Thousands, apparently, if you're an independent retailer embroiled in a constitutional battle with the provincial government.
Bob Gee, a merchant who has operated Mader's Tobacco Store in Kentville for 35 years, estimates that to date, he has spent $20,000 in his legal battle with the government of Nova Scotia over his right to display tobacco products in his store which, incidentally, is an outlet that specializes in tobacco products. We can assume, then, that the provincial government - we, the taxpayers - has also spent thousands of dollars to defend its rights to impose such restrictions.
But for what purpose?
The Nova Scotia law restricting the display of cigarettes in convenience stores took effect in 2007 and requires tobacco products in retail outlets to be kept under the counter. It is part of Nova Scotia's larger strategy to lower smoking rates and there are statistics to suggest the approach is working, but this debate is not about that.
Mr. Gee, who was charged in 2008 with failing to comply with the regulations, has challenged the law on the grounds that it tramples his freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Based on a recent ruling, it seems the courts are on the merchant's side.
On August 18, a provincial court judge ruled that the law infringed on Mr. Gee's rights. As a result, during the next court appearance scheduled for October 6, the province will have to prove that the infringement is justifiable. The government argues that the "out of sight, out of mind" law has resulted in reduced smoking rates in recent years and the province will continue to enforce the law until at least the results of these future proceedings are known.
The problem, from the government's point of view, is that Mr. Gee is not a tobacconist in the truest sense of the word because, in addition to tobacco products, he also sells a variety of confectionery items such as pop, chips, candy and gum. That, the province argues, means that he must follow the regulations banning the display of tobacco products behind most convenience-store counters.
For his part, Mr. Gee argues that he does not operate a convenience store and that cigarette and other tobacco items remain the primary product available at his premises, as the store's name implies. Customers to his store come for a specific reason - to buy tobacco products, not to pick up a litre of milk or loaf of bread.
The solution here is simple. If the provincial government tweaked the regulations to allow tobacconists to sell other designated items, there would be no case to argue. Then Mr. Gee would be free to go about his business and Nova Scotia taxpayers could save our hard-earned money. If tobacconists are permitted to exist in Nova Scotia and they are duly licenced as legitimate businesses, then it's silly to impose such regulations that prevent them from selling the products for which they exist.
It seems pretty straightforward to us.
- Vernon Oickle