Some Canadian bike shops and distributors are angry, claiming Mountain Equipment Co-op is using its unfair competitive advantage to push its own bike line. Read on.

Its foray this month into bike selling has been criticized by rival specialty retailers for everything from unfair competition because of its tax-exempt status, to a Wal-Mart-style money grab, to unethical sourcing.

This meme about the co-operative being "tax-exempt" has been around for many years. Back in the day it was the outdoor stores that were complaining (oh wait, they still are) about it. The truth is that the co-op, like any business, is taxed on what it retains and since it returns much of the earnings back to the customer as a "patronage allocation" or refund, it has no earnings and only keeps 3% for capital improvements and 1% as an environment fund.

The group of competitors of MEC years ago demanded and got a meeting with "government tax policy officials in Ottawa where they were they were told the same thing that co-ops already knew: the Income Tax Act does not favour co-ops over other corporations." All co-ops pay income tax at the same rates and under the same rules as their competitors.

Bike enthusiasts' ire toward MEC intensified when an executive at the non-profit chain slammed the bike industry in a blog on the company's website, calling it “grey, dusty and dirty.” The blog entry was later removed.

Some bike-parts suppliers have even refused to ship to MEC, while one Quebec distributor last month dropped a major Canadian parts manufacturer from its roster because the supplier is selling to MEC.

“It's no different to me than somebody buying a product at Wal-Mart that they could buy at their local mom-and-pop store,” says Pete Lilly, owner of Sweet Pete's Bike Shop in Toronto and former president of the Bicycle Trade Association of Canada, which represents suppliers and retailers in the estimated $1-billion industry.

Lilly is really stretching the comparison between Wal-Mart and MEC. There are no billionaires with MEC; no one is making a profit. MEC is by far the most concerned about labour conditions and environmental standards of any large corporate citizen.

“Independent bicycle retail offers something very different than Mountain Equipment Co-op can,” Mr. Lilly says.

“It's moved to a Wal-Mart model but because they've opted to give a small percentage of their money back to green causes, they wrap themselves in this green cloak and appear to everybody to be fair and just and clean and green. For somebody like me, I simply don't buy it.”

MEC started years ago as a small co-op. To this day it is still owned by the customers, not by a small group of capitalists.

MEC started as a co-op in a single store in Vancouver in 1971, but has grown into the country's leading retailer of outdoor sporting goods gear and apparel with 13 big-box stores and annual revenue of about $265-million. It doesn't make a profit, but budgets 3 per cent of sales as surplus for capital funding and gives 1 per cent of sales to environmental initiatives.

Many small bike shops have it hard. I can feel for Pete Lilly. My friend just opened a bike shop, while it's doing well the margins are thin. But the issue of unprofitable bike shops was around long, long before MEC got into the business. MEC is not doing anything wrong, it pays its taxes. The bike shops will just need to find another shibboleth. Or here's an idea: they could all start up their own buyers co-operative; the farmers have known this trick for decades. My father was a member of the United Farmers of Alberta, of which all that's left are the chain of stores and purchasing power for the farmers.

(Photo titled: "bike lane?" by mdintoronto)

In terms of bike lanes, sharrows, lights or any bike infrastructure at all other than post and rings, the Bloor Corridor Visioning Study is a bit of a let down. But there will be a public meeting November 10 where some good souls could push for something more substantial (if the City is accepting public input at this meeting). The background information is online (hat tip to TaketheTooker), examining the planning issues in the segment between Avenue Road and Christie/Grace Streets.

The City Planning Division is coordinating a Visioning Study for the Bloor Corridor. The purpose of the study is to develop a shared vision for Bloor Street West for the next ten years, through consultation with area stakeholders including residents, businesses and landowners. The study will examine such matters as land use, built form, community services and facilities, transportation, heritage and urban design in developing a vision for the future evolution of the Corridor, as well as recommendations to achieve that vision.

On November 10, 10am, the City will propose an amendment to the Official Plan with area specific policies for the Bloor Corridor, in consultation with the local community. It will take place at City Hall, Committee Room 1, 2nd floor.

