Month: November 2024

Trump is delusional on tariffs, but Canada shouldn’t retaliate

In 1930, U.S. Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, with the hopes of calming the great depression, and to raise more revenue for the federal government. To paraphrase the great Ben Stein in the cult classic Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, “Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects?” It did not work and the U.S. sank deeper into the great depression.”

This piece of economic and film history is relevant because it is the road we are about to tumble down.

Donald Trump’s proposed 25 per cent tariff on all imports from Canada is, if implemented, an economic disaster for Canada. According to research published by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the University of Calgary’s Trevor Tombe, a 25 per cent tariff would decrease real Canadian GDP by 2.6 per cent per year, meaning an immediate recession once the levy was in place.

If the tariffs were in place for the duration of Donald Trump’s term in office, real Canadian GDP would decline 10.4 per cent, which would make the COVID-19 recession look like a walk in the park. Then, of course, factor in that Canada is already on the cusp of a recession with GDP per capita declining, and the economic outlook is dire.

The question swirling around Ottawa right now is what will Canada’s response be in the two months before Trump is sworn in. Trump is demanding that we clean up our border, specifically stopping the flow of migrants heading southward, and stopping illegal drugs entering the U.S. from Canada. Regardless of what Ottawa announces between now and Jan. 20, it’s unlikely that either of those two issues can actually be resolved in such a short period of time, which increases the likelihood that Trump will make good on his promise.

Many Canadians, including those in office, are suggesting that Canada needs to consider retaliating against the U.S. if Trump follows through. While one can understand the inclination to “defend” Canadian interests in response to an erratic president, responding with retaliatory tariffs of our own would be economic suicide.

Milton Friedman astutely explained nearly 50 years ago that tariffs do protect domestic consumers very well against one thing. Lower prices. Tariffs make imports more expensive and constrict the supply of goods in the market, which puts significant upward pressure on prices on both fronts. Tariffs are, more simply put, taxes that are paid for by the very people they are intended to protect.

When a government enacts tariffs, it is essentially punishing its own consumers. Should our response to Donald Trump punishing U.S. consumers be following suit and doing the same to ourselves? Absolutely not, especially when you consider that Canada imported $277 billion worth of goods from the U.S. in 2023. Canadian consumers won’t be better off if Canada retaliates and enacts tariffs on the $55 billion worth of vehicles, $38 billion in machinery, or the $14 billion in electronic equipment we import from our neighbours. At a time when food inflation is still a problem, and the rising cost of living is hitting everyone, further boosting the cost of goods from our largest trading partner is backwards and inflationary.

Now, that doesn’t mean that Canada should just lay down and not do everything in its power to avoid this. In addition to begin taking steps to better control the border, there are several issues that have been on the chopping block for Americans, under both the Democrat and Republican administrations.

The first, and most glaring one, is supply management. Ending this program would give Canadian consumers access to international goods, would lower prices by increasing competition, and would solve one of the U.S.’s long held grievances about trade with Canada.

Another would be to scrap the Digital Services Tax, which is essentially a targeted mandate aimed at U.S. companies, which both Republicans and Democrats have despised since its inception.

Donald Trump’s view that tariffs on Canadian products will make Americans better off is a fantasy. The Tax Foundation’s research on his full package of tariffs shows that they will deflate the U.S. economy and cost 340,000 American jobs. The actual impact is likely much larger given that their figures don’t include the impact of retaliation and the downward spiral of trade wars.

So the question is, are we really better off if we try to match Trump’s fantastical delusions? A “Team Canada’ approach is certainly needed, but not one that drifts towards tariffs and protectionism.

Originally published here

Harsh Regulations Create More Harm than Good

Kuala Lumpur, 28 November 2024 – Since the announcement of Act 852 regulations by the Ministry of Health (MOH), the retail industry has pleaded for the government to be sensitive to their financial burdens whilst state authorities are considering making rules that are not aligned to MOH national regulations. In our view, this has created a regulatory environment that will impact public health, consumer safety, and the retail sector. The Consumer Choice Center (CCC), a global consumer advocacy group, calls for a re-evaluation of this policy to ensure it does not inadvertently harm consumers or fuel illicit trade.

