News   Mar 18, 2024
 681     0 
News   Mar 18, 2024
 2.4K     4 
News   Mar 18, 2024
 758     0 

LCBO / The Beer Store

Should the LCBO be deregulated?


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .
One of the major purposes of the Ontario system, and similar systems in other jurisdictions, is to limit alcohol consumption. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the system was initially designed, according to the governor of the state at the time, to "discourage the purchase of alcoholic beverages by making it as inconvenient and expensive as possible." The prices we pay have nothing to do with the presence of a monopoly. They are high because the province requires them to be high partly for that purpose. Now, obviously, the government is twisting itself into a pretzel by increasing slightly the number of outlets in an attempt to raise more money, while imposing all sorts of inconveniences that would seem to have the opposite aim. I would be among those who would argue that we do not need alcohol to be cheaper or more available due to its effects on public health. The LCBO does a reasonably good job when it comes to product selection. It is not nearly as good as the SAQ, but it is much better than the PA system. Long story short, Ontario has an obvious revenue problem, and selling the LCBO or relying on increased alcohol sales are not valid solutions.
 
One of the major purposes of the Ontario system, and similar systems in other jurisdictions, is to limit alcohol consumption. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the system was initially designed, according to the governor of the state at the time, to "discourage the purchase of alcoholic beverages by making it as inconvenient and expensive as possible." The prices we pay have nothing to do with the presence of a monopoly. They are high because the province requires them to be high partly for that purpose. Now, obviously, the government is twisting itself into a pretzel by increasing slightly the number of outlets in an attempt to raise more money, while imposing all sorts of inconveniences that would seem to have the opposite aim. I would be among those who would argue that we do not need alcohol to be cheaper or more available due to its effects on public health. The LCBO does a reasonably good job when it comes to product selection. It is not nearly as good as the SAQ, but it is much better than the PA system. Long story short, Ontario has an obvious revenue problem, and selling the LCBO or relying on increased alcohol sales are not valid solutions.

Over the summer I was in Pennsylvania, i brought back a case of Boddingtons, cost me $35. My family is from England, so i thought i would get a case of Boddingtons from the Beer Store for Christmas. The Beer Store is charging $66.50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: So i bought a cheaper beer instead.
 
Uh, monopolies are not illegal in many industries. And we tolerate monopolies in many cases, like public services like transit and police. Want to buy electricity? You almost always only have one choice, whether you have a public or private system.

Uh, are you comparing the supply of policing and transit and hydro to the purchase of alcohol?

Look, I agree there are many public infrastructure or service requirements where government control makes sense, and for any number of reasons. The critical distinction here though is that alcohol is a consumer good, not an essential service, and I can't think of any consumer good that warrants government control or monopolization in this way. In fact, the outcome is the opposite where government interference in consumer markets has routinely led to poor service, inflated prices and consumer gouging. The story of cel phone service in Canada being an example that immediately comes to mind.

No, let's call the LCBO out for what it is: a tax grab. We should be countering the government propaganda on this issue, not supporting it. We need to change the social discourse once and for all.


And Ontario is not the only jurisdiction with a single outlet for liquor. Ever been to Quebec or Manitoba? Or Pennsylvania?

Your exceptions prove the point. Most jurisdictions have laws and regulations surrounding the sale of alcohol but Ontario's are among the most suspect and unreasonable... and is Pennsylvania really the jurisdiction you'd want to emulate on this issue? They still have 'dry' counties for crying out loud!

As for Quebec - which has a notoriously corrupt liquor monopoly - you can buy beer at least from the corner depaneur! http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tom-kott-think-the-beer-store-is-bad-check-out-the-saq

There are competing delivery systems for alcohol. You can choose between taking it home or consuming on site. You can get alcohol at the restaurant, bar or pub of your choice.

Are you serious? These are the only options you would advocate for? They're not even analogous. More to the point, why should a consumer's choices be limited in such an absurd and artificial way?

What's more, I'd encourage you to go and talk with bar and restaurant owners (local entrepreneurs and business owners by the way)... or visit the craft breweries or wineries in many of our counties. Talk to them about the frustrations and obstacles they encounter with the LCBO and the lack of recourse they have. These are already challenging and difficult industries to be in and they get next to no support from an Ontario government that is more concerned with taxation than with whether our local industries survive or not. Proud of local Ontario whisky? The Ontario government is taking a 46% tax on the profit http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...distillery-company-sues-lcbo-over-markup.html

How does any of this make any sense whatsoever?


@Tewder I would not disagree with anything you say really....but the pragmatist in me just realizes that this province already spends way more than it takes in in revenue.....and, as I said earlier, if the suggestion is we break up this monopoly then we have to figure out what expenditures we cut or, alternatively, come up with a viable plan to replace the revenue.

Simply saying that competition would generate economic activity that would replace the revenue (even in the face price lowering competition) is simply overstating the impact. At a corporate tax rate of 11.5%, privatization of alcohol sales would have generate taxable activity/profit of some $15B to replace the lost profit from LCBO ....that is just not in the cards.

