{"id":20542,"date":"2013-06-04T11:02:58","date_gmt":"2013-06-04T16:02:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=20542"},"modified":"2013-06-04T11:02:58","modified_gmt":"2013-06-04T16:02:58","slug":"lcbo-intransigence-triggers-constitutional-challenge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2013\/06\/04\/lcbo-intransigence-triggers-constitutional-challenge\/","title":{"rendered":"LCBO intransigence triggers constitutional challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is kinda fascinating<\/a>:<\/p>\n

What started out as a simple privacy commissioner complaint has turned into a constitutional challenge of the validity of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) — and this time the Board has only itself to blame for the brouhaha, proving once again that Ontario\u2019s LCBO is so far out of touch with the realities of today\u2019s world, it\u2019s downright scary. At a time when they should be thinking about transitioning out of the alcohol business, the Ontario provincial government and the LCBO seem to be clinging to its very existence with even more tenacity and verve than before. They\u2019re like the old boxer clinging to past glories who just has to show you the right hook he can still throw — yet only ends up throwing out his shoulder. In the LCBO\u2019s case, the word \u201cControl\u201d won\u2019t be pried away from its \u201ccold dead hands\u201d anytime soon\u2026 or will it? In its most recent fight, the LCBO is proving it is a government entity most in need of being on the chopping block — if not the auction block — of government institutions that should be moved over to the private sector.<\/p>\n

[. . .]<\/p>\n

Why the LCBO has chosen to play hardball over such a trivial matter is incomprehensible; according to reports, the LCBO has decided to appeal the order and has asked that the records be sealed in the process. This seems to contravene common sense. \u201cA government entity has chosen to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers\u2019 dollars to fight an order by the Privacy Commissioner whose sole purpose is to make these decisions,\u201d Porter says.<\/p>\n

Now fed up with the collection of information, Porter and his team have decided to question the entire existence of the LCBO as it contravenes the Constitution Act of 1867<\/em> by challenging the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (IILA)<\/em> itself — which bans the free flow of goods (including alcohol, wine and beer) between the provinces. The argument hinges on Section 121: \u201cAll articles of Growth, Produce or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.\u201d This challenge could, and would if successful, lead to the downfall of the LCBO. Social networks were abuzz with the news about the challenge. Alfred Wirth, president and director at HNW Management Inc., applauded the news on Facebook: \u201cAny progress towards competition among merchandisers is to be appreciated \u2013 even if it\u2019s for domestically-produced products. Several years ago, when I questioned why Ontario couldn\u2019t privatize the LCBO, the then Minister of Health said that alcoholic beverages were a crucial health matter which the province had to control. Despite the risk of people (including underage youth) freezing to death during our cold Ontario winters, he did not explain why the sale of crucial winter coats could be entrusted to Sears, the Bay, etc\u2026\u201d While Porter himself posted an analogy to cigarettes: \u201cHow about this one. Cigarettes are so dangerous that you cannot advertise them on TV, print, billboards or even display them behind a counter\u2026 but they can be sold at any store. Alcohol is so dangerous that it has to be sold at a government store with specially-trained people\u2026 but the government itself floods the market with advertising and even publishes a free magazine where 50 per cent of the content is about consuming the product.\u201d<\/p>\n

Energy lawyer Ian Blue has joined the Vin de Garde team for the action. I interviewed Blue in 2010 about the IILA, which is now under fire. Here\u2019s what Blue had to say: \u201cThe law that gives provincial liquor commissions a monopoly and the power they have, is federal law, the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act<\/em>; it\u2019s highly arguable that the law is unconstitutional. It\u2019s also pretty apparent to government constitutional lawyers, who are knowledgeable in these matters\u2026 [If the Supreme Court of Canada] takes a hard look at the IILA, and if they do an intellectually honest interpretation, the IILA probably cannot stand up to constitutional scrutiny.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2009, lawyer Schwisberg commented to me when speaking about the IILA: \u201cThe very underpinning of Canada\u2019s liquor regulatory system is unconstitutional. Isn\u2019t that a mind blower?\u201d Blue said: \u201cThere is nothing natural or logical about the existing system. It bullies, fleeces and frustrates wine producers and the public\u2026 If the IILA were to fall\u2026 wine producers could probably make quantum leaps of progress towards a fairer and more rational system of liquor and wine distribution in Canada.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is kinda fascinating: What started out as a simple privacy commissioner complaint has turned into a constitutional challenge of the validity of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) — and this time the Board has only itself to blame for the brouhaha, proving once again that Ontario\u2019s LCBO is so far out of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,831,6,9,10],"tags":[104,715,395,469,87,154],"class_list":["post-20542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bureaucracy","category-business","category-cancon","category-law","category-liberty","tag-booze","tag-constitution","tag-lcbo","tag-monopolies","tag-ontario","tag-privacy"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-5lk","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20542"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20542\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20543,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20542\/revisions\/20543"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}