Bans Do Not Reduce Risks

CCC believes MOH’s retail display ban risks jeopardizing public health goals. The visibility and accessibility of vape products are crucial in encouraging smokers to transition to less harmful options. Not being able to browse vape products at retail outlets risks motivating adult smokers to purchase cigarettes, a product they have more familiarity yet have more serious health implications.

In addition, remind the government that every consumer has a right to information as stated in Consumer Protection Act 1999 (CPA). There should not be a case where key product information such as content or ingredients, quality certifications, and other product descriptions. 

Consumer Safety Concerns

“Illicit markets don’t play by the rules. They don’t verify age, and their products are often dangerous to consumer,” said Tarmizi Anuwar, the Malaysia Country Associate for the Consumer Choice Center.

Regulated vape products are a key tool for harm reduction. Providing adult smokers with less harmful alternatives to quit combustible cigarettes is key to achieve public health goals. We urge authorities to consider scientific data before applying drastic measures to a whole industry. 

A 2023 study by the Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia (UKM), titled Exhaled Carbon Monoxide Level and Practices among Tobacco and Nicotine Adult Users in Klang Valley, Malaysia, found that 68.2% of respondents successfully transitioned from smoking to vaping. This study further highlights that users of vape products exhale far fewer harmful aerosols, posing less risk to bystanders compared to cigarette smoke. Additionally, a 2024 study “Quitting Strong: New Zealand’s Smoking Cessation Success Story” found cigarettes to be 10 times more dangerous than vape. 

Economic and Market Concerns

CCC urges the government to be sensitive toward the retail industry. Costs incurred in making alterations to a retail premise as well as the possibility of reduced income due to the inability of customers to easily browse smoking products in a multi-category retail store will have significant financial impact.  

Recommendations for Policymakers

  1. Allow Retails Display of Approved Products: Consider controlled product displays such as restricting public access by placing them behind the point-of-sale. Enforce age-verification, sale of only MOH approved products.
  2. Support Harm Reduction Efforts: Recognize vape as an alternate nicotine product that is a tool for reducing smoking-related illnesses.
  3. Collaborate with Stakeholders: Involve businesses, consumers, and public health advocates to develop sustainable policies.

The Consumer Choice Center stands ready to work with federal and state governments to develop comprehensive regulations that prioritize public health while preserving consumer access to safer alternatives.

Tariffs Will Raise Consumer Prices, So Let The People Choose

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the next Congress takes shape following President Trump’s electoral victory and Republican control of both the Senate and House being solidified, there is likely to be a tectonic shift in US trade policy.

Considering the disparate impact of tariffs on consumers, the Consumer Choice Center believes that the United States should guard against unilateral and unchecked presidential authority when imposing new costs on American consumers.

One method of ensuring the people’s voices are heard can be found in Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) bill, entitled the No Taxation Without Representation Act, which would require congressional approval for any tariff or duty imposed by the Executive Branch.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center, said of Paul’s bill:

Tariffs are taxes on consumers. Imposed costs on importers or domestic producers will always lead to higher prices for consumers already struggling with the lagging effects of inflation. If major levies and tariffs are due to impact consumers, accountability for those new costs should be localized and be approved by elected representatives to Congress

Sen. Paul’s bill would require the President to send tariff proposals to Congress, and then be passed by joint resolution.

“This bill restores the will and voice of the people in setting policies that will impact their daily lives and disposable income. It’s consistent with the Constitution and the principle of separation of powers that make America uniquely democratic and prosperous,” concluded Ossowski.

###

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva.

Find out more at

www.consumerchoicecenter.org

DOJ’s wish for a Google-less Chrome browser shows how warped antitrust has become

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) expresses deep concern over the DOJ’s proposed remedy in the case of United States v. Google LLC that would force the tech firm sell off its popular Chrome browser, as was filed with the court on Wednesday.

Having never demonstrated a specific monopoly in the browser market, this wish by the Department of Justice is just the first of many that will have unintended consequences on consumers who use internet products. 

“There has never been a more vibrant and competitive time for Internet browsers. From privacy options like Mullvad, Apple’s Safari, or the various open-source forks of Firefox, there is literally no world where consumers are forced to use any browser. Added to that, most other browsers use open-source code from Google’s Chromium project, which will no doubt be put in jeopardy. The DOJ is continuing to advance an ideological campaign that ignores consumer choice and makes a mockery of antitrust law,” said YAËL OSSOWSKI, Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center

The DOJ’s proposed remedy to force the sale of Chrome is only the first the department has offered, and we can expect that much more will come.

“The Biden Administration, whether it be at the Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice, has completely ignored consumer welfare as a factor in how they select antitrust cases and now how they propose remedies to favorable judges. It’s highly political,” YAËL OSSOWSKI of the Consumer Choice Center continued,  “The United States is drifting toward the anti-tech posture of the European Union, wherein the default position becomes one of penalizing successful American companies for their popularity at a time when artificial intelligence and China-led projects are disrupting the market in real-time.”

###


The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva.

Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

Oops, your data’s been exposed. What can you do?

This week, I received a letter from an employer of mine from when I was in high school, a local car wash.

It turns out there was a “data breach” that resulted in “unauthorized access” to my social security number.

Millions of Americans receive letters like this each year. Usually, the company will offer free access to a credit monitoring service, allowing individuals to see if any new credit cards, loans, or other activity has happened in their name.

What should be the individual remedy in this situation?

As a society, we haven’t yet standardized encryption of sensitive employee data, and it’s obviously a problem.

Employers are required to collect SS data to verify work status and to issue pay. But shouldn’t this be a one-time verification, and not stored on an insecure database forever?

Leaked SS numbers are some of the main avenues for identity theft. Should the company be liable? Or the state and federal laws that require storage of this data without safeguards? Added to that, should I be able to practice right of action and sue if I can prove I’ve been harmed?

If my SS number leaks onto the dark web, criminal actors buy in bulk and will attempt all kinds of fraud. What current penalties exist for these fraudsters? Is it enough? Is the Federal Trade Commission fulfilling its mandate here, or is it too concentrated on trying to break up tech companies?

A national privacy law could enforce tools we need to protect sensitive data like this. But previous attempts at a national privacy law haven’t meaningfully addressed this, and have focused more on deputizing lawyers and trying to outlaw targeted advertising than empowering consumers who’ve been harmed.

Ideally, we would have a law that would protecting and standardize encryption while championing innovation and giving wronged consumers an avenue to be heard. But what else would be necessary?

The status quo of hacks, leaks, and data breaches happening without consequence is leading to hundreds of millions of people being harmed. Many existing rules enforced by states and the federal government require unnecessary collection of data that further puts us at risk.

Can we look to innovation to solve these issues? Zero-knowledge proofs, decentralization identify solutions, encryption, and more?

We’d love to see other ideas.

For now, we wrote up recommendations for data and consumer privacy at and we will expand this as we formulate more policy ideas. You can check them out here.

Canada Post lets Canadians down…again 

Canadians are now planning for the holidays, they are figuring out how to get the best deals on a particularly tight budget for all the Christmas gifts they have to buy, and making lists for Black Friday…but that’s just a waste of time because Canada Post is on strike, again. 

If Canadians thought the Crown corporation would help them out by simply delivering the parcels they need as they start ordering gifts for the holidays, well, they should know better because Canada Post workers have done this before: go on strike just when it will hurt Canadians the most. 

Not to mention small business owners who will likely make their best sales at this time of the year, only they can no longer charge $2 for shipping, they’ll have to charge $20. And we know how customers love to pay ten times the price for shipping! According to the Globe and Mail, “small businesses, which tend to be dependent on Canada Post because it is a cheaper option for parcel delivery, have warned that a prolonged strike could devastate them financially and could lead to higher costs for consumers.” Yes, devastate. In an economy where Canadians are struggling to get by and small businesses have pressure on them from all sides, enter Canada Post to make life more difficult. 

While Canada Post has sometimes conducted rotating strikes, this time it’s all or nothing, they are taking it nationwide. This move will seriously disrupt the mail system across the country, and it will take a long while until it’s fixed even after the strike is over. They want pay increases and more defenses against competition from technological advancement and rivals like Amazon. The union is “asking for a compounded wage increase of 24 per cent spread over four years, while Canada Post has proposed a 11.5-per-cent wage increase over four years.” 

Jan Simpson, a representative for the union, has said that competition with places like Amazon that have same-day delivery has led to “tougher work conditions” for her workers. Of course, competition is something the small business owners who will be devastated by this strike always have to contend with. If only they could send their parcels so they could maybe survive. 

55,000 workers aren’t going to work today, and likely won’t for a while. The last time this happened was in 2018, and it was also before the holidays. It took them one month to get back to work, and that was on a rotating strike. Something similar this time around during a federal strike is going to likely cripple the Canada Post corporation and seriously hurt the livelihoods of small business owners. While we wait for the government to most likely intervene with back-to work-legislation, it might be smart to take a good look at this postal system that decides to strike just when it’s hardest for Canadians, with no compassion to struggling Canadian families or small businesses trying to survive. 

Economist Vincent Geloso argued recently that it might be time to privatize Canada Post, and there’s precedent. He gives examples found in Europe where, due to an EU directive, “all letters regardless of weight have been open to competition since 2013. The directive does not mandate the privatization of state-owned postal companies; it simply ends postal monopolies.” Additionally, Geloso says that countries like the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany completely privatized their postal system. In both examples, prices for stamps and other services fell, and has forced postal organizations to find better solutions because they can no longer turn to taxpayers for a bailout. 

Do we really need a national postal monopoly that holds Canadians hostage every few years, or do we start agreeing with the union that their (privately owned) competition might just do things better? According to Geloso, it might be time for Canadians and its small businesses to start seriously considering privatization before the next strike comes right before a future holiday season. Consumers shouldn’t be held hostage by their own postal system any longer. 

Consumers deserve ‘auto choice’ to bring down insurance costs

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Choice Center today launched its policy primer offering simple reforms to provide for more competitive, reasonable, and accurate insurance rates to increase choice and lower costs for consumers.

The primer, Fixing What’s Broken: Practical Consumer-Friendly Insurance Reforms to Save Money, focuses on two pressing issues for American consumers. First, it analyzes how insurance providers can adapt to the emerging scientific reality of tobacco harm reduction and consumer trends toward less harmful nicotine alternatives to smoking. Second, this primer explains different models for structuring consumer auto insurance and suggests how costly legal battles can be minimized, in turn lowering costs and premiums.

Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director at the Consumer Choice Center, commented on the auto insurance policy recommendations, saying, The legal nightmare that comes with every fender bender or more serious auto injury is known to every American, as they’re reminded by the slew of injury lawyer billboards on the interstate. Rather than subjecting every auto incident to a lawyer-led process that inevitably raises premiums, states and insurance firms should give consumers the right to choose whether they would prefer a tort or no-fault insurance model as is practiced in other countries and states.” 

Attempts at legislation to offer “auto choice” to consumers have been introduced in all levels of state and federal government over the years, but have consistently been opposed by well-funded injury lawyers who see a threat to their business.

For too long, we’ve allowed car insurance costs to balloon because of the adversarial nature of our highly litigious justice system, rather than understanding that most other countries do not force drivers into court after each accident. Giving auto insurance consumers the ability to choose between a no-fault and a tort system would allow flexibility, remove the adversarial declaration of liability that inflates lawsuits, and allows companies to compete for our business with the best policies and plans available. Best of all, good drivers with clean records would benefit from substantially lower premiums and simple plans,” added Ossowski.

Giving consumers the choice between a plan that requires legal negotiations between insurance companies to find blame and assign penalties, and a no-fault model that prioritizes quick and easy payouts without liability is a no-brainer that would bring immediate savings to consumers’ monthly premiums.

“Guided by state insurance commissioners, firms should offer alternatives to liability plans and allow consumers to choose the plan that works best for them as a perfect middle ground between enabling choice and reducing legal costs and headaches,” concluded Ossowski.

The policy primer can be read in full HERE.

###


The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

Read this press release online.

Health and life insurance policies should accept the science on nicotine

Washington, D.C. – Today the Consumer Choice Center launched its policy primer offering simple reforms to provide Americans with more competitive, reasonable, and accurate insurance rates. The result of reform would be more choice and lower costs for consumers in the insurance market. 

The primer, Fixing What’s Broken: Practical Consumer-Friendly Insurance Reforms to Save Money, focuses on two pressing issues for American consumers. First, it analyzes how insurance providers can adapt to the emerging scientific reality of tobacco harm reduction and consumer trends toward less harmful nicotine alternatives to smoking. Second, this primer explains different models for structuring consumer auto insurance and suggests how costly legal battles can be minimized, in turn lowering costs and premiums.

Elizabeth Hicks, US Affairs Analyst at the Consumer Choice Center, commented on the health & life insurance policy recommendations, saying, Anyone who’s ever applied for health or life insurance has had to answer if they use nicotine, and that inevitably leads to higher premiums. But those who use less harmful non-combustible nicotine products such as vaping or pouches don’t face nearly the same risk. Why should they pay the same high premiums as smokers?” 

By discerning the significant differences between traditional tobacco products and non-combustible nicotine alternatives for health and long-term medical costs, insurers and consumers together stand to save millions.

“The health insurance industry, as well as policymakers, should want smokers to cease smoking or switch to less harmful alternatives. Insurance plans are long overdue for accurately calculating risk around nicotine-use and restructuring consumer’s rates,” added Hicks.

Guided by state insurance commissioners, actuarial calculations at insurance firms should be recalibrated to reflect the current scientific reality on tobacco harm reduction, giving smokers an immediate financial incentive to make the switch to less harmful products. It makes no sense to penalize nicotine users who do not use combustible products.

This change would not only reflect scientific consensus, but also promote a better economic calculation on future costs and risk profiles in the healthcare space. It would give more options to insurance firms and spur them to compete for potential customers,” concluded Hicks. 

The policy primer can be read in full HERE.

###


The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

France’s Nicotine Pouch Ban: A Step Backward for Public Health and Consumer Choice

The French Health Minister Geneviève Darrieussecq’s announcement to ban nicotine pouches disregards a valuable tool in the fight against smoking-related disease and, by extension, undermines consumer choice and public health.

The Consumer Choice Center advocates for policies grounded in harm reduction and consumer freedom, both of which are compromised by this ban. Nicotine pouches are proven, safer alternatives that help individuals quit smoking by providing a non-combustible, low-risk source of nicotine, similar to nicotine patches or gums but with greater appeal to adult consumers. Instead of enhancing public health, this decision risks pushing former smokers back to cigarettes or into unregulated markets where quality and safety are unmonitored​​.

Countries that support alternatives like nicotine pouches, alongside vaping products, have made meaningful strides toward lowering smoking rates and related health risks. For instance, smokeless nicotine products have contributed to reduced cancer and smoking-related mortality in Sweden, underscoring the effectiveness of such options in fostering a smoke-free society​.

France has an opportunity to lead with policies that prioritize science and harm reduction, supporting consumer access to less harmful products rather than pushing them out. The Consumer Choice Center urges the French government to revisit this decision and adopt evidence-based policies that align with modern public health goals: fewer smokers, lower health risks, and a true empowerment of consumer choice.

For a healthier future, let’s choose innovation over prohibition.

Ontarians can’t get complacent about the liberalization of alcohol

Many Ontarians are celebrating the new rules that allow them to buy alcohol at big box stores like Costco and at their local convenience store, a practice other provinces and other countries have had for many years. This is a victory to be sure for convenience and consumer choice, but it is important not to become complacent and accept that this is the final victory when it comes to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). There is so much more that can be done.

