When governments listen vs. when they don't
Government rules shape the convenience store industry. Sound, evidence-based policies help stores thrive and stay open; poorly designed ones can force closures and reduce community access to essentials.
We can’t expect politicians to be retail experts. However, we do expect decisions grounded in facts, consultation, and recognition of our unique role—small-footprint stores serving as vital, late-night community hubs.
The federal and provincial governments mean well. They want to protect communities, keep them safe, and ensure that their constituents have access to essentials. As convenience stores, we see ourselves as partners in this effort. But to do so, we need to stay open. This basic premise of advocating for the industry’s right to operate is one of CICC’s strategic priorities, along with championing the convenience industry’s role in our communities.
Recently, we saw two examples of provincial policies that show what governments should and shouldn't do.
Let’s start with the positive in Ontario on beverage alcohol expansion. While challenges remain, the government listened to and addressed the convenience industry's concerns in the LCBO’s Future State Modernization. As a direct result of our efforts, new distribution rules will formally recognize that convenience stores are distinct from large grocery and big-box chains, making it easier for our convenience distributors to store and deliver alcohol to us. This is a direct result of CICC’s advocacy and of the government and the LCBO's recognition that convenience stores are unique.
Similarly, most convenience stores have smaller footprints, preventing them from stockpiling inventory prior to the LCBO ordering freeze. The government and the LCBO listened and will have a few options available to convenience stores, including the ability to place two orders before the cutoff date. The result is better public policy that reflects the unique needs of the convenience industry and keeps the products our customers want in stock.
Unfortunately, the Government of Manitoba has not taken this collaborative, consultative approach on another issue: a retail price cap on the sale of one litre of milk. While they meant well by trying to make food more affordable during times of inflation, this one-sided decision has many unintended consequences.
There are several problems with this approach. First, the price of milk is regulated. Second, to suggest that convenience retailers ought to sell at a loss to help consumers is terrible public policy. It reminds us of Venezuela, where the government forced stores to sell items at prices below their production costs, causing many businesses to lose money and close. This is a dangerous slippery slope, especially since Manitoba is considering capping prices on two- and four-litre milk as well. What product will be next?
We should all be worried when the Premier says they want retailers to “help us out." If a small rural convenience store stops selling milk because it loses money on it, where will a single mother buy milk late at night when everything else is closed?
We can’t serve communities when it becomes unprofitable to stay open. Our stores are already struggling with a perfect storm of increased retail crime, restrictions on the products we can sell, inaction on the growth of contraband nicotine products, and now these price freezes.
We are partnering with other groups to meet with the government and find a better solution, such as a grocery tax credit based on income.
Affordability matters, but so does sustainability.
Bad policy doesn't just hurt businesses—it harms the very communities governments seek to support. When evidence and consultation guide decisions—as in Ontario—everyone wins. When they don't, the cost falls heaviest on those who can least afford it.
Let's choose the path that keeps doors open and shelves stocked.
