracts in a way which both implicitly minimizes the seriousness of anthropogenic climate change and makes Ontario look like a bad place to do business; stifling reforms to police accountability in the cradle) but there are several telling elements in the Fordian approach to dropping the minimum price of beer which merit some attention.
 
First, straightforward stupidity. Ford is quoted as saying:
 
"I think people in Ontario are mature enough, they're mature enough to know when they've had one too many,... I have all the confidence that the people in Ontario can be responsible beer drinkers."

The "people of Ontario" are not a sample, or a selected set of people. They are an entire typical North American population. Because they're culturally conditioned, they're not as bad as some places - going out in downtown Toronto on a Friday night is not nearly as hair-raising as going out in London on an excess-of-drink axis - but it's in no way controversial that there are lots of irresponsible Ontarians out there. Ordinary statistics provide an estimate of drunk drivers, or ethanol addicts who have been arrested, or sought treatment, in the province; numbers can be extrapolated to those who have not.

 
Secondly, this step (which is not original to Ford; it goes back to a Hudak campaign promise) is almost entirely flash with no substance; the cost of labour and materials has increased enough since the last time beer was actually sold for 24 dollars a case. The government is not doing anything to enable a decrease in inputs into the price, such as a decrease in taxes on beer. 
 
(Some craft brewers have noted that it would be far more helpful simply to allow them to open their own beer stores (as opposed to the on-site "bottle shops" attached to breweries which currently exist) thereby eliminating the effective duopoly of LCBO and Brewers Retail which currently dominates beer sales. The previous government's allowing sales in supermarkets did not really change the overall schema; of course, the current government's as yet unfulfilled promise to allow sales in corner stores may address this problem. Maybe; it's more likely just to put the Brewers Retail top 10 into corner stores near the cigarettes.)
 
Thirdly, the raising of the price was a response to a serious input at a policy level, and is not unique to Ontario. The UK, a number of years ago, put in place minimum prices per "alcohol unit", and there are reliable studies showing a positive correlation between such price increases and better health outcomes. (Of course, as Ford doesn't accept this sort of market mechanism for carbon consumption, there's no good reason to think that he would accept it for alcohol consumption. This is a level of stupid equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "La, la, la, can't hear you".) Now, there can be informed objections to this approach - I've seen it condemned as coming down on the poor for drinking while letting the well-off drink as they like: the effects of the policy skew by class and income. A bold defence of the right of the poor to forget their miseries by drowning their sorrows would be a new thing for any Ontario government but it would have to be accompanied by a drop in taxes on drink to be effective, and it's not the line the government is taking (see point one, above). 
 
Fourth, making policy, as Ford clearly has been doing, simply on the basis of reversing as many decisions as you can of your predecessor government is not a good way to govern. Even if some problematic decisions are righted, the net is cast too wide. This is as true for the Trudeau Liberals, who coasted for two years reversing the Harper government's actions, as it is for Ford. (I thought they were mistaken in reversing the change in CPP/retirement age from 65 to 67, for example.) And where many of the Harper item decisions which went into the dustbin seemed to come out of nowhere - vide the long form Census kerfuffle - the Wynne and McGuinty positions being reversed were all the results of real policy input. Repealing them for serious policy alternatives would be one thing; just blocking them or reversing them in a mad rush is another. 
 
Finally, this is actively promoting what is guaranteed to be an inferior product, produced by avoiding paying living wages and using cheap inputs. Assuming there are any takers, the proposed promotional incentives will cost the government money in the form of reduced revenues from the LCBO and promote, indirectly, the Idea that the only reason to drink is to get intoxicated (as that will be about the only reason to drink what can be produced at that price point, withe the possible exception of small beer). 
 

jsburbidge: (Default)
 Today (August 14) is the Feast of St. Arnold, Patron of Brewers. 

Enjoy responsibly.

Bheer

Feb. 11th, 2016 01:08 pm
jsburbidge: (Lea)
It is slightly over a year since I posted about the LCBO and Brewers Retail.

In that intervening time, the landscape has changed somewhat in a number of ways:

  • The Government of Ontario has started a limited programme of selling beer in grocery stores. This is is available mainly to larger chain retailers (no running down to the corner to the dépanneur in this province), but is planned to cover 450 stores eventually (equal to the number of BR stores). What was originally a bizarre hard cap on quantities sold has been replaced by profit-sharing above a certain limit.


  • Molson has bought out Mill Street Brewery in Toronto, one of Ontario's larger independent brewers. They claim that it will operate at arm's length and maintain quality, but at the very least they are likely to focus on growth with the line of beers they have rather than experimenting much or extending their range. (They weren't very edgy in the first place: their Tankhouse Ale is a reliable full-bodied ale, but their Organic Lager is tasteless; their most interesting beer is probably their coffee porter, which is not for everyone.)


  • The secret agreement between the LCBO and BR has been replaced by an explicit and public "master framework agreement" which puts far more control on Brewers Retail, and ensures greater representation of craft brewers in all venues.