The response from Ontarians has been positive to the new retail rules, and the provincial government should take that as a signal that consumers in this province would be accepting of more changes. For example, why do Ontarians still have to go to the LCBO to buy their vodka, whiskey, and gin? The LCBO remains the exclusive retailer of spirits in the province despite the fact that you can get your 2-4 box of beer from your local Costco. Why can’t you pick up a bottle of gin to make some cocktails for your friends as well? The only real reason seems to be to keep the LCBO feeling special, and to potentially avoid another strike. However, strikes won’t hurt Ontarians as much if they are able to buy their alcohol from places other than the LCBO. This exclusive right to sell spirits doesn’t make much sense, and only serves to inconvenience Ontarians with no real evidence that such exclusivity is necessary. However, the evidence is clear for the positives, allowing for existing private retailers to also carry spirits would generate savings for the province of between $100M – $120M per year.

Another aspect of alcohol retail that Ontarians should continue to push for is changing the model of the LCBO completely. There are two options for this that we can learn about from Alberta and British Columbia. Today, the LCBO boasts 669 retail stores in Ontario and continues to be the wholesale supplier for all private retailers and hospitality venues. The reason is simply no longer clear as to why this is still necessary. Alberta boasts a fully private model which still involves the provincial government: Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis (AGLC) is the legal importer of liquor in Alberta. Manufacturers and suppliers sell their liquor products to private retailers through the AGLC, and licensed retailers then sell that liquor to consumers. No need for government-run retail stores like the LCBO, and the model works: before privatization, there were a total of 208 Alberta Liquor Control Board stores. Today, there are more than 1,500 private retail liquor stores. Alberta is even the only province in Canada to have standalone Costco liquor stores. Alberta revenue from liquor sales transferred to the provincial government has consistently increased since privatization.

In B.C., there are private liquor stores alongside province-run liquor stores, but they do not allow alcohol sales in convenience and grocery stores, although wine is allowed in grocery stores (understandably, given B.C.’s rich wine scene). Although that’s not the best model in terms of consumer convenience, it still allows for private retailers and does not allow the provincially-run department to select the products to be sold to retailers. If a manufacturer or seller is approved, then they are eligible to be bought by retailers through B.C.’s Liquor Distribution Branch (LDB). In Ontario, it is LCBO bureaucrats who decide what is and is not sold on their shelves, and even encourage the extremely inefficient practice of alcohol distributors lobbying individual LCBO store managers to ask the higher ups in the LCBO to stock their product.

This is all evidence that the Government of Ontario should far from congratulate themselves on a mission accomplished. There is so much more that could be done to make the LCBO less present in the lives of Ontarians, thereby making picking up a case of beer more convenient and consumer-friendly. It was not the government of Ontario that one day woke up and decided this is something they wanted to do, it was the push from consumers, everyday Ontarians, that encouraged them to make these present liberalizations a reality. Since it seems the provincial government is ready and willing to make life easier for adults in Ontario when it comes to purchasing alcohol, now is the time to take the next step and truly become a more modernized Ontario.

To read more about this, take a look at the Consumer Choice Center’s latest report, Modernize Ontario.

Smoke-free ambitions clouded by concerns over illicit market

THE UK government introduced its Tobacco and Vapes Bill in Parliament today, aiming to create a “smoke-free generation” by prohibiting anyone born after 1 January 2009 from legally purchasing cigarettes for the rest of their lives. The Bill also proposes strict new restrictions on nicotine products, including vapes, heat-not-burn products, and nicotine pouches.

Public health experts in Wales are largely supportive of the new legislation, seeing it as a potential driver in reducing the strain on the NHS in Wales. Smoking-related illnesses are a major contributor to healthcare costs, and advocates argue that curbing smoking among future generations will yield long-term health and economic benefits. This could be especially impactful in Welsh regions where smoking rates are persistently high.

However, there is also concern about how restrictions on safer nicotine alternatives, such as vapes and heat-not-burn products, could impact Welsh individuals trying to quit smoking. The Welsh NHS has invested in smoking cessation programs that promote these alternatives, and some fear that restrictions on these products may reduce access to effective cessation tools, ultimately affecting health outcomes.

