|
Pricing While it is impossible to generalize comparative pricing for the thousands of different alcoholic beverages available through LCBO, the stores have acquired a reputation for high prices. Online price comparisons with independent wine retailers such as Sherry-Lehman in neighbouring New York State can indicate price differences ranging from 10% (in LCBO's favour) to 30% (in the independent retailers' favour). It must be noted however that alcohol sold in Canada is subject to the Federal Excise Tax Act, which contributes greatly to the cost of beverage alcohol. Wine Access, a Canadian food and wine magazine, has claimed that high-end luxury brands sell in Ontario for up to 60% more than in New York State. The LCBO pricing policies are designed to control alcohol consumption, generate revenue for the provincial and federal governments, and to support the domestic alcohol beverage industry, especially by providing incentive to purchase Ontario wine. Within this framework, the prices of LCBO products are subject to three policy constraints: All prices are uniform throughout the province, despite inevitable differential costs incurred by transportation and distribution. This policy effectively subsidizes the transportation of goods into the rural parts of the province. However, store managers have the right to reduce prices of 'bin-end' items at their discretion. The LCBO uses a system of "floor pricing", or minimum selling prices, using price control as part of its social responsibility mandate to discourage excessive alcohol consumption. This has been criticized as being a legally sanctioned price fixing mechanism to guarantee profits and discourage price competition, thus protecting established major producers.[citation needed] Less-intoxicating beverages such as light wines and beer are in effect sold by the LCBO at reduced prices, again with the stated object of influencing consumption patterns as part of the Board's social responsibility mandate. Profits The company is considered profitable for the provincial government, returning $1.2 billion to the Ontario government in its most recent fiscal year. Some critics claim it is not profitable enough, especially considering the large market share it retains. It should also be noted that the figures quoted above do not include the 12% sales tax the Ontario government levies on retail sales[citation needed], or the 10% tax charged on alcohol sales in licenced establishments. By comparison the regular Provincial Sales Tax rate in Ontario is only 8%. History The LCBO was created in 1927 with the end of prohibition which had been introduced in the province in 1916. The Liquor Control Act (1927) authorized the LCBO to "control the sale, transportation and delivery" of alcoholic beverages in Ontario. Brewers Retail was created to sell beer in a controlled manner while wines and spirits (as well as beer) were sold in LCBO outlets. In the 1924 Ontario prohibition plebiscite Ontarians voted narrowly, by a margin of 51.5 % to 48.5%, to retain the Ontario Temperance Act. The Conservative government of Howard Ferguson ran in the 1926 provincial election on a platform of easing the temperance law and, following its re-election, introduced the Liquor Control Act as a compromise between the complete prohibition demanded by the temperance movement and the unregulated sale of alcohol. Due to lingering temperance morality in the province the LCBO was given a strong mandate of oversight and control, and was charged specifically with knowing "exactly who is drinking and how much". In response to its mandate the LCBO generated a detailed surveillance system which documented, tracked and assessed all purchases made in the province between 1927 and the early 1970s. Between 1927 and 1962, customers were required to obtain a permit to purchase alcohol and fill out an application or "purchase order form" whenever they made a purchase. As part of their mandate to control sales the LCBO used these permits to track and regulate the drinking of permit holders. Between 1927 and 1958 all of an individual's liquor purchases were recorded in their permit and LCBO venders were to review past purchases for evidence of excessive drinking or spending before making a sale. If permit holders were found to be abusing their "privilege" to purchase liquor they were added to an LCBO Blacklist called the Interdiction List and it became illegal for these individuals to either possess, purchase or be sold liquor. The LCBO also used the purchase order form to track which employees were involved in excessive sales or other unscrupulous behaviour. In 1934 the mandate of the LCBO was expanded to include the oversight of by-the-glass sale of alcohol in standard hotels and other drinking establishments. As part of the LCBO's regulations licensed establishments were required to adhere to a wide variety of regulations including a limitation on singing, the number of patrons allowed to sit together and most importantly the segregation of female from unmarried male drinkers (women were only allowed to drink in the presence of a ona fide escort in a segregated "Ladies and Escorts" room). The task of overseeing the sale of alcohol in drinking establishments was later passed in 1944 to a short lived government licensing agency and later to the Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario in 1947. The first self-serve store where customers did not have to rely on a clerk to retrieve alcohol was introduced in 1969. In the 1970s the stores changed to become more inviting with decorative displays of alcohol, and in the 2000s many of the stores were renovated and enlarged to provide larger product selection. Most