  • On that front, some LCBO locations are being outfitted with in-store boutiques to highlight craft brewers. These include tasting areas which draw from casks. I've seen one of these, at the Summerhill LCBO, but it wasn't functional at the time.


  • Another really good brewpub has opened in downtown Toronto: the Folly, on College Street near Dovercourt. It tends towards farmhouse-style beers with a sour edge, and also has a large Scotch list and good food.


  • Two new good IPAs from local brewers are now available in cans: GLB's Lake Effect IPA (which is not entirely new, but used to be available only occasionally in large bottles) and Collective Arts' Ransack the Universe, available up to now mainly on tap.


Boycotting Brewers Retail is not as compelling as it used to be, although it's still true that buying there will send profits out of the country which would otherwise remain in Ontario (or at least Canada, if you buy at a grocery store).

Next up: the Government is now moving towards liberalizing wine sales...
jsburbidge: (Cottage)
In the wake of the Clark recommendations regarding the handling of what used to be "Brewers Retail", and then the subsequent publication of the details of the 2000 agreement between the Brewers and the LCBO, there's been a push to boycott the Beer Store, and beers brewed by the 3 international breweries who run it.

The fundamental argument is that profits made by the LCBO go to the province and feed back into services, whereas profits at the Beer Store go to the foreign-owned breweries. On its own, this isn't compelling; preferring public over private sales outlets where there is no compelling public interest in the government being in the business is pretty well a non-starter; and there's no push not to buy beer directly from local breweries such as Mill St. or Bellwoods.

The major problems that have been listed are specific to the way the Beer Store is run.

First, it's not a private enterprise engaging in level-playing-field competition. It's very nearly a monopoly. As Clark pointed out, the government is licensing a monopoly for which the BR is paying nothing (he recommends that they should be charged a reasonable sum for it by the province, and be prevented from passing on the cost to the consumer (easy to do because the LCBO sets the prices the breweries sell by for any beers also listed with the LCBO)).

That monopoly is run to avoid it looking as though it is profitable by funnelling revenues back to the owners by mechanisms other than declaring a profit.

Secondly, it engages in discriminatory pricing against smaller breweries, charging listing fees which act as barriers to access. (It used simply to refuse to carry any beers not made by the owners: they had to change that after a successful challenge under the Free Trade Agreement with the US by an American brewer.)

Thirdly, the agreement between the LCBO and the BR is clearly in restraint of competition (and so against public policy) and has in fact been challenged in court on that basis under the Competition Act. That agreement also seems to involve no consideration flowing to the LCBO and is therefore not an enforceable contract -- it could be voided at any time. (Clark recommends changes to it such as allowing the LCBO to sell twelve-packs.)

Fourth, with a very few exceptions, the beers produced by the three owners are, to put it mildly, not good beer. The obvious exception in Canada is beers by Uinibroue (owned by Sleeman, which is owned in turn by Sapporo). There are also some small breweries owned abroad by InBev which have retained quality after acquisition, such as Goose Island, acquired by Anheuser-Busch InBev in 2011, and Leffe (an "abbey" beer actually brewed under licence to the abbey at the Stella Artois brewing facilities). Note that Bass, which is Anheuser-Busch InBev's flagship brand in the UK, is not what it used to be. There is really nothing redeeming to be said for Molson and Labatt products.

In fact, there are a limited number of good beers carried by the Beer Store at all (more of the effect of those barriers to entry). I'm partial to IPAs: the only really good ones carried at the Beer Store are Boneshaker (produced by Amsterdam) and Mad Tom IPA / Twice As Mad Tom IIPA (Muskoka Brewery). The LCBO also carries (at present) Great Lakes Brewery's Lake Effect IPA and Central City Brewers' (BC) Red Racer IPA, and carries many more during the summer from foreign and local craft brewers. (At present, it's more heavily invested in stouts, porters, and a few winter ales and barley wines -- none of which you will find at the Beer Store; the pricing barriers make seasonal brews uneconomical.)

Finally, the Brewers' Retail group is dishonest in its self-presentation -- note the campaign against selling beer in alternate locations suggesting that corner store operators were more likely than Beer Store operators to flout the laws restricting the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors.

So I'd support the general boycott. Note that aside from the obvious major labels (Sapporo. Sleeman, Molson, Labatt, Coors) there are a number of subsidiary labels which should be avoided: Unibroue, Alexander Keith's, Lakeport, Kokanee, Creemore Springs, Shock Top, Stella Artois, Leffe, Bass, Charrington, Hoegaarden, Beck's, Budweiser, Löwenbräu, Rolling Rock, Spaten, and St. Pauli Girl. In addition Corona, Miller and Heineken are marketed by Molson in Canada.

Profile

jsburbidge: (Default)
jsburbidge

April 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
67 89101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 14th, 2025 05:47 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios