As with most things, politicians and public workers spin Ontario’s alcohol situation

“The Obama administration fell into this now obviously hopeless strategy back in the days of the “Arab Spring” in 2010-11. ” Gwynne Dyer | 6

THE OLD JOKE ABOUT how you know a politician is lying – his lips are moving – applies pretty much to every situation where public policy is being pitched.

If a politician, civil servant, bureaucrat or corporate hack tells you something is being done for your benefit, you can be sure they’re not telling the truth – any small benefit you might gain is incidental.

Most often, they’re selling something that’s for their benefit – fatter wallet, typically – that they want you to sign off on. Examples of this are legion, but because it’s summer and we’ve just come through a long weekend, let’s look at the case of refreshing adult beverages.

The topic of spirits, wine and beer are enough to drive many of us to drink, the irony of high prices, poor selection and lack of convenience not lost on us as we venture into the bosom of the tax-mad nanny state for some solace.

Just as it’s doing with the public resource that is (or was) the hydroelectric system, the Wynne government is intent on wringing every last dime out of the sale of alcohol in the province. Again, that’s for its benefit, not yours. You’ll pay ever-higher prices – for electricity and booze – while it concentrates on re-election and paying off campaign financiers.

With alcohol sales, there’s been some measure of privatization in expanding access and convenience such as last week’s announcement about online sales (good things) while retaining control and jacking taxes regularly (a bad thing the government attempts to spin – i.e. lie about).

Opposed to those moves is the union representing LCBO workers, which is busy putting its own spin on the situation. Last week, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) launched an information picket campaign aimed at what it calls attempts to privatize alcohol sales by expanding sales in grocery stores across the province.

While acknowledging the fight is about protecting good jobs, the union is disingenuous when it tries to wrap its efforts in a veneer of public interest, namely the bogeyman of safety concerns. Apparently, an expansion into a few grocery stores will set off a torrent of underage drinking, family dissolution and drunk driving – but just here, as opposed to jurisdictions with far more liberal (i.e. adult) alcohol laws and pricing.

Yes, we can agree with claims that Kathleen Wynne is incompetent and corrupt, doing little of actual public good, but this is a self-serving ploy that protects the interests of 7,000 LCBO workers at the expense of the public.

Critics of the union position argue LCBO employees are significantly overpaid, leading to overpriced goods on the shelves. Certainly liquor store pricing is excessive, as a quick trip to other jurisdictions, particularly the U.S., will show. That, however, is the result of indecent taxation levels. As the world’s largest buyer of alcohol, the LCBO surely pays lower prices for its products: the labour costs add to the pricing, but not anything like the way taxes do.

That doesn’t make them wrong about the potential privatization of the LCBO, the crown jewel of those who would strip the public of assets to benefit a few.

Privatization can and often does lead to higher prices, less selection and, over time, control concentrated in fewer hands – it’s not all about mom-and-pop operations. Then there’s the issue of the LCBO putting more than $1 billion a year into government coffers.

That said, there are benefits to the long-discussed, never-delivered suggestion to allow the sale of beer and wine in corner stores. That would be a hugely populist and popular idea. Such a change would bring us more in line with longstanding practices in neighbouring provinces and states. It would also lessen the charge that Ontario remains far too paternal and uptight. The province currently has a hodgepodge of antiquated liquor laws. Spirits are sold only in government-owned stores; beer is sold through outlets owned by the breweries; and wine-only stores are operated by the wineries. Some loosening of sales on an experimental basis doesn’t really change that dynamic.

Then there are the hoops set up for brew-on-premises establishments, and the lack of off-sales and other conveniences taken for granted elsewhere, among other issues.

Making beer and wine available in convenience stores and supermarkets would be a step toward a more liberalized attitude. More importantly, it would put a salve on the regular sore spot that is government control – read taxation – of alcohol in this province.

Certainly there are those who would like to see power wrested from The Beer Store, which holds a virtual monopoly on the sale of beer. Proponents of corner store sales say greater convenience and lower prices would flow from competition. Currently the distribution and retail systems are owned by the three largest brewers, Labatt, Molson and Sleeman. Once Canadian companies, the three are now foreign-owned: InBevSA of Belgium, U.S.-based Molson Coors Brewing and Japan’s Sapporo respectively. Last year’s revelations this cartel is sanctioned by the government via a noncompetition agreement did lead to some changes with the potential to help small craft breweries.

If beer was sold in grocery and convenience stores, it would benefit smaller breweries, which are now dependent on a retail channel owned and controlled by their much larger competitors.

The sale of beer and wine in corner stores is a political hot potato. Under previous Conservative governments, the Liberals suggested the change, with the Tories opposed. In power, the Liberals shunned the idea.

Supporters of the status quo usually point to the

for a crime of $140.09, which is all he was found guilty of committing, and no outrage against Mr. Hahn for his crime of breaking the law when he failed to report campaign expenses of over $2,800?

As was stated in a letter to the editor in the July 28 edition of the Observer speaking of Hahn, “yes, he made mistakes-that’s why there is the catch phrase ‘human error.’ There has got to be space for learning curves and lessons learned.” Is that statement to be taken that if a person who breaks the law says, “Oh, I’m sorry. I won’t do it again” that person should get off with no penalty? If that is what is truly believed then I suggest everyone try saying that the next time you are stopped for speeding or running a stop sign and see what the officer says when he stops laughing. The end of the editorial in the July 28 issue of the Observer states, “Dragging his (Hahn’s) case back into a courtroom doesn’t serve any community good.” The problem is that Mr. Hahn’s case was never in a courtroom. MECAC is not a court of law, and in their vote of 6-1 to not turn Mr. Hahn’s case over to the court in spite of proof provided by the independent forensic audit and Mr. Hahn’s own admission of guilt, they wrongfully bypassed the court.

Mr. Marshall is not asking it be tried again; he is asking that it actually be tried for the first time in a court of law. Mr. Marshall is requiring that the law be followed and he should not be vilified for his efforts to seek justice. What is the difference between Mr. Marshall requesting justice with the Hahn case and the township council requesting justice with the Cowan case?