The Shotgun Blog
« Fade to Bloc | Main | Cheap at half the price? »
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Parliament buys wine from wineries, so should we
Parliamentarians are doing something that the rest of Ontarians can't. They are bypassing liquor control boards to buy BC wines. According to the Vancouver Sun the law is:
The 1928 Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act prohibits wineries from shipping out-of-province unless it's to the Queen or her government. The Commons dining room can serve wine banned in the rest of the country.
It was my understanding that the rule of law is that we all live under the same laws. There should not be one set of rules for one group and another for another. But that isn't really my issue here.
My complaint is that the law is stupid in the first place. The fact that Parliamentarians are able to use a loophole in the law just demonstrates the stupidity of the law.
Why shouldn't Parliament purchase the best that Canada has to offer directly from wineries? Why shouldn't any of us do it? Why must we go through this governmental body to do business with our fellow human being?
Update (by KK): The Western Standard's food and wine critic Knox Harrington helpfully contributes a link in the comments to an overview of the current laws on wine shipping within Canada:
The shipping of wine from one province into another province or from another country into Canada is generally prohibited (with some exceptions noted below) by a federal law (which stems from the prohibition era) called the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (Canada). [...]
So, the short summary is as follows:
Legal: To ship wine or liquor within a province so long as the wine or liquor is "authorized" by [BC's liquor control board] the LDB. As an example, a winery that has a license to sell wine in BC can ship wine to a customer within BC.
Illegal: To ship wine or liquor from one province to another if it isn't authorized by the liquor board in the receiving province. As an example, it is not legal for a BC winery to ship wine from BC to an individual customer in Ontario without the approval of the LCBO [Liquor Control Board of Ontario].
Illegal: To import wine or liquor from another province whether a customer brings it with them personally or has it shipped. If a customer does this, they are legally required to declare it to the relevant liquor board in the destination province and pay the applicable charges and taxes.
Legal for the Winery: To sell wine to a customer located in another province so long as the terms of sale transfer title to the wine within the province of sale and the winery does not send the wine to the other province. If the customer then arranges for the transfer or shipping of the wine then the customer will be assuming the legal risk of the shipment.
Obviously, the end result of these restrictions is rather foolish in that wineries within Canada cannot legally ship their products to Canadians in provinces other than their own province. In addition, these laws are perceived to be ridiculous by the general public since it is technically illegal to buy wine while on vacation in another province and take it back home with you to a different province.
Don Martin's column in the National Post is also on this very topic, he concludes:
Mark Hicken, whose business card boasts the dream practice of ‘wine lawyer', says even the open access agreements signed by the three westernmost provinces are trumped by the 1928 Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act.
"The original purpose was control. Now it being used as a revenue guarantee," he says, noting its often easier to ship B.C. wines to the United States than Alberta and many vintners face onerous paperwork and regular rejections in securing listings for the lucrative Ontario market.
There's clearly no place for a law drafted 80 years ago to govern a product sold in the age of Internet ordering and same-day jet delivery, particularly one that's so ludicrous it technically outlaws someone from taking even one bottle across a provincial boundary.
There's only one retail force strong enough to prevent the good times flowing across the nation despite 15 years of promised change by prime ministers and premiers.
Drunk with their protected purchasing power, the all-mighty provincial liquor control boards have the lingering clout to tell the buying public to stop whining over sour grapes.
And the only ones who can legally raise an out-of-province drink to their continued success are the elected and appointed powers of Parliament Hill.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on September 29, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
I think you're reading too much into this, Hugh. B.C. and Ontario are the primary wine-producing regions, yet their product is to be had throughout the country and even abroad, chiefly in America and Asia. How could this be the case if they aren't allowed to export it? Alcohol is a controlled, regulated substance--exactly as you would prefer marijuana to be. Is it to this you object, or the exemption provided to the government? If so, I suggest that parliamentary immunity is a far worthier target for your double-standard cleaver than the wine they drink.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-29 11:21:37 AM
I don't think I have ever anywhere said that the selling and buying of marijuana or any other product should be regulated or controlled.
I specifically said that it wasn't the double standard that bothered me (or it does but I won't get worked up about it). I am use to it. Any system ever created is going to create such double standards, Canada is not as bad as other places and times.
So instead I am outraged that I can't buy wine from a BC winery and sell it to anyone else. Just because it is successful despite the obstructions does not mean the obstructions aren't bad.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-09-29 11:41:11 AM
I don't think I have ever anywhere said that the selling and buying of marijuana or any other product should be regulated or controlled.
What about nuclear weapons? Because you'd better believe there's a market for those.
I specifically said that it wasn't the double standard that bothered me...instead I am outraged that I can't buy wine from a BC winery and sell it to anyone else.
I see. Outraged. Not annoyed or disapproving, but outraged. And you haven't proven that the obstructions are bad, have you? Only that they outrage you.
A tip, Hugh. If all you have is your outrage, then you have nothing.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-29 12:09:24 PM
Shane,
You said that I want maurajauna to be a controlled product and I denied saying that about anything. I have never addressed the issue of nuclear weapons, but how does that enter into my point? My point, in case you missed it, was that you were putting words into my mouth.
There is plenty of evidence and discussion about why obstructions to the market are bad. They range from the moral to the ulitarian. I know that you are aware of this so why are you being purposefully obtuse?
Fine I will make an argument for why it is bad: It is bad because I want to buy wine directly from the winery. Now you demonstrate why I shouldn't.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-09-29 1:00:03 PM
Fine I will make an argument for why it is bad: It is bad because I want to buy wine directly from the winery. Now you demonstrate why I shouldn't.
Very well. I will make a counter-argument that is equal in quality to that of your argument: Because I said so.
What you want is good and what stops you from getting what you want is bad. No, Hugh; we're not egocentric at all, are we? I was right: All you have is your outrage. Meaning you have nothing. Nothing, over nothing. Or as good as.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-29 1:15:21 PM
As is always the case in the thorny world of wine shipping (whether in Canada or the US), there is more to the story.......see http://winelaw.ca/cms/index.php/legal-info-for-the-industry/23-shipping-border-import-laws/26-shipping-laws-on-wine-within-canada.
Posted by: Knox Harrington | 2009-09-29 3:30:55 PM
About 40 years ago, Moosehead brewery, in Dartmouth used to give beer to every employee, at Christmas. They also had a free beer machine in the lunch room. One year, the government stepped in, and put a stop to the practise. The reason? They hadn't collected any tax on the beer, before it was consumed.
The only upside to the story was the drop in workplace accidents.
If you look behind any of these roadblocks to trade, you'll find a snivelling tax collector.
Posted by: dp | 2009-09-29 4:16:10 PM
Well, dp, public spending drives about half the economy in this country; that money has to come from somewhere. Now, the real question is: Are Canadians prepared to accept a reduction in public services in exchange for a less onerous tax burden?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-29 5:01:25 PM
It was my understanding that the rule of law is that we all live under the same laws. There should not be one set of rules for one group and another for another.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on September 29, 2009
I guess you've haven't heard of parliamentary privilege either.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-29 7:59:38 PM
Shane,
I am egocentric, every living being on the planet is egocentric. If it wasn't then it wouldn't survive. But again you fail to see my point. The burden is not for me to prove why a regulation is bad the burden is prove it is needed. Why shouldn't I do what I want is a very reasonable question.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-09-30 5:09:33 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.