A few weeks back, the Alberta government introduced the omnibus Bill 16: Red Tape Reduction Statutes Amendment Act. The UCP has introduced a few of these in recent years, so the reaction to it was muted, especially given the controversial bills introduced in the last few weeks. However, I noticed that buried in a bill that amends pressing legislation like the Alberta Investment Attraction Act were a bunch of amendments to the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act (GLCA), the legislation governing alcohol sales in the province. Upon review I started to wonder if this is amounts to a power grab on the part of the government? I did my most recent CBC Radioactive beer column on this topic if you prefer to listen rather than read.

The bill amends a number of sections of the GLCA, mostly routine and housekeeping matters. It clarifies rules about minors in casinos and tweaking lottery procedures. All that seems straightforward. However, I saw two changes that seem much more significant (Policy Geekery Warning!!).

The first amendment repeals existing provisions and replaces it with a clause that gives the minister responsible the power to set liquor prices and mark-ups. I quote it in its entirety:

80(1) The Minister may determine the price at which the Commission must sell liquor to liquor licensees.
(1.1) The Minister must determine any mark-up on liquor that the Commission sells to liquor licensees.
(1.2) The Commission must charge any price and impose any mark-up determined by the Minister under subsections (1) and (1.1).

The new section clearly transfers the power to set prices and mark-ups from the AGLC Board to the government minister.

The second amendment introduces a new clause empowering the minister to prohibit the AGLC Board from making policies in certain areas the minister deems or must submit proposed policies to the minister for approval. Again, here is the full language: 12.1 The Minister may determine, by order, categories of policies that the board must not establish or that the board must submit to the Minister for approval prior to being established under section 12(1)(b).

What is clear in both cases is that the government is increasing its authority over AGLC Board jurisdiction. In the first case it is taking over a task previously performed by the Board and in the second it is setting up ministerial discretion to control what the AGLC does in the future.

For the record, I reached out to the AGLC for comment, who referred me to the Minister’s Office. I made multiple attempts to contact the Minister’s office and did not receive an answer to my questions. I also checked Hansard, and as of last reading, no mention was made in the debates about these sections. Which means I have no official indication of what the intention of these amendments are and am forced to speculate.

I did talk to some industry people, however. Regarding the first amendment, I am told there have been recent conversations with the government about establishing a minimum price for alcohol (sometimes called social reference pricing). Minimum pricing allows the government to set a floor below which bars and retailers cannot sell their products. The intention is to prevent deep discounts that encourage irresponsible alcohol consumption. It is a policy frequently promoted by public health advocates.

Alberta currently has a minimum price for alcohol in bars and restaurants, passed a couple decades a go to bring a halt to infamous “loonie shots” and other outrageous pricing designed to get young people to drink as much as they can as fast as they can. It sounds like the government is contemplating extending that rule to retailers.

That all sounds good to me. My question on this one is why does the government need to be the one to do it, rather than the AGLC? And why are they taking over the mark-up – which is the “tax” government adds to the price of all liquor sold in the province? The AGLC has long been responsible for the mark-up and, for the most part, it has worked well for most parties. I fail to see the need in making this shift.

I also fail to understand the unnecessarily broad language in the amendment. It says the minister may “determine the price at which the Commission must sell liquor to liquor licensees”. At least theoretically, the minister could tell the AGLC what price Big Rock Traditional Ale must be sold. I am pretty certain that is not the intent, but it seems like bad legislative drafting to me. Why not just say the minister can set a minimum alcohol price? (Yes, this is an extremely nerdy point.)

The second amendment is even weirder. The minister gets to tell the AGLC what policy areas they cannot weigh in on. Why? I fail to see what policy issue has been so problematic that the minister feels they need a veto in their back pocket. In general, over governments of multiple parties, the AGLC has shown itself to be a responsible partner and works closely with government to fulfill its priorities while still observing its broader mandate to protect the public interest.

I feel the need here to be clear that the AGLC is an arms-length crown agency that is supposed to have autonomy over areas of liquor, gaming and cannabis. Of course, in the real world “autonomy” is never that straightforward and the government has some influence over what the AGLC decides. But, it legally possesses the power to make rules regarding the production, distribution and sale of alcohol. There is a reason it was set up this way. There is already too much politics in alcohol, and it is important to have civil servants not beholden to the whims of politics make key decisions that affect public health and the public interest. Decisions need to be made with the long term in mind, not what is popular in the moment.

While these amendments are vague and the intent uncertain, I cannot help but be a bit unsettled by them, especially in the context of other recent moves by the UCP regarding jurisdiction, authority and power. Why do they feel the need to strip the AGLC Board of independence? Why is it the minister, and not the board, that determines mark-ups? Why is the wording of these clauses so amateurishly done?

This may all amount to nothing. I hope so. But I wanted something to be on the public record just in case. I will be watching with interest.