A story published on the Edmonton Journal website yesterday afternoon (read here) reports that the Saskatchewan government of Brad Wall is speaking out against the new Alberta mark-up policy announced last week (read my overview of it here). In particular they are suggesting it runs “counter to the spirit and intent” of the New West Partnership. The story adds that Premier Wall will raise the issue with Premier Notley this week.
This is the first time a government has come out publicly in opposition to the policy, and suggests an escalation of the issue. I had been told by sources that after the first shift in the fall, the Ontario government complained via private discussions but opted to stay silent publicly.
What to make of this development?
My first instinct is – not much. Brad Wall has made a history of being bombastic, contrarian and, in particular, takes delight at poking at anything the NDP does – anywhere, anytime. It is, naturally, a divisive strategy. Some people love him for it, while others think he is grandstanding rather than trying to make things work. I will not comment on that, but will simply say that this is not entirely unexpected from his government.
My second thought is that this may signal more trouble brewing for the Alberta government on this file. If Great Western Brewing, the only Saskatchewan brewery to publicly complain (and, to be fair, the only one who has a significant reason to complain as the others are small and mostly focussed on their local market), gets the backing of the government in any action against the policy it could quickly develop legs. They may not even need to launch an expensive lawsuit themselves if the government creates a New West Partnership complaint.
But before people get too far ahead of themselves and declare the policy illegal (and I have seen lots of that in recent days) we need to remember the grant that supposedly offends all of these sensibilities hasn’t even been released yet. We don’t know what it will look like. That is likely why the Saskatchewan Finance Minister was careful with his choice of words. We have no idea whether this will stand up in court.
Unlike the new phalanx of trade law experts that have emerged out of nowhere in recent days, I won’t pretend to know the outcome of all of this. I am but a humble beer writer and policy wonk.
Still, it is an interesting development. Stay tuned, folks, I predict there will be more before this is done.
[QUICK UPDATE – 4:00pm. Premier Notley has responded to Wall by saying ““I will not be lectured about any efforts that our government might take in the future in order to support our small brewers, our economic diversification, our workers and our industries”. This could get interesting.]
July 19, 2016 at 9:42 AM
I’ll say what I have been saying for days, I’m waiting for the Premiers’ meeting in Whitehorse this week, where details of easing trade restrictions (specifically including alcohol) will be announced, before I get all wound up.
Okay, okay, here’s my guess: The Alberta Government wanted to get ahead of the Whitehorse announcement (knowing full well its content), and they determined that to be in compliance with a contemplated new structure, there must be even-handed treatment of importation and taxation. They shifted eliminated differential markup and shifted to direct grants almost as soon as the framework was hashed out by the wonks(but not announced by the premiers) and are now laughing like maniacs while they watch everyone else’s liquor control systems requiring a major re-vamp nationwide while they are in perfect compliance (having open borders and equal taxation). Cutting off Steam Whistle at the knees was just a nice side benefit.
Just a guess. It gives a lot of credit to a governmental organization for being on-the-ball and forward thinking, which is not necessarily the best bet, but call me a hopeless optimist.
July 19, 2016 at 4:58 PM
Interesting theory. It may be affording the government a bit too much foresight on the file. And why do I suspect the other provinces will lobby hard (behind closed doors) to exempt their LCB activities?
July 21, 2016 at 10:15 AM
Can you imagine the screaming if Alberta adopted a system (Which would be far too complex to administer) where they treated the beers from each province exactly the same way Alberta Beers are treated when being imported to that province?
July 19, 2016 at 9:52 PM
Owen, you’re a hopeless optimist.
July 21, 2016 at 2:51 PM
Thanks for the great summary.