Mike Salem, UK Country Associate for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), reacted to the news: “Whilst it is predictable that the prohibition was going to be introduced, I am extremely concerned and disappointed with how little regard the government has had for consumers’ voices, particularly the young voices.”

Read the full text here

The LCBO is an archaic system with an ugly history

The history of the LCBO is rife with the contradiction of making money off a social vice they take pride in suppressing, and its existence is based in a sense of moral superiority that it knew what was best for Ontarians when it came to alcohol consumption.

However, this moral superiority is contradicted by the fact the existence of this Crown corporation includes a largely forgotten history of racism, sexism and paternalism.

The LCBO opened its doors on June 1, 1927, with a lineup of customers eager to purchase alcohol. Journalists of the time described the scene as disgraceful, and the government agreed, since it placed the employees behind steel bars and would not allow customers to purchase alcohol without their individual purchasing permit.

These permits were given out only if the individual was deemed moral enough to earn one, and if the employees looked into a person’s purchase history and felt they had bought too much or exceeded government limits, they could arbitrarily refuse to sell them alcohol. It was quite difficult to get the law passed that would allow for the sale of alcohol in Ontario in the first place, and so the LCBO had to show it was taking its role as a “control” board seriously. However, its stringent temperance-inspired rules continued on to the 1970s when the sale of alcohol was commonplace and non-controversial.

The LCBO was, and is, a government monopoly on the sale of alcohol. This type of power allowed it to pick and choose who could work at the LCBO and who could purchase alcohol.

Women and people of colour were effectively not allowed to work at the LCBO in its early days, researcher Jamie Bradburn notes. Indigenous people in Ontario were not allowed to hold permits to purchase alcohol from the LCBO until 1959.

Named the “Indian list,” the LCBO maintained a list of people it deemed not responsible enough to purchase alcohol. This patronizing and racist policy was cemented through Ontarians having to apply for a Liquor Permit Book, which made citizens prove they were 21 years old, a resident of Ontario and of “good” character; this of course did not apply to Indigenous peoples.

It was up to LCBO employees to further decide if those who were of Indigenous and white background would be a good candidate for the ability to purchase alcohol. If they were not sure, the LCBO employee could reject their application because “ … a person of part-Indian blood, living in, say, an urban community, could be refused for such reason.”

Not only did it take until 1959 for Indigenous people to fully have the right to a permit to purchase alcohol from the LCBO, Bradburn wrote in his TVO feature, ”Buzzkillers: A brief history of the LCBO,” the corporation continued to view Indigenous people as a high-risk population after that time.

Those LCBO employees who did sell alcohol to Indigenous persons would be prosecuted under the Indian Act and the Liquor Control Act, according to the research paper “Administrative surveillance of alcohol consumption in Ontario, Canada: pre-electronic technologies of control” by Gary Genosko and Scott Thompson.

In addition to Indigenous persons, the LCBO was wary of those living in rural areas since they decided those might be places with heavy drinking.

The LCBO continues its legacy of self-proclaimed moral superiority, saying it is still proud of its ability to “embrace (its) obligation and opportunity to … govern the responsible sale of alcohol.” Despite recent advances in consumer choice in alcohol in Ontario, the LCBO still maintains a monopoly over the sale of spirits, and over wholesale alcohol in the province.

It is a mystery why Ontarians continue to put up with this system. The LCBO even has a page on “Honouring National Indigenous History Month,” with absolutely no mention of its own dark role in the history of Indigenous peoples.

Switching to a system that relies even less on the LCBO, or that eliminates the need for the LCBO, would be a positive change in Ontario. Although the LCBO generates revenue for the province, Ontario could instead be saving millions and even billions of dollars if the LCBO was simply the wholesaler, and not retailer, of alcohol.

Alongside these savings, Ontarians could also start seeing more of the alcohol they want on the shelves when LCBO employees stop being the only ones able to decide what to buy and inevitably sit on boxes of unused merchandise.

With the province of Ontario projecting a $6-billion deficit, it might do well to reconsider an archaic system once marred by racism, sexism and surveillance and which continues to run inefficiently and with a maintained sense of paternalism.

Originally published here

en_USEN

Follow us

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org