Business
Provincial governments should follow Manitoba’s lead and allow the online sale of alcoholic beverages from other provinces
From the Montreal Economic Institute
By Shal Marriott and Gabriel Giguère
Removing Interprovincial Barriers to Online Alcohol Sales
Canada’s provincial and territorial governments should allow consumers to shop online for alcoholic beverages produced elsewhere in the country, indicates an MEI publication.
“The restrictions imposed by provincial alcohol monopolies are such that it is sometimes easier for a Canadian producer to sell its products on the other side of the world than in the province next door,” explains Shal Marriott, research associate at the MEI and author of the study. “By allowing producers to sell their products online, directly to consumers, our provincial governments would remove obstacles to their growth.”
In 2019, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments had committed to improving interprovincial trade in alcoholic beverages. This commitment stems directly from the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, signed two years before.
Manitoba is the only province to allow its residents to shop online for Canadian alcoholic beverages from other provinces, without restriction.
British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Nova Scotia have partial restrictions, allowing consumers to shop online for certain categories of products from specific parts of the country.
Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador each continue to prohibit consumers from shopping online for alcoholic beverages from outside the province.
“By opening the door to this online commerce, our provincial governments would allow consumers to discover new products that they otherwise cannot purchase at home,” says Ms. Marriott. “This is the kind of simple measure that could also give our microbreweries, our wineries, and our distilleries a helping hand.”
The alcoholic beverage sector contributes over $4.4 billion to the Canadian economy, according to the latest available data.
Viewpoint calling on Canada’s provincial governments to allow the unrestricted online purchase and shipment of alcoholic beverages from one province to another
* * *
This Viewpoint was prepared by Shal Marriott, Research Associate at the MEI, in collaboration with Gabriel Giguère, Senior Policy Analyst at the MEI. The MEI’s Regulation Series aims to examine the often unintended consequences for individuals and businesses of various laws and rules, in contrast with their stated goals.
In October 2012, retiree Gerard Comeau was stopped by the RCMP and fined for bringing a too large quantity of beer and liquor from Quebec into New Brunswick, violating the personal exemption limit in place. In its ruling on the Comeau case in April 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld provincial governments’ right to maintain such restrictions, provided they did not intentionally impede interprovincial alcohol trade.(1)
A year later, however, the federal government and the provinces agreed on an Action Plan “to enhance interprovincial trade of alcoholic beverages,” stemming from the 2017 Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA).(2) This included increasing, and ultimately eliminating, personal use exemption limits (which set the amount of alcohol one can bring back from another province) and creating e-commerce platforms.(3)
Some progress has been made to raise or remove personal exemption limits across the country, meaning that Canadians can now import and transport alcohol more easily across most provincial lines for personal consumption, without penalty.(4) Most provinces, however, have failed to liberalize other areas of interprovincial alcohol trade, such as interprovincial online retail sales of alcoholic products, thus depriving Canadians of the benefits of greater competition, namely a broader choice of products and lower prices.