The City of Toronto is proposing an amendment to the Official Plan to introduce area-specific policies for properties on Bloor Street West, between Avenue Road and Bathurst Street. The draft amendment is intended to implement a vision for the area as determined through the Bloor Corridor Visioning Study Phase 1 process, in consultation with the local community and area representatives. The City is also proposing draft Urban Design Guidelines to provide further direction for potential future development in the area.

The Draft Official Plan Amendment makes no specific mention of bike lanes, though it does put in some vague recommendations to address "active transportation":

Active Transportation
The design of rights-of-way in the Bloor Corridor will recognize and enhance the primacy of pedestrian safety and movement, and will reinforce and support transit use and cycling. Opportunities to provide widened sidewalks, consolidated bicycle parking areas and enhanced pedestrian access to subway stations within the Bloor Corridor will be pursued. Cycling infrastructure will be considered in the Bloor Corridor in the context of a City-wide study as directed by Council.

It may mean there wasn't enough political will or capital to push for something more concrete so instead the ball has been put back in Council's court to get anything like bike lanes.

The following email comes from Patrick Brown, a cyclist-supporting lawyer here in Toronto. Could cyclists be getting screwed over with insurance settlements in the future? Read on.

This morning I attended a stakeholders meeting with the Ministry of Finance regarding the new changes to auto insurance. It is now on the news.

The present law reform is not fair to cyclists, public transit users or pedestrians.

Today I specially asked whether the reduce benefits being proposed will apply to innocently injured cyclists, pedestrians and transit users. The answer was "yes".

The system here in Ontario is complex to say the least, but I will try to simplify as best I can the issue below.

When anyone [including cyclist, pedestrian car driver] is injured or killed by a bad driver[ even a drunk driver], they will have various benefits available to them. These include various things to help them get better. Medical benefits, rehab benefits, attendant care etc.

With the new changes introduced today, many benefits are being drastically reduced. However, the justification for such a reduction is "consumer choice".

The new insurance reforms provide an option to the auto insurance policy holders to increase the amount of their benefits if they so chose. They simply up the premium in the policy.

However, if you are a cyclist, pedestrian or transit user, and do not have a car insurance policy, you do not have the ability to buy up on your benefits. You have no policy to do so. You must accept these reductions.

Essentially your benefits (if you are part of this group) have just been drastically reduced without the choice of getting more coverage.

How significant are these changes to cyclist and pedestrians. The following are the amount of benefits being reduced.

  1. Medical Rehabilitation Benefits [non catastrophically injured] are being reduced from 100,000 to 50,000
  2. Attendant Care Benefits [for non catastrophically injured ] are being reduced from 72,000 to 36,000.00
  3. Housekeeping and caregiver benefits eliminated.

The insurance companies argue "consumer choice". Ie if you want more benefits you can pay an increased premium. Unfortunately that does not help those without car insurance policies and who elect to travel by a safer and less environmentally intrusive mode of transportation. Many students, seniors, and lower income households do not have vehicles in the city. They do not have car insurance policies. They do not cause injuries. But they do get doored, hit, and stuck down all the time! I
also suspect it will continue for some time.

The Government however did do something right. They restored access to claim compensation when someone is killed by a negligent driver. They announced today the revocation of the 15,000 deductible. Many cyclist advocated push to change this. This is a good thing for many who lose a loved one. For instances to give some context, when Ryan Carriere was killed cycling on Queen by a negligent truck driver (four halloweens ago), his family had 90,000 in deductibles taken away from them. Despite successfully proving it was the truck drivers fault and being successful
in their law suit. This was simply taken away as a deductible.

The Government will be moving forward in the next two month to draft regulations to bring the above laws into force next year. It is uncertain if they will change this unjust result regarding [cyclist and pedestrian who do not have auto insurance] benefit reduction.

I strongly urge you to let your members know this. This issue will be overshadowed by the lawyers, insurance industry and health professionals during the present media attention to this issue.

Cc. Cyclist
Cc.Yvonne Bambrick

http://www.news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2009/11/ontario-providing-choice-in-au...

Patrick Brown

Tel: 416-366-3311 Ext 6521
Fax: 416-366-3330
pbrown@mcleishorlando.com

McLeish Orlando LLP
1 Queen St. East
Suite 1620, Box 76
Toronto, Ontario
M5C 2W5
http://www.mcleishorlando.com/