General comment on the…

General comment on the process

The OCB does not represent our interests as an organization
Why is the consultation timeline so short?
Is it prudent to put undue pressure on our sector for compliance while we have suffered directly or indirectly from closures disproportionately compared to other sectors? This is especially true when we may or may not be in actual experiencing a “recovery.” The sector is exhibiting a high degree of fragility
Are we looking for a solution to a problem where none exists? Or do few problems exist that can be dealt with on a traditional “on complaint” basis?
Are the benefits actually the benefits?
Pg 3 of the discussion paper - How did the Ministry complete the pre-process assessment of nano and microbreweries? Show us the data. How many complaints have been received in 5 years? We were not consulted but we get to comment. With so few stakeholders in the subject sector, increased scope of consultation would be appropriate. Does this process apply to craft distilleries and wineries or is our industry being singled out?
Pg 5 How does the OCB estimate that 95% of breweries have access to Municipal services? Show us the data.
Page 12 the Ministry should work with non-OCB partners as well in order to develop a more fully informed framework.

Comments on the proposed framework

It does not make sense to set the daily production limit for Nano at 30hL/day and 3000 hL/ year. There needs to be a better measure. What about Nano breweries that brew 60 hL/day and less than 3000 hL/year. The 3000 hL/year threshold should be increased to 8000hL annually. And the 49000 hL upper limit should be reduced to 10-15000 hL annually for that category.
There are situations where adding an indoor vapour condenser is not a positive step. An exemption exists for a category called “brewpubs” This should be expanded to include “tied houses” and “by the glass” providers. These include:
A space that is open concept and includes a small to medium production brewery where the public is also indoors in the same space in a tasting room, a brewpub, or an affiliated restaurant.
Where indoor air quality impacts the customer experience on tours, in retail, or in a dining experience
Manufacturers should not be subject to punitive, badly conceived government policy and laws because of short-sighted and non-inclusive legislation that ignores that businesses have conceived of, and executed, a business strategy that is successful. We still have post-prohibitionist laws in place affecting AGCO policy. One wonders why the government bureaucracy feels a need to unnecessarily create more regulation for a problem the backgrounder admits has little significance. Don't defund the police- but defund dumb work like this or support it more to get full craft sector feedback. This process is neither of those approaches. It reeks of a classic half-assed approach to governance that lacks quality.
On page 4 the proposal suggests that the segment of microbreweries is any brewery under 49000 hL of beer production per year with no larger than a 600 hL/day stage capability. The daily limit is too high and panders to large breweries or contract facilities who consider themselves craft but have moved into a category that does not actually exist. The thresholds for categories are incorrect. The 3000 hl/annual production limit should be raised to 8000 hL and the 30 hL daily limit should be raised to 50-60hL with the balance of power threshold being regulated by the annual maximum which is reportable and actionable.
Page 4- we do not subscribe to the OCB definition that craft breweries are those that produce under 400,000 hL of beer annually. The threshold should be much lower. We would suggest under 50,000 hL annual production.
How many nano breweries will move into the microbrewery category in the next 2-5 years and how is the proposed framework to deal with this shift? Policymakers would argue it does address it. Realist would suggest it is already flawed by design due to a long history of biased input by the OCB in the policy development that favours larger production breweries and is disconnected from the majority of breweries that are non-OCB members. The incongruity of the category numbers is indicative of the failure of the OCB to impartially represent the interest of the majority of breweries in Ontario while serving the interests of the largest member producers. The definitions related to size need to be adjusted with the goal to create inclusivity.
Page 8 states a condition that facilities must not use pneumatic unloading should be modified to read “to not use pneumatic unloading more than 4 times per year” Pneumatic unloading is an industry-standard for small producers but is infrequent at best happening 1-3 times per year based on a production of 5000 hL annual production and having one silo.

Page 8 in regard to production-related noise complaints and a noise study being required at the request of the Director- is a forklift reversing audible alarm a production-related noise and would it qualify as a legitimized complaint if the operation is within the municipal time limits for trucks delivering and picking up at the facility?
Page 9 the exemption on Brewpubs should be extended to Tied House Manufacturers Licenses and by the glass operations as well.
There are best practices for discharging into municipal systems that should form part of guidelines for new construction and for retrofit.