The Current State of Online Alcohol Retail Sales
There have been some efforts to allow greater freedom in online alcohol sales, such as Saskatchewan and British Columbia allowing a limited form of direct-to-consumer sales and shipping of wine and craft spirits from producers in the other province.(5) However, most Canadian provinces continue to prohibit the online retail sale of alcoholic beverages from other provinces directly to their consumers. For example, the Société des alcools du Québec (SAQ) states that while producers are not restricted formally from offering to sell to residents of Quebec, it is illegal for those Quebec residents to make such purchases and have them shipped into the province.(6)
As can be seen in Table 1, few provinces allow producers from other provinces to ship directly to consumers. Manitoba is the only Canadian province with no interprovincial online purchasing restrictions. The restrictions that have been removed in Western provinces and Nova Scotia are also relatively limited (and mainly concern wine). Quebec and Ontario retain complete prohibitions, which is hardly surprising as they are also among the provinces that have made the least progress towards the liberalization of internal trade more broadly.(7)
While we see some improvement in Alberta’s willingness to allow some direct-to-consumer shipments, continued protectionism still exists in the province’s alcohol trade. For example, in January 2024, the Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis (AGLC) corporation argued that direct-to-consumer shipping was having a negative impact on the provincial liquor monopoly.(8) In reaction, it threatened to stop selling BC wines in its stores until this practice ceased, and this position was seemingly supported by the Alberta government as there was no action to condemn the stance of the AGLC.(9)
Although a memorandum of understanding was reached six months later, ending a temporary ban that had been imposed, this showcases that provincial liquor monopolies, and provincial governments, are willing to enforce interprovincial trade barriers that ultimately deprive Canadian producers and consumers.(10)
The Benefits of Direct-to-Consumer Purchasing Online
There has been a general growth in the online consumer goods market, but Canadian producers and consumers of alcohol products have been unable to fully participate in, and benefit from, this opportunity. This protects provincial alcohol monopolies with their brick-and-mortar stores, which are thus shielded from online competition, at the expense of consumers and producers, whose ability to engage in trade with each other is limited.(11)
Liquor monopolies thus find it easier to impose artificially high prices on the products they retail. The SAQ, for instance, imposes markups on bottles of wine which, when combined with excise and sales taxes, can account for over 75% of the retail price of the product.(12)
Abolishing these restrictions on interprovincial shipping directly to consumers would allow Canadians in any province to freely order online from alcohol producers anywhere in the country. Online sales are one of the most convenient ways for consumers to purchase alcohol from other provinces. Opening up this type of commerce would also be good for smaller breweries, wineries, and distilleries, allowing them to expand their reach within the domestic market.
The federal government has declared a commitment to an increasingly liberalized domestic alcohol market.(13) Yet, this liberalization is being hindered by provincial governments and alcohol monopolies that limit the growth of the domestic market. For the sake of Canadian consumers and producers alike, the provinces should simply allow the unrestricted online purchase and shipment of alcohol from other provinces.
By Ken Macon
If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
Millions of Siri users may receive compensation as Apple addresses claims of unintentional voice recordings and data misuse
Apple has agreed to a $95 million cash settlement to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the tech giant of breaching user privacy through its Siri voice assistant. The preliminary settlement, filed in a federal court in Oakland, California, awaits approval from US District Judge Jeffrey White.
The lawsuit alleged that Siri recorded private conversations inadvertently activated by users and disclosed these recordings to third parties, including advertisers.
Siri, like other voice assistants, responds to “hot words” such as “Hey, Siri,” which can unintentionally trigger recording. Plaintiffs claimed this led to targeted ads based on private discussions, citing examples such as ads for Air Jordan sneakers after casual mentions of the brands. One plaintiff also reported receiving ads for a surgical treatment brand after a private conversation with their doctor.
The lawsuit covers users of Siri-enabled devices, including iPhones and Apple Watches, from September 17, 2014, when the “Hey, Siri” feature was introduced, to December 31, 2024. Class members, estimated to number in the tens of millions, could receive up to $20 per eligible device.
Apple denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement and did not immediately comment on the matter.
Similarly, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have yet to issue statements. From the $95 million settlement fund, attorneys may seek up to $28.5 million in legal fees and an additional $1.1 million for expenses.
For Apple, the settlement represents a fraction of its financial might, equivalent to just nine hours of profit. The Cupertino-based company reported a net income of $93.74 billion in its most recent fiscal year.
This lawsuit isn’t the only privacy-related legal battle involving voice assistants. A separate case against Google’s Voice Assistant is ongoing in a federal court in San Jose, California, within the same judicial district. The same law firms represent the plaintiffs in both lawsuits.
More than once in this space I’ve advocated for a comprehensive all-of-government review to find and eliminate waste and corruption. So it’s about time I set finger to keyboard and started mapping out how such a review might unfold.
Why is it just this moment in history that finds me so passionate about reviews?