current stores have Vintages sections with rotating selections of vintage wines and premium spirits. Debate over Privatization There have been numerous discussions about whether the province should sell, or privatize, the LCBO. It has been argued that the main benefit would be the billions of dollars that would be the immediate windfall from any sale. However, this sale would only deliver a one-time profit, and the province would lose out on a source of steady yearly income. It has also been argued that the government could actually earn more money by dismantling the high-margin retail stores while keeping the lucrative wholesale business as Alberta's privatization of the liquor business suggests. The LCBO's 2006-07 net income was $1.3 billion Canadian dollars (excluding tax revenues generated by Brewers Retail and the independent wine stores), and a sale has been estimated to reap about six billion dollars. Former Premier Ernie Eves stated that when he investigated this possibility, he found that a 100 per cent sale through an income trust would generate 16 billion dollars. The claimed benefits of privatization to the consumer, would be more stores, greater convenience, more discount sales, lower prices for popular and bulk items as seen in Quebec as well as longer store hours. The claimed disadvantages would be reduced selection at smaller, less central locations and higher prices for many items, as is the case in Alberta and potentially reduced government oversight in the sale of alcohol. In an attempt to find more revenue for the government within the current system, former Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara ordered a review of the province's liquor distribution methods, under the supervision of John Lacey, a former LCBO board member and grocery executive. Sorbara had stated that any option, other than the complete privatization of the LCBO, would be open for discussion. Subsequent to the release of the report, known as the Beverage Alcohol System Review (BASR), Sorbara rejected the report's recommendations and argued for the continued public ownership of the LCBO. As it stands currently, there seems to be little governmental or public support for privatization. There may be political motivations to keep alcohol sales public as well, as the LCBO is an excellent source of sinecures for the sitting government. Current LCBO Board Chair, Philip J. Olsson, a long-time Liberal supporter, was appointed by the Liberal government shortly after they took power. Previous Chair, Andy Brandt, had been a Conservative Member of Provincial Parliament. In 2007, LCBO separated the Board Chair and President/CEO functions, making the Board Chair position part-time. Olsson receives a per-diem for his work as Board Chair, which he donates to the United Way. Recycling program The LCBO is phasing out its plastic shopping bags, which it says are part of its efforts to become a greener organization. LCBO customers are encouraged to bring their own reusable bags, but can also request handle-less LCBO paper bags or buy reusable bags at the store. Cardboard carrying boxes are available but are also being phased out. It is unclear what options, if any, will be available for spontaneous purchases by pedestrians who do not want to buy a bag each time they shop at the LCBO. The LCBO says the new limited options are expected to eliminate approximately 80 million plastic bags a year from landfill. In September 2006, the Government of Ontario announced its recycling program for LCBO and winery store beverage alcohol containers. The program, which commenced operations in February 2007 is being administered and operated by Brewers Retail Inc. Under the program, consumers may return empty bottles, tetra paks, PET plastic and bag-in-box containers, exclusively to Beer Store outlets. The deposit rates for the bottles are as follows: Large bottles (greater than 630 ml) - $0.20 each Small containers (equal to or less than 630 ml) - $0.10 each Through its Natural Heritage Fund, LCBO and its suppliers have raised almost $2 million for projects to restore and rehabilitate Ontario wildlife habitat. This includes Bring Back the Salmon, which helps the return of Atlantic salmon to Lake Ontario after its local extinction over 100 years ago. Cellared in Canada controversy In late 2009, local and international criticism of the "Cellared in Canada" practice and the LCBO emerged. Under the "Cellared in Canada" label, Canadian wine producers can import pre-fermented grape must from grapes grown in other countries to produce wines under their own wine label. In Ontario, producers are allowed to designated these wines as being made or "cellared" in Canada if they contain at least 30% local Ontario grapes. Grape growers in Ontario began protesting the practice as a threat to their livelihood claiming that thousands of tons of Canadian grapes are left rotting on the vine because producers are using imported grapes to make wine labeled as "Canadian". Wine producers who do not use the "Cellared in Canada" designation criticized the practice as tarnishing the reputation of Canadian wines and misleading consumers. Producers and growers in Canada have petitioned the government for several changes in the practices such as making the origin of grapes more clear on the wine label and increasing the visibility of 100% Canadian wines produced by members of the Vintners Quality Alliance (VQA) in province run liquor stores. As of August 2009, the province stores of the LCBO featured less than 2.5% Canadian wine produced by VQA members with the vast majority of its wines produced under the "Cellared in Canada" designation with up to 70% foreign grapes. Notes ^