Council responds to ‘beer backlash’
By Mark Squibb | Vol 8 No. 3 (Feb 13. , 2019)
Many residents were surprised when news broke last week that Mount Pearl Cineplex had applied for a liquor licence.
Some members of council were also taken by surprise.
“I didn’t hear about it until I heard about it on the news,” summarized councillor Lucy Stoyles during the Feb. 4 council meeting.
She said that upon hearing the news, she contacted City Clerk Mona Lewis to confirm what she heard was true.
“I was a bit shocked. I couldn’t remember it, and I said, ‘Maybe I wasn’t there, but I didn’t think I had missed a meeting,’” she explained, adding that decisions that are likely to result in controversy ought to be brought to the council chambers.
Councillor Andrew Ledwell explained, because the application was not for a change of use, it was approved by the planning department, as many other applications are approved, without going as far as the council chambers.
“If we had to have council meetings and had to review each and every application, we would be here for the duration of Frosty Festival,” said Ledwell. “This was not a situation where they were creating a lounge… this was simply an addition of a menu item. They were adding a beer, or whatever other drink you can purchase, the same as you can purchase popcorn or a soft drink.”
Ledwell, who noted that he had read articles and social media posts on the subject, as well as received emails regarding it, said that if residents are angry, that anger ought to be directed not at municipalities, but at the theatre company.
“If you enjoy going there, and they’ve done something that you don’t know if you’re going to enjoy going there in the same way, I would advise people to take it up with Cineplex rather than coming to the City of Mount Pearl, because quite frankly, that decision was easily made, and within our regulations.”
Mount Pearl Mayor Dave Aker noted that residents who disagree with the prospect of selling alcohol at the theatre could address their concerns to the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, who have the final say in awarding or not awarding the licence.
Still, Stoyles felt that if an application may prove controversial, it ought to go before council.
“When there are things like this, and there’s a chance that there’s going to be a controversy, people will think we made the decision, and we do, it’s our policy, so we did make the decision at the end of the day. But when there’s a controversial issue like this, I think it would be good for us to know about it. And I didn’t know about it until I heard about it in the media,” she said.
She further explained that she had a number of phone calls regarding the issue, with several other councillors noting that they had received calls and emails regarding the issue as well.
“I spent my weekend explaining it,” Aker joked.
Stoyles concluded by saying that, at the end of the day, council will be held accountable by residents for all decisions.
“I was disappointed that I didn’t know about it until after it was out in the media. Maybe we could have talked about it at this table. It’s good to have a heads-up and know what’s on the go,” she concluded.
Deputy Mayor Jim Locke, meanwhile, noted that sometimes it can be difficult to tell if a certain application will cause controversy or not.
“I polled my students today in school, and they said, ‘What’s the big deal? There’s no difference in going to a hockey game and buying beer. And one astute student said, ‘Listen, I don’t think the government should be micromanaging what a business does. If the patrons don’t like beer at the movie cinemas, don’t go to the movie cinemas. Let their money do the talking.’ They offered a new menu item; it was within our regulations, so I fully support what our staff did in this particular case. They couldn’t deem it to be controversial … This was within the policies we have.”
Locke noted that Cineplex offers alcohol in cinemas across the country, and reiterated the point that if people are against the proposal, the correct body to express concerns to would be the liquor corporation.
