Draconian liquor rules harm B.C. economy

Any thought that the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s ever actually “ended” in B.C. is a misconception; it never ended so much as the legislation that originally mandated it was incrementally amended, mutating over time into something that is only moderately less prohibitive.

But it is 2012, and the dilemma B.C. faces in terms of its liquor legislation can be distilled into one of pure economics: our province’s inflexible and outdated stance is now adversely affecting arts-and-culture-related activities, nonprofit organizations, and the kinds of small- to medium-sized businesses that would be flourishing in other provinces.

The Rio Theatre is an example of the red-tape nightmare that binds B.C.’s liquor laws to business. In its bid to rebrand as a multipurpose venue rather than “just” a movie theatre, the Rio applied for and received a liquor-primary licence. It had enough restrictions imposed that it—and any other similarly licensed live-event theatre—was “fundamentally not allowed to show movies”, business owner Corinne Lea recently explained to the Georgia Straight.

On April 11, the B.C. government announced that it had amended this policy, allowing movie theatres and live-event theatres to apply for a licence to serve alcohol during the screening of films. Multiplexes can obtain liquor licences and sell alcohol in adult-only auditoriums and adjacent lobbies; single-screen operators and live-event theatres can apply to sell alcohol in lobbies where minors are present, and inside auditoriums for adult-only screenings or events.

This move by the minister responsible for liquor licensing, Rich Coleman, came two months after the British Columbia Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) introduced Policy Directive 12-01. It amended Section 8 of the liquor regulation that affected the new live-event theatre liquor-primary licence category. This amendment specifically prohibited the mixing of film and alcohol. This policy also affected temporary special-occasion licences often employed by organizations like Women in Film and Television Vancouver, which was recently left scrambling to find a new venue after having to cancel a planned gala at the Vancity Theatre.

After three months of a “programming mess” due to the new restrictions, Lea said she had to lay off staff, and shifts were “drastically reduced”. She estimated that the Rio took in about $5,000 per week compared with $15,000 per week before the introduction of Policy Directive 12-01.

Coleman’s ministry did not respond to a call from the Straight by deadline on April 11 to elaborate on new rules regarding special-occasion licences (SOLs). According to the amended Policy Directive 12-01, organizations eligible for these licences “may apply to hold screening events in a licensed or unlicensed theatre or other type of venue (note that under current policy SOL licensing is generally limited to 2 days per month, unless exempted by the general manager).”

If the event takes place in a licensed establishment, the proprietor would have to temporarily suspend its licence for the screening. The recent amendments enable the Rio and other live-event theatres to show films without getting prior approval from the bureaucrats.

Bert Hick is a Vancouver-based liquor-licensing consultant and a former general manager of the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch. “First it was the hotels, then it was the beer parlours, now bars,” Hick told the Straight in a phone interview. “We have a strong historical trend in this province of various groups jockeying for the competitive business edge liquor licences can provide. I believe the time has come for change. These [liquor] laws are like a patchwork quilt and have been tinkered with over the years to the point of dysfunction.”

Hick said he feels strongly that B.C.’s legislation now effectively stifles and seriously threatens some areas of our economic growth—particularly for event-oriented businesses critical to B.C.’s biggest industry, tourism, that could eventually migrate to places like Alberta.

One example of the change that Hick referenced can be seen in Ontario, which sought reform in an effort to open up opportunities for progressive business models. In August 2011, Ontario ditched its “primary use” requirement, meaning that the focus of a licensed business no longer had to be either food or liquor.

“In 2007, we collapsed [combined] a lot of the licences,” explained Ab Campion, a spokesperson for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO). “We started to look at businesses in terms of ‘risk-based’ licensing, which allows for a lot more flexibility. For us, it’s about social compliance versus enforcement: as long as a business can meet our criteria with honesty and integrity under the full force of the law, we don’t care what sort of business they’re in.”

Risk-based licensing is an industry model based on assessing the potential risks involved with licensing a business. Factors considered include everything from the business model (bar versus movie theatre) to the venue’s location to the history of the licensee. Once risks are identified, restrictions can be imposed on the licence as required, allowing the branch to focus its resources on those businesses that are categorized as “high risk”.

Since employing its new approach, Ontario has opened itself up to a broad range of businesses, many of which couldn’t operate under B.C.’s current legislation. “Right now, I have 30 applications for spas that want alcohol,” Campion said. “ 'Get your toenails done and have a glass of wine.' ”

“That would be 100-percent illegal here in B.C.,” LCLB spokesperson Terry Rowsell said. “Spas and salons do enquire about including alcohol with their services, and I advise against it.” However, it’s not uncommon to be served a glass of wine during a pedicure in spas throughout the province—none of which are licensed, and are thereby beyond the jurisdiction of the LCLB. It’s up to the police to enforce that law. “It’s called bootlegging,” Rowsell said.

(Public ire over seemingly contradictory policy is often misdirected toward the LCLB, which is tasked with the business of interpreting and enforcing B.C.’s complex, confusing system. Significant change can occur only at the provincial-government level.)

Ontario has not eradicated all the issues associated with alcohol sales and consumption, although in the short term, reform has yielded higher compliance rates and fewer licence suspensions thanks to an increase in education and communication between the branch and licensees. “Now we can focus our energy on where the real infractions and public-safety issues are,” Campion said, “and it’s made life here [at AGCO] a lot easier, that’s for darned sure!”