Another Brew-On-Premise Article

[mr x]

No. The old law that was brought to bear last time around was proven to be unenforceable, and public prosecution was not going to bring it to court again. The only way around this was for the NDP to bring in their new legislation so persecution could continue. Defending the NDP on this would be better discussed on a truther's blog.

[derek]

No. The old law that was brought to bear last time around was proven to be unenforceable, and public prosecution was not going to bring it to court again. The only way around this was for the NDP to bring in their new legislation so persecution could continue. Defending the NDP on this would be better discussed on a truther's blog.

They got a conviction! How is that unenforceable? The new law allows the NSLC to seek an injunction to prevent people from _breaking_ the old law - if the old law didn't exist, they wouldn't have any grounds to seek an injunction. The new law merely makes it possible for the NSLC to shut down the operation faster.

[Dirt Chicken]

If BOP was simply a person renting space for the purpose of brewing their own product, I wouldn't see an issue...but BOP (in some cases) has become Brewer for hire...people paying for a finished product, while not paying the liquor tax...that's wrong...every other brewer has to pay the tax...it's not home brew if someone else is brewing and bottling it for you.

Those taxes fund programs, your programs...

so if the BOP folks follow a rule that the will only sell raw materials, and rent space to brew, I have no issue.

Now if they wanted to tax our raw materials and kits...I'd have a big problem with that

I know for sure my LHBS is not following the rules of the law, and they should be penalized, but do we need a monopoly particularly one this heavy handed? Currently our liquor tax is masquerading as a retail outlet, and the NSLC has almost ultimate control over it. The taxes we're paying here do fund programs to a degree, but to a larger degree they pay some handsome salaries at the NSLC. A quick Google shows Bret Mitchell made $226,488 last year, high, but questionable whether it's fair or not, but he's certainly not the only executive there, how much are they paid in total? So this begs the question, how much of our tax goes to the NSLC management and how much to our programs?

Lets put it this way, if my LHBS goes out of business because of this - which they will if the NSLC wins, they have told me themselves - there's 5 people out of a job, there's EI payments that need to be made and money not put back into the community, there's lost taxes to the town from that business and people leaving town to buy their beer and wine making kits and equipment. Do you think the NSLC will create 5 more jobs in my town that put the same amount of money back into the community? Are they really losing enough income, a small percentage of which goes back into our programs, to use money as a reasonable excuse to shutdown local businesses.

The NDP didn't do this, but as others have said, they gave them these powers and let this happen under their watch. Unfortunately none of our political parties are really a good alternative to one another here, but the people still need to make their voice heard.

Last thing I'll throw out there, I'm far from one of those people who think we shouldn't pay taxes and all government is bad, but I do believe that the current system doesn't work. I'd happily pay taxes if I had a better idea of how much of it went where and a 'reasonable' amount when to everyone who administered those programs for us.

TL;DR Taxes aren't all bad, the NSLC is loosely justifying killing small business, they can s my d

Agree with you in verbatim!
Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk 2

[mr x]

No. The old law that was brought to bear last time around was proven to be unenforceable, and public prosecution was not going to bring it to court again. The only way around this was for the NDP to bring in their new legislation so persecution could continue. Defending the NDP on this would be better discussed on a truther's blog.

They got a conviction! How is that unenforceable? The new law allows the NSLC to seek an injunction to prevent people from _breaking_ the old law - if the old law didn't exist, they wouldn't have any grounds to seek an injunction. The new law merely makes it possible for the NSLC to shut down the operation faster.

Unenforceable because public prosecution wouldn't take the case on again after laws were changed after that conviction. It was never going to be tried again, and everybody knew it (well, almost everybody). The only way this went back to court was on the NDP's new bill, and they did that themselves, without any other party's help. End of story. Speed has nothing to do with it.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2750&p=34281&hilit=crown#p34281" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GAM]

http://halifax.kijiji.ca/c-services-oth ... Z449214618" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Someone was listening to us.

Sandy

[Tim Gregory]

Sounds like a sting.

[HotBreak]

The fact that the government has a monopoly on all alcohol sales in the province with their own corporation to squeeze as much money out of us as possible is criminal as far as I am concerned. The NSLC has been given so much power over the years, with no competition that they are almost beyond control now. What politician is going to advocate reigning in such a huge source of income for government coffers??
What we need in this province is de-regulation of the alcohol business and breaking up of the NSLC monopoly. Who knows? we may even see more competition, lower prices and better selection? That would give the NSLC execs a heart attack!
The gubberment will still get it's tax dollars just like they do with everything else sold at stores.

Free market economics- better than gov't regulation.

I feel a rant coming on so I will stop there.....

Drew

[Graham.C]

I know some people in the wine industry in Ontario that are talking about joining up and opening a boutique Ontario wine store downtown Toronto. They figure it will be a political nightmare for anyone to take them on. Maybe our breweries need to do the same.

EDIT: although a multi-million dollar winery holds a bit more clout then some brew on premise places, not too mention a dozen or more of them.

[GAM]

Just turned on CBC. NSLC rep on.\\

Sandy

[Dirt Chicken]

It seems that every show they have a rep speaking, I can't find the show archived online

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk 2

[GAM]

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Local+Sh ... 327416107/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Luc Erjavec of the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association not the NSLC.

Sandy

[Jimmy]

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Local+Sh ... 327416107/
Luc Erjavec of the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association not the NSLC.

Sandy

"Mr Campbell" was great

[mr x]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/47 ... he-problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mr x]

2 week delay as they have to replace judge. Used to work with uvint's lawyer.

[LeafMan66_67]

Province to make u-brews and u-vints legal

After standing by its prosecution of Wine Kitz for allowing on-premises fermenting, the Nova Scotia government has just announced that it will develop regulations to allow the legal operation of the u-vints and u-brews. The province says it plans to study the practices of other provinces in creating a regulatory framework.

http://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20130131001

Justice Minister Ross Landry, on behalf of Maureen MacDonald Minister responsible for the Liquor Control Act, said the province has listened to business owners and Nova Scotians, and will develop regulations allowing the legal operation of ferment-on-premise facilities, also known as u-vints and u-brews.

"We've heard from many Nova Scotians that they want the choice to make wine and beer in a retail setting," said Mr. Landry. "We must be careful in how alcohol is produced and sold, and so any changes to liquor laws will be made in a fair and socially responsible way."

The province plans to study the practices of other provinces in creating a regulatory framework.

"Moving in this direction will also ensure a level playing field for all retailers who want to provide this service to their customers," said Mr. Landry.

The Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation will withdraw injunctions against two retailers who were operating ferment-on-premise facilities.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR BROADCAST USE:

Justice Minister Ross Landry, on behalf of Maureen MacDonald

Minister responsible for the Liquor Control Act, says the

province has listened to business owners and Nova Scotians, and

will develop regulations allowing the legal operation of

ferment-on-premise facilities, also known as u-vints and u-brews.

Mr. Landry says the government has heard from many Nova

Scotians that they want the choice to make wine and beer in a

retail setting, and that the government will move forward on

changes in a fair and socially responsible way.

The province plans to study the practices of other provinces

in creating a regulatory framework. The Nova Scotia Liquor

Corporation will withdraw injunctions against two retailers who

were operating ferment-on-premise facilities.

[benwedge]

I don't see a source in Leafman's link, but here's the government's press release. It's scant on details, so there could be ridiculous fees to make it impractical, but we've made a major victory.

[mr x]

So long as we don't wind up with a bunch of taxes on grains....

[LeafMan66_67]

There's also that possibility.

[CorneliusAlphonse]

So long as we don't wind up with a bunch of taxes on grains....

we'd have to start cross-border grain runs.

[chalmers]

Glad that the prosecution has been dropped.
Putting taxes on grains sounds like opening up a massive bag of worms, because anything with starch or sugar could be used to make alcohol. So they should prepare to tax most every food stuff sold at a grocery store.

[mr x]

They can tax malt sold at homebrewstores pretty easy...and they are going to come looking for their money that they feel is their right to take, bank on that.

[BobbyOK]

And yet, Bill 120 still exists. Who will the LC turn their attention to now? Private Stores? Wineries? Bootleggers?

[mr x]

I'm still not voting for Ross Landry. I don't trust these bastards. What will they do? And does anybody know the tax implications in the other provinces?

[Stusbrews]

NSLC should have been SLAMMED by the court for starting and then dropping the action they started against not 1, but 2 separate companies. But nope.
I very much doubt either was even awarded legal costs, let alone business/reputation loss.
Its the government, so their own rules dont apply to them.

[ajcarp]

Thought I would drop you a little note to let you know how the u-vint's and u-brews work here in BC. I bought a u-vint. gift certificate from a silent auction and recently used one for the first time.

It is really like a brew for hire. They charge you for the wine kit (eg grape juice) with no tax. Then they add a $50 preparation service charge. This is taxed. They were really surprised when I asked if I could come in and watch the prep. Normally, they just do it all themselves. They also charge for bottles (also taxed), the corks are part of the prep. service charge.

For the u-brews, it is much the same way. All brews are extract kits with minimal specialty grains. The u-brews really don't have any supplies for the home brewer. No grain, no yeast, maybe a few cleaning and bottling supplies. They don't use grain, and the yeast they by in bulk cakes and really don't want to sell you any. That is why I drive about 45 minutes up to HopDawgs, thanks Chris, to get all my supplies.

It certainly services a different crowd that all of the home brew and home fermenter's I've known. For most of this crowd, it is all about price. I'll reserve my judgement of the quality of the product until my wine is ready to drink in about 1 1/2 years.

All in all, I'd rather do it myself.