Details

Back Story: What has happened to the legislation that will allow corner shops and convenience stores to sell beer and wine? 

The Beer Store Act is my shorthand for Bill 115 (Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019)

It sped through the Legislature in less than two weeks. The Bill was printed on 27 May 2019 and received Royal Assent on 6 June 2019. The Bill had no Committee Stage leaving people no opportunity to comment as part of the legislative process. It was Ford, Buck-a-beer, laying down the law.

The Bill amended the Liquor Control Act to terminate an agreement (the so-called Master Framework Agreement) entered into by the previous Liberal Government with the Beer Store owners in 2015. That agreement loosened things up a bit, allowing beer and wine to be sold in a limited number of non-Beer Store outlets Province-wide.

But Buck-a-beer didn’t think it went far enough.

So the Beer Store Act allows the Province to rip up that agreement – leaving itself open to legal action by the Beer Store owners for breach of contract.

A year ago the Deputy Leader of the Progressive Conservatives Christine Elliott told us she wanted convenience stores to sell beer and wine. She is my MPP so I make an appointment to see her. I want to know when Andrew’s Convenience Store is going to be able to sell beer and wines to his thirsty customers.

High Noon

It’s 1pm at Christine Elliott’s Constituency Office and I have a 15-minute meeting with my MPP on the Beer Store legislation and on Parliamentary procedures. It bothers me (a) the Province could be on the hook for millions of dollars in damages if it repudiates the contract with the Beer Store owners which, in any event, is due to expire in 2025. It can be renegotiated then without penalty. It also concerns me (b) that major public policy issues are rushed through Queen’s Park with no opportunity for the public to comment. This is not how the system is supposed to work.

The changes brought in by the Beer Store Bill have not been proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor (who acts on the advice of the Premier and Cabinet) and therefore are not law. When can we expect the proclamation?

Christine Elliott smiles and shakes hands as I enter her office. She is pleasant and welcoming. On her left sits the formidable Dawn Gallagher Murphy who is the MPP’s executive assistant and gatekeeper. If you want an appointment you’ve got to get past Dawn first. I email my five questions to her on Friday to give Christine Elliott the heads up on what I want to talk about. 

First, I ask Christine Elliott for an assurance that any Bill to reorganise municipal government will have a Committee Stage. She says that if a Bill is brought forward then she is confident there will be a Committee Stage. This is as much as I am going to get. So I move on.

Now I turn to drink.

What about Andrew?

When will Andrew be able to see beer and wine? 

She tells me it is all about fairness and that the people who own the Beer Store are not even Canadian (or some aren’t). 

I gently suggest she is missing the point. I say the set-up in Ontario with the LCBO and the Beer Store is, admittedly, kinda quirky. A lot of people would welcome some liberalisation but baulk at breaking contracts and forking out millions of dollars when the contracts are up for renewal in a few years time and can be renegotiated then without penalty.

So I ask when the Beer Store Act will be proclaimed. This will be the trigger for legal action by the Beer Store owners. She says she doesn’t know.

She says there is a Cabinet meeting on Thursday so I quickly ask if she will raise the issue then. She agrees - but then says she may not be able to tell me what transpired because of Cabinet confidentiality! 

I ask if it is commonplace for Governments to break contracts and be sued for damages. She says it is not commonplace but, clearly, these things happen. She says that before Bills are introduced to the Legislature detailed briefings are prepared by the Provincial civil service who would look at any legal issues.

Ah! But I remind her that Caroline Mulroney, when Attorney General, was specifically asked about the consequences of breaking contracts in an exchange with Sandy Shaw in Queen’s Park on 6 June 2019.  And Caroline Mulroney refuses to answer.

Instead she passes the question on to Vic Fedeli, then Minister of Finance, who obfuscates. The Standing Orders allow for this but we are left completely in the dark about the Attorney General’s views on ripping up contracts. Does she think that’s OK?

My time is now running out. 

I ask if I can get written answers to the questions I posed – just to flesh things out.

Of course.

And, for the nth time, I go back to Andrew's Convenience Store. When is he going to be able to sell beer and wine?

This time next year.

Ah!

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sandie Shaw: To the Attorney General

“My question is to the Attorney General. The rule of law means that governments… should follow the law… Speaker, it’s a principle that this Attorney General is sworn to uphold. That’s why it’s so concerning that this government is ripping up contracts and ignoring the rule of law—all for beer. In fact, the Canadian American Bar Association wrote the Attorney General an urgent letter and said that this government will “undermine the rule of law.” The Attorney General’s job is to uphold the rule of law. Has she spoken to the Premier about these serious concerns?”