I'm sorry, I can't turn a blind eye to corruption and consumer exploitation just because I'm worried about tax revenue. It's the principle here though in that your position - the status quo position in Ontario - sets the dangerous precedent that ethics are not important in our laws, policies or functioning of our government. Not good.

I've already pointed out the enormous benefits to our economy, restaurants and retail, and local businesses in opening the industry to fair and reasonable competition. This will fill in a chunk of any shortfall. The rest we will figure out, as other jurisdictions have.
 
I'm sorry, I can't turn a blind eye to corruption and consumer exploitation just because I'm worried about tax revenue. It's the principle here though in that your position - the status quo position in Ontario - sets the dangerous precedent that ethics are not important in our laws, policies or functioning of our government. Not good.

I've already pointed out the enormous benefits to our economy, restaurants and retail, and local businesses in opening the industry to fair and reasonable competition. This will fill in a chunk of any shortfall. The rest we will figure out, as other jurisdictions have.

Not asking you to turn a blind eye to "turn a blind eye to corruption and consumer exploitation" (although I think I would need evidence of the former and the latter is an opinion) and I am (as I have said before) not opposed, at all, to a private system of alcohol distribution/retailing....I just need the people who are passionate about the issue to give me concrete suggestions which of the 3 (or combination of them) we are going to see to fill the gap of ~$2B in our treasury.

  1. Service cuts
  2. Increased taxes generally
  3. how the privitization of alchohol sales turns the profits from said sales from a $2B item to a ~$20B item.
If #3 does not happen, some combination of 1 and 2 has to happen.
 
Philosophical views on government monopolies aside, is anyone here willing to pay more for booze in order to get rid of them? Given the government's addiction to the taxes and profits generated by the LCBO, the only direction I could see us moving in were we to get rid of those monopolies is akin to what they have in Alberta where booze is considerably more expensive. The LCBO would privatize, but then the government would jack up the taxes to make up for what they're not getting in LCBO profit anymore. On top of that the stores would be collecting their own profit.
 
I'd pay more. Keep LCBO in charge of buying and distribution (albeit with practices that are more responsive to the needs of wholesale customers like restaurants, etc.) (I'd even be open to letting LCBO maintain its current store network to the extent it makes sense to do so), but open up wine and beer sales to any retailer that meets the necessary criteria.
 
I'd pay more. Keep LCBO in charge of buying and distribution (albeit with practices that are more responsive to the needs of wholesale customers like restaurants, etc.) (I'd even be open to letting LCBO maintain its current store network to the extent it makes sense to do so), but open up wine and beer sales to any retailer that meets the necessary criteria.

Why the distinction/exclusion of other products?
 
Why the distinction/exclusion of other products?

I'm not necessarily opposed to opening up the sale of other alcoholic products. But, in my opinion (others may disagree), alcohol is not a product like others. It doesn't mean that we need to treat its sale as we did in the 1920s, or that we need monopolies for its sale, but I don't think we be treating it like peanut butter or t-shirts either. (Similarly, I strongly favour the legalization of weed, but don't necessarily think that one should be able to pick up a few joints at 7-11).

Wine and beer are typically significantly lower in alcohol content than many of the other products. I'm open to the suggestion that we would treat the sale of a bottle of wine differently than, say, a bottle of vodka. Although not necessarily for all time. There is precedent for it -- New York state, for example, allows beer and wine sales in stores like supermarkets and drug stores, but stronger liquor can only be sold by licensed liquor stores.

My preference is to open up the market for beer and wine first, and see how it goes - with perhaps LCBO remaining the one place where one can get beer, wine and liquor. Then I'd be inclined to allow specialty liquor stores (I'd love a whisky store on the Danforth!!). I don't have a closed mind on the issue, and am open to new ideas and approaches, but that's where my gut is at the moment.
 
Maybe with the desire for the province to use the LCBO to dispense marijuana, maybe the LCBO should go into the prescription drug business as well.

ASA (Aspirin) requires a prescription in some countries, maybe the LCBO should start with that?
 
There is also health and law enforcement-related expenses to alcohol sales. Liver transplants aren't free. RIDE checks aren't free. The court system isn't free. Prisons aren't free. Rehab isn't free. Compensation to victims of impaired driving isn't free. Much of those come out of tax money.

There is a good reason why alcohol isn't cheap. It is a luxury, albeit at commodity prices. Alcohol is not necessary for survival, although prohibition (of any recreational drug) doesn't work. It is good to have for most people of legal drinking age (not me though, as I am teetotal).

As I said in the marijuana in grocery stores thread, I believe that government monopolies and marijuana specialty retailers would be ideal for marijuana sale.
 
Wonder who would supply marijuana to the LCBO?
pennchapojpg.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg

They may do business with the guy on the left. From link.
 
So the Metro at Park Lawn and Lake Shore has beer. I don't remember it from the list but a great surprise nonetheless.

They can only legally sell it until 6pm on Sundays though. One step forward two steps back.
 

Back
Top