Gouged consumers leave Wall without troops in beer war

It is not easy to get behind Premier Brad Wall’s nascent beer war with Alberta. Not easy to the point of impossible.

Not when Saskatchewan beer drinkers, as a matter of provincial policy, are systematically gouged on every sip. Not when Saskatchewan’s soviet-style liquor regime is more protectionist than Alberta’s.

Wall is displeased because cash-strapped Alberta is eliminating a tax break on beer from smaller breweries in Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan. Henceforth all beer will be taxed in Alberta at the same rate, regardless of its source. The change is expected to generate $36 million in new revenues for that province.

Foremost among those affected is Saskatoon-brewed Great Western, which sells more than half its production in Alberta, mostly as a bargain brand. Great Western typically sells in that province for less than Saskatchewan consumers are made to pay for the same stuff, in some cases about half as much. Maybe Wall could do something about that before he asks us to support him in a trade war.

It’s not as if Alberta is targeting Great Western or anyone else. Alberta breweries will be taxed at exactly the same rate as those outside Alberta. How is that protectionist?

Alberta also is planning to directly subsidize its own craft brewers, but these mostly sell beer at a premium. Great Western competes there in a different league. The company no doubt would like to compete here, too, in the bargain beer market but, alas, there is no such thing. Wall’s government sets a minimum retail price of $2.30 a beer. I know of no jurisdiction on this continent where beer costs more. If you do, please tell me where it is so I can never go there.

In Alberta, where there is no minimum price, some brand or other always is on sale for about a dollar a can. That’s one reason why people from this province stock up when they visit Alberta.

Sometimes, we don’t even have to visit. A friend called the other week from Edmonton. He was just leaving for home after picking up his daughter, who had finished her last term of university there and was moving back to Saskatoon. “I’m in the parking lot at the liquor superstore and I have a U-Haul,” he advised. “What can I get you?”

Is that a good friend, or what? He should be in charge of Saskatchewan’s liquor policy.

I ordered from him a case of Malbec that costs $5 a bottle more in Saskatoon. The savings: $60. Of course, the difference is not due to protectionism. In this case, it’s plain, old ripoff-ism.

Saskatchewan nevertheless is highly protectionist of its liquor market, more so, certainly than Alberta. Brands are grudgingly admitted to this province, or more often rejected, by a mysterious and powerful bureaucracy that totally controls liquor wholesaling, importation and distribution.

In Alberta, by comparison, anyone from anywhere can compete. That’s why Alberta reportedly has eight times as many liquor products on its shelves as Saskatchewan. Suppliers that Saskatchewan shuts out can tell you which province is more protectionist. They might be reluctant to do so, however, for fear of angering the monopoly bosses. Does that sound like anything that would happen in a free market?

If Wall wants to stick it to Alberta, even without a legitimate reason for doing so, he could start by giving consumers here a break. Then we wouldn’t have friends with U-Hauls calling us from Edmonton to take orders. Neither would we see anymore the rows of Saskatchewan licence plates outside the Strathmore liquor superstore just this side of Calgary.

With competitive pricing, sales of Alberta liquor to Saskatchewan would fall to nearly zero. That could cost Alberta more than the $36 million it expects from higher beer taxes. It’s winlose, exactly the desired outcome of trade retaliation.

Competitive pricing also would relieve Wall from explaining why beer brewed here is cheaper next door in an NDP province.