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: 

“To the Minister of Finance.”

(Interruption)

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): 

“I’d ask the Minister of Finance to sit down. I apologize. The rules of the House allow any minister to refer any question to another minister. What they’re doing is completely within the standing orders.”

Update on 13 August 2019 from the Toronto Star’s Martin Reg Cohn: Cheap Beer and cheaper gas won’t fuel a political honeymoon.

Update on 16 August 2019: Finance Minister turns down the Tories’ heat on the Beer Store.

Update on 21 May 2020: From the Toronto Star: Has the Beer Store finally gone stale?

Details

Two months after asking for an appointment with my MPP, Christine Elliott, I am getting one and I am grateful.  

This morning’s ERA newspaper tells me others aren’t so lucky.

I have been given 15 minutes on Monday 12 August 2019 to say what I have to say and after the usual pleasantries I won’t have a second to waste. 

I want to raise two issues and I have given Dawn Gallagher Murphy, the Constituency Manager and Executive Assistant, notice of what these are.

There will be no pointless ambushes. 

Issue 1: I want to find out what’s happening with the Beer Store Act. It has gone through the legislature but has not yet been proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor and is still not law. The Lieutenant Governor acts on the advice of the Executive Council of Ontario which is Ford’s Cabinet by another name. If Ford wants it proclaimed he only has to ask and it will be done.

However, press reports suggest the Act will just lie there and not be brought into force. This would persuade the big brewers who (in the main) own the Beer Store to sit down and talk about the current contract with the Province which, says Ford, stifles competition. 

A year ago, on 7 August 2018, Elliott told the legislature:

“Buck-a-beer is part of the government’s commitment to transforming alcohol retailing in Ontario, which includes expanding the sale of beer and wine to convenience stores, grocery stores and big box stores. This is just further evidence that our government is going to do what we said we would do, and that’s put Ontario consumers first.”

So…

It's Question Time for my MPP

Question 1: When will Andrew’s Convenience Store in Aurora be able to sell beer and wine?

Question 2: When will the Beer Store Act (the Liquor Control Act as amended) be proclaimed?

Question 3: When that happens what is to stop the Beer Store owners going to Court for breach of contract? 

Question 4: If the Province negotiates with the Beer Store owners and decides to settle out of Court, what would that settlement look like?

Issue 2: As a matter of good government, Public Bills being considered by the Legislative Assembly should have a Committee Stage – unless there is some kind of emergency that makes that impossible.

Bills have committee stages to allow our MPPs to hear from and take evidence from the public and from those who might be directly affected by legislation.

Parliamentary Process and Procedure subverted

While in Opposition many Progressive Conservative MPPs complained about Parliamentary procedures being subverted in the rush to get Bills passed and on to the Statute Book.

With the Ford Government, there was, of course, no committee stage of the Beer Store Bill which barrelled through the legislature in double-quick time. Likewise there was no committee stage for the Bill which cut the size of Toronto City Council by half.

The Ford Government is considering big changes in the structure of municipal government and it would be lunacy to embark on an expensive and disruptive reorganisation of municipal government without hearing from the public first.

Question 5: Will any Bill to restructure municipal government have a Committee Stage whose duration reflects the complexity of the Bill’s provisions?

Ding! Ding!

Time’s up!

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Notes: The Beer Store owners may seek damages for breach of contract. But is this even possible given the nature of the legislation?

The Beer Store Bill states there is no remedy for the Government’s breach of contract.

Yet the 2015 Master Framework Agreement negotiated and agreed between the Wynne Government and the brewers says this:

8.6 Remedies for Breach

(a) Any allegation of material breach of this Agreement (or with respect to Section 8.6(d), the Shareholders Agreement) shall be resolved pursuant to Sections 8.1 and 8.6, including the requirement in Section 8.1(b) of a Notice of Dispute. In determining whether such a material breach has occurred, an Arbitration Tribunal appointed pursuant to Section 8.1(d) and Schedule 8.1 shall treat all obligations in this Agreement, including post-termination obligations in Section 8.7, as binding and enforceable against the Province despite its status as the Crown, even where the alleged breach results from a change in legislation or public policy.  (My underlining)

In late May 2019 (before the legislation passed the Legislature) the Beer Store President told the Globe and Mail:

“The government cannot extinguish our right to damages as outlined in the Master Framework Agreement."