Canada’s government spends more money than it receives. I know that’s hardly breaking news, but Ottawa’s reckless and frenzied race to max out every credit card in the known universe has driven the federal debt to $1.24 trillion. That’s 42.1 percent of GDP.¹
Among the biggest expenses? Employment growth in the federal civil service. Parliament employed 276,367 people in 2015 but by 2023 that had exploded to 370,368. That 94,001 increase amounts to a jump of 34 percent. For context, Canada’s overall population during that time increased by just 12 percent.
Given that the average weekly earnings for individuals employed in federal government public administration was $1,779 in 2023, just covering salaries for those extra 94,001 workers cost us $8.7 billion through that year.
But workers cost us much more than just their salaries. There are pension and CPP contributions, EI premiums, health and dental benefits, and indirect costs like office accommodations and training. All that could easily add another $50,000 per employee. Multiply that by all the new hires, and the total cost of those extra 94,001 workers has ballooned to $13.4 billion. That would be nearly a quarter of the deficit from the 2024 $61.9 billion fall update.² (Chrystia Freeland may not have been the one to officially announce that number, but she and her boss were the ones who got us there.)
Of course using a lottery to select, say, two out of every five bureaucrats for firing won’t give us the result we’re after. We want to improve government, not cripple it. (Although, to be completely honest, I find the idea of random mass firings way more attractive than I should.)
A successful review will identify programs that aren’t delivering cost-effective value to the people of Canada. Some of those programs will need changes and others should disappear altogether. For some, appropriate next-steps will come to light only through full audits.
But success will also require creating an organizational culture that earns the respect and buy-in of department insiders, stakeholders, and the general public.
The rest of this post will present some foundational principles that can make all that attainable. I should note that this post was greatly enhanced from input using the invaluable experience of a number of The Audit subscribers.
Use Transparent and Well-Defined Goals
Consensus should always be the ideal, but clarity is non-negotiable. Program advocates must be prepared to convincingly explain what they’re trying to achieve, including setting clear metrics for success and failure. Saving taxpayer funds to avoid economic catastrophe is obviously a primary goal. But more effective governance and more professional service delivery also rank pretty high.
Questions to ask and answer before, during, and after review operations:
- Does the program under review fall within the constitutional and operational scope of the federal government?
- Is there overlap with other programs or other levels of government?
- Are the original policy goals that inspired the program still relevant?
- Is the program in its current form the most effective and economical way of achieving those goals?
- Are the changes you’re proposing sustainable or will they sink back into the swamp and disappear as soon as no one’s looking?
Perhaps the most important goal of them all should be getting the job done in our lifetimes. We’ve all seen commissions, working groups, and subcommittees that drag on through multiple years and millions of dollars. You don’t want to make dumb mistakes, but that doesn’t mean you can’t adopt new tools or methodologies (like Agile) to speed things up.
Transparency is a fundamental requirement for public and institutional buy-in. That means publishing program goals and processes along with regular updates. It also means being responsive to reasonable requests for information. Fortunately, someone (Al Gore?) invented the internet, so it should be possible to throw together an interactive browser-based dashboard that keeps the rest of us in the loop and allows for feedback.
Over the years, I’ve personally built nice(ish) websites in minutes, even sites that use pipelines for dynamically pulling data from third-party sources. This isn’t rocket science – especially when you’re not dealing with sensitive private data.
Be Non-Partisan
Going to war against the complexity, toxic politics, incompetence, institutional inertia, NIMBY-ism, and sheer scope of government waste is not for the faint of heart. But setting yourself up as the Righteous Redeemer of only 40 percent of Canadians will make things infinitely more difficult.
Key project positions have to be filled by the most capable individuals from anywhere on the political spectrum. And proposals for cuts should rise above political gamesmanship. It may be unreasonable to expect friendly cross-the-aisle collaboration, but the value of the eventual results should be so self-evident that they’re impossible to oppose in good faith.
Frankly, if you’d ask me, any government that managed to miraculously rise above partisan silliness and genuinely put the country’s needs first would probably guarantee itself reelection for a generation.
