News   Mar 28, 2024
 264     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 247     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 287     0 

Sale of the LCBO to OPSEU?

mrxbombastic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
573
Reaction score
355
Exclusive CTV report tonight. Can't find video link yet but will be up soon I presume. LCBO was given purchase offer.

Excuse me if this isn't best thread for this topic but didn't think it warranted a new one.

According to CTV reporter Paul Bliss on tonight 6pm newscast:

Onex Group and Ontario Public Sector Employee Union (OPSEU) offered to purchase 75% of the LCBO for $11 billion in cash.

Under the deal, the joint purchase by ONEX and OPSEU would have been backed by 4 major banks (presumably the big Canadian ones) financing $9 Billion and two private investment firms financing $2 Billion.
The province would retain 25% equity in the LCBO and would receive minimum $500 million dollars in royalties per year. So these are the profit returns not the tax income. For comparison's sake LCBO has brought in about $1.75 Billion annually in profits to provincial coffers.

Under the deal the province would retain the right to control sales and marketing of liquor, alleviating some concerns of a free for all uncontrolled access to liquor with respect to minors and such.

Warren (Smokey) Thomas, the OPSEU union leader, stated that their motive was: if the government was going to sell the LCBO then it should remain in the hands of Canadians. Smokey acknowledges that yes the offer made was real.

A letter from premier Wynne's office in response to the offer stated that the refused to accept this "Sole Source" deal. I and the reporter as well highlight "sole source" because it begs the question of whether they are open to a competitive bid for the LCBo and on what terms.

It seems including the sole course description of the deal would be pointless and superfluous if they reject outright sale of any kind.
 
Last edited:
Exclusive CTV report tonight. Can't find video link yet but will be up soon I presume. LCBO was given purchase offer.

Excuse me if this isn't best thread for this topic but didn't think it warranted a new one.

According to CTV reporter Paul Bliss on tonight 6pm newscast:

Onex Group and Ontario Public Sector Employee Union (OPSEU) offered to purchase 75% of the LCBO for $11 billion in cash.

Under the deal, the joint purchase by ONEX and OPSEU would have been backed by 4 major banks (presumably the big Canadian ones) financing $9 Billion and two private investment firms financing $2 Billion.
The province would retain 25% equity in the LCBO and would receive minimum $500 million dollars in royalties per year. So these are the profit returns not the tax income. For comparison's sake LCBO has brought in about $1.75 Billion annually in profits to provincial coffers.

Under the deal the province would retain the right to control sales and marketing of liquor, alleviating some concerns of a free for all uncontrolled access to liquor with respect to minors and such.

Warren (Smokey) Thomas, the OPSEU union leader, stated that their motive was: if the government was going to sell the LCBO then it should remain in the hands of Canadians. Smokey acknowledges that yes the offer made was real.

A letter from premier Wynne's office in response to the offer stated that the refused to accept this "Sole Source" deal. I and the reporter as well highlight "sole source" because it begs the question of whether they are open to a competitive bid for the LCBo and on what terms.

It seems including the sole course description of the deal would be pointless and superfluous if they reject outright sale of any kind.

OPSEU has denied that they made an offer of any kind to buy LCBO but admitted they had looked at the 'idea of one'. (BTW, I do NOT think this discussion fits into this thread!)
 
OPSEU has denied that they made an offer of any kind to buy LCBO but admitted they had looked at the 'idea of one'.

Story linked made it sounds as if it was the case that opseu offered. Yup didn't think it did as well but wasn't entirely sure where to put it. Thanks mods for moving the thread.

On the merits of the deal it seems like again it would be a rather hasty move without much through for future revenue shortages. Deal ofc isnt going through but the "Sole source" bit is curious to me.
 
Media coverage of this supposed offer has been pretty sparse.

That said it would seem fairly simple to evaluate what Ontario should/shouldn't do.

If, as reported, the government currently gets $1.7B a year in royalties/profits from LCBO and that drops to $500 million after the sale.....compare what you could do with the $11B.....if you pay down $11B of debt then the debt would have to carry an interest rate of nearly 11% to save you as much in debt service costs as you were losing in LCBO income.....so that would seem hard to do.
 
We accept the government monopoly on liquor sales so long as it serves us well. The LCBO provides a good shopping experience and makes the government billions. The money funds government services that we benefit from. However, if liquor sales are privatized, then there should be a free market. In a free market any Canadian could sell liquor, not just some privileged people from Bay Street and the OPSEU head office. It wouldn't matter if your surname is Anderson or Kim--the best Canadian merchants would come out on top in a free market.
 
Under the deal the province would retain the right to control sales and marketing of liquor, alleviating some concerns of a free for all uncontrolled access to liquor with respect to minors and such.


Nobody has these concerns, it is simply government spin aimed at the gullible masses (i.e. justifying a government monopoly in an activity it has no ethical business participating in: running booze).

Under a private system the government has more than adequate ability to control the 'sale and marketing of liquor' without actually selling it and marketing it... it's known as the law. In fact it actually has greater ability to do these things because there is no conflict of interest (the same agency controlling yet promoting). This notion of a 'free for all' is fear-mongering and government manipulation. It embarrasses me.
 
Open up sales of liquor to any private store. End the monopoly and the government controlled price fixing.

Then we only have to find a way to replace the income stream or, in the alternative, end the programs that the income stream supports.
 
Nobody has these concerns, it is simply government spin aimed at the gullible masses (i.e. justifying a government monopoly in an activity it has no ethical business participating in: running booze).

Under a private system the government has more than adequate ability to control the 'sale and marketing of liquor' without actually selling it and marketing it... it's known as the law. In fact it actually has greater ability to do these things because there is no conflict of interest (the same agency controlling yet promoting). This notion of a 'free for all' is fear-mongering and government manipulation. It embarrasses me.

Unfortunately there are quite a few MADD types out there, worried sick that little underage Jonny will fall victim to unscrupulous convenience store clerks under pressure to make a buck. Prohibition-era morals are still quite common here in Ontario...
 
Unfortunately there are quite a few MADD types out there, worried sick that little underage Jonny will fall victim to unscrupulous convenience store clerks under pressure to make a buck. Prohibition-era morals are still quite common here in Ontario...

Then allow anyone to sell alcohol but make it not-for-profit (strict retail price control, and keep the wholesale end centralized). Corner stores will treat it the same way as they do milk and brand name pop.
 
Last edited:
Then allow anyone to sell alcohol but make it not-for-profit (strict retail price control, and keep the wholesale end centralized). Corner stores will treat it the same way as they do milk and brand name pop.

I believe they make money selling milk and pop
 
Yeah, I don't see the point in allowing anyone to sell alcohol at cost. They have to pay property taxes, salaries, etc. That being said, I think it is a ridiculous argument - the government could just take away the selling license of anyone who was caught selling to minors, or have huge fines, something like that. It's a stupid argument, but the prohibition types (plus the union) seem to have a louder voice than those of us in favour of the free purchase and sale of alcohol.
 
It's not about "taking my booze away" it's about unreasonable limitations on personal freedom. Drunk driving is a terrible thing, but there seems to be little connection with government control of retailing. Do you also support government-run knife and gun stores? You might be surprised at the dangerous things you can buy at Canadian Tire.
 

Attachments

  • ceri_chris.jpg
    ceri_chris.jpg
    215.6 KB · Views: 340

Back
Top