Details

The Federal Government’s inaction on banning handguns and assault weapons is inexcusable. 

Trump today on the El Paso and Dayton mass murders

Their timidity is deplorable.

The Minister in charge of the dithering, former Toronto police chief Bill Blair, says the Liberal election platform may include something on assault weapons. And while there will be no nationwide ban on handguns municipalities are likely to be given the powers to impose additional restrictions on handguns in their own patch. Seriously? Is this it?

Mass shootings now the new normal

Mass shootings have now become normalised in the dysfunctional United States. They happen all the time. In El Paso 22 people are murdered and 26 injured. In Dayton, 10 are slain and 27 injured. There are the usual thoughts and prayers but nothing will change down there. 

If Sandy Hook Elementary School (27 killed); Las Vegas (58 killed, 422 wounded) and Orlando Night Club (49 killed, 53 wounded) couldn’t persuade Congress to act then nothing will. 

The United States has shown itself to be incapable of addressing this epidemic of mass murder.

But why don’t we act to stop this madness from taking hold in Canada? Here there is no Second Amendment right to bear arms.

After Danforth what does it take?

A year ago we had Danforth where 3 people were killed and others left with life changing injuries. A young woman in the prime of life is left paralysed from the waist down. Who weeps for her?

Not the Federal Government. It is content to “consult” on the way forward. Ministers are afraid of offending the 2.1 million firearm licence holders in Canada. But what about the rest of us who don’t want or need guns?

The Government is strengthening gun laws (C72) but it is not enough.

The Government’s own figures show gun homicides have nearly doubled (98.5%) from 134 in 2013 to 266 in 2017. 

More than half (55%) of firearm-related homicides in 2017 were committed using handguns. 

Violent offences specific to firearms have increased by 45% since 2013, rising from 1,892 incidents in 2013 to 2,734 incidents in 2017.

And the spiralling incidence of gun crime shows no signs of levelling off.  

Government relies on flawed survey results 

The Government’s consultation in the wake of Danforth told us they had 135,00 responses to their on-line questionnaire.

But the survey was seriously flawed. Astonishingly, people could vote multiple times – and they did, invalidating the result.

But did Bill Blair comment on this? No.

It was no surprise that the key finding from the fraudulent online questionnaire was this:

“Majority of respondents did not support further limiting access to firearms and assault-style firearms”

Bill Blair gives weight to this tosh.

And resolves to keep us safe from gun violence.

How?

Gordon.prentice@shrinkslessorsquare

There are three categories of firearms in Canada:  Restricted: handguns, certain rifles and semi-automatics; Prohibited: certain handguns, fully automatic rifles, and sawed off rifles; and Non-restricted: standard hunting rifles and shotguns.

Update on 8 August 2019 from the Toronto Star: Tougher gun measures on election agenda.

Details

Tony Van Bynen, the freshly minted 69 year old Liberal candidate for Newmarket-Aurora and our next MP, continues to block me from reading his Tweets.

I have tweeted the Liberal Party (@liberal_party) to ask if that’s OK and what’s going to happen when, in 12 weeks time, he is my MP. 

Once he is comfortably settled in Ottawa will he respond to my emails on public policy issues or will he still block me? 

If I want to talk to him about, say, a ban on handguns or the climate emergency or income inequality or any one of a thousand other issues will he silently ignore me? 

Or will he engage with the argument? 

Tony Van Bynen's Liberal Campaign Team tells us he needs volunteers 

“to help with the crucial task of connecting with our voters at the door”.

I am left wondering if Tony will be knocking on my door to connect with me.

Tony needs YOUR HELP

In any event Tony is counting on YOUR HELP and you can join him at any or all of these fun events:

Saturday August 3rd 1.30-4pm. Meet at Talent Montessori School, 69 McLeod Dr, Aurora  

Sunday August 4th 1.30-4pm. Meet at Sir William Mulock S.S, 705 Columbus Way, Newmarket 

Tuesday August 6th 6.30-8.30pm. Meet at Devins Dr PS, 70 Devins Dr, Newmarket. 

Thursday August 8th 6.30-8.30pm. Meet at Ray Twinney Arena, Newmarket. 

Saturday August 10th 1.30-4pm. Meet at Newmarket Community Centre, 200 Doug Duncan Dr. 

Sunday August 11th 1.30-4pm. Meet at Sir William Mulock S.S, 705 Columbus Way, Newmarket 

Onwards and Upwards!

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Below: Tony wows his audience at his nominating meeting on 8 July 2019. Tony was the only candidate to throw his hat into the ring. 

Details

Why on earth does the convicted fraudster Conrad Black want to return to the United Kingdom to reclaim his seat in the House of Lords?  

Does he just like dressing up? Or has he got something to say?

Black has been on leave of absence from the House of Lords. To get back he needs to give the Clerk of the Parliaments three months notice that he intends to sit in the Lords again.

The BBC recently reported that Black was planning a return to the House of Lords for the first time since he was convicted in 2007.

“Lord Black said he had already planned to retake his seat after being released from prison but the presidential pardon “makes it easier”.”

The reporter points out:

“Your co-defendants convicted of the same crime (Richard Boultbee and Peter Atkinson) did not receive a pardon.”

And Conrad Black replies:

“But they haven’t asked for one… I don’t see why they don’t apply for one.”

Pardon me. Pardon them.

I suppose His Lordship could make a recommendation to Trump, to pardon them as Trump pardoned him.

Eric H. Sussman, who prosecuted Conrad Black, told readers of the Financial Post that the presidential pardon is a mockery of justice:

“The pardon lays bare the fact that justice in Donald Trump’s America is unapologetically linked to who you know and how much money you have.”

Sussman says he was saddened but not surprised that Trump decided to pardon Black for his theft of millions of dollars from public shareholders and obstruction of justice.

“Nothing betrays the mockery that President Trump has made of our justice system more than the fact the Black’s co-defendants, Richard Boultbee and Peter Atkinson, Canadians who were convicted by the same jury, at the same trial, of the same fraud crimes as Black, did not receive any pardon consideration from President Trump. They remain convicted federal criminals with no pop singers or right-wing pundits to vouch for them.”

In fact, Black did not go through the usual channels (ie the US Department of Justice) to apply for his pardon. He lobbied the White House directly through Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor who is one of Trump’s staunchest defenders.

The Washington Post reported on 23 May that:

“Conrad Black (had) enlisted one of Trump’s biggest on-air defenders, Alan Dershowitz, to get the president’s attention.”

And it worked.

Black has refused to send me the Report from the White House Counsel’s Office which allegedly persuaded Trump to issue his pardon. So I asked the Office of the Pardon Attorney for a copy. They tell me:

“We have received your correspondence requesting a copy of a report alleged to have been created by the Office of White House Counsel related to Conrad Moffat Black, who was granted a Presidential pardon on May 15, 2019.”  

“Please be advised that Mr. Black did not submit a pardon petition through the Department of Justice (the Department), so we are unaware of and cannot confirm or deny the existence of the records used by the President to make the above-referenced clemency decision.”  

Black's contributions in the House of Lords

Black joined the Lords on 31 October 2001.

In his maiden speech on 15 May 2002 Baron Black told his fellow peers:

“My Lords, it is a privilege to be here. After the tortuous course that I pursued getting to your Lordships’ House I would be remiss if I did not thank the former Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister for their kind persistence on my behalf…”

Next up is Viscount Slim who says it is a great privilege to hear from Lord Black:

“We hope to see him here often. I congratulate him on a marvellous maiden speech.”

We hope to see him here often!  

In all his many years as a member of the House of Lords Conrad Black has spoken twice. (The second occasion was on Iraq on 28 November 2002.) 

Isn’t it an impertinence to allow someone like Black, a convicted fraudster, to be part of the UK’s legislature, making the laws for everyone else? 

Criminal Record not "expunged" by Trump's pardon

To be clear, Black’s criminal record is not expunged by Trump’s pardon. Only a Court of Law can expunge a criminal conviction.

New rules set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, agreed in 2015, make provision for the expulsion or suspension of a member but these are not retrospective. He is a peer for life and has been registered to sit as a cross-bencher (or independent) since the Conservative whip was withdrawn in 2007 on his imprisonment. 

In the House of Commons the rules are different. A jail sentence of a year or more for an MP means automatic expulsion. 

Despite everything Lord Black of Crossharbour retains his title and his privileges and his trade-mark braggadocio.

When he eventually stirs himself and returns to the House of Lords I am left wondering what his third speech will be all about.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Black renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001 to get into the House of Lords. On his release from prison in the United States in 2012 he was allowed into Canada on a temporary residence basis. He is still here. 

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home