Be Efficient
Don’t reinvent the wheel. If internal or external departmental audits already exist, then incorporate their findings. Similarly, make use of any existing best-practice policies, standards, and guidance from bodies like the Office of the Comptroller General and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
It’ll be important to know who really controls the levers of power within government. So make sure you’ve got members of key insider organizations like the Privy Council Office and the Committee of Senior Officials on speed dial.
Also, incorporate forward-thinking elements into new programs by including sunset clauses, real-time monitoring, and ongoing mini reviews. To keep things moving fast, implement promising auditing and analysis ideas early as pilot programs. If they work, great. Expand. If they don’t work, bury ‘em. No harm done.
AI-driven insights can probably speed up early steps of the review process. For instance, before you even book your first meeting with the dreaded Assistant Deputy Minister, feed the department’s program spending and outcomes data to an AI model and tell it to look for evidence-based inefficiencies and redundancy. The results can set the agenda for the conversation you eventually do have.
You can similarly build simple software models that search for optimal spending balances across the whole government. Complex multivariate calculations that once required weeks of hard math can now be done in seconds.
A friend who administrates a private high school recently tasked ChatGPT with calculating the optimal teaching calendar for the coming school year. After a few seconds, the perfect schedule showed up on-screen. The woman who, in previous years, had spent countless hours on the task, literally laughed with excitement. “What are you so happy about?” My friend asked. “This thing just took your job.”
Consult the Civil Service (and the public)
I know exactly what you’re thinking: is there a better way to destroy any process than burying it under endless rounds of public consultations (followed by years of report writing)? Trust me, I feel your pain.
But it’s 2025. Things can be different now. In fact, contrary to the way it might look to many good people inside the public sector, things can be a lot better.
This consultation would be 100 percent digital and its main stage need last no longer than 60 days. Here’s how it’ll go:
- Build a website, make a lot of noise to attract attention, and invite all Canadians – with a particular focus on current and former civil servants.
- Require login that includes a physical address and (perhaps) a government-issued ID. This will prevent interest groups from gaming the system.
- Use AI tools to identify boilerplate cut-and-paste submissions and flag them for reduced relevance.
- Encourage (but don’t require) participants to identify themselves by their background and employment to permit useful data segmentation. This will make it easier to identify expert submissions.
- Provide ongoing full public access to all submissions. Private information would be redacted, of course. And whistle blowers could have specialized, extra-secure access.
- Use traditional software analytics to flag especially interesting submissions and analyze all submissions using AI models to produce deeper summaries and analyses.
- Publish ongoing overviews of the results.
- [Other stuff…]
- Pick out a nice suit/dress for your Order of Canada investiture ceremony.
There’s absolutely nothing revolutionary about any of this (except the Order of Canada bit). The City of Toronto has been doing most of it for years.
Subscribe to The Audit.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
US Senator Rand Paul warns against government emergency powers, cites Trudeau’s crackdown on Freedom Convoy
US Expands Biometric Technology in Airports Despite Privacy Concerns
Jordan Peterson interviews likely next Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre
Trump’s promises should prompt major rethink of Canadian energy policy
-
Daily Caller2 days agoFreedom Of Speech Versus Preferred Pronouns? It May Go To The Supreme Court
-
espionage1 day agoRetired Army Intelligence Officer says Vegas Cybertruck bomber may be whistleblower on east coast drone invasion
-
Brownstone Institute7 hours agoThe Pandemic Planners Come for Hoof and Hen…and Us Again
-
C2C Journal2 days agoA Rush to the Exits: Forget Immigration, Canada has an Emigration crisis
-
Business2 days agoEssential goods shouldn’t be taxed
-
C2C Journal2 days agoGwyn Morgan: Natural Gas – Not Nuclear – Is the Key to Powering North America’s Future
-
Business12 hours ago
What an Effective All-of-Government Program Review Might Look Like
-
Internet12 hours agoElon Musk Announces Algorithm Overhaul for X, Focusing on “Unregretted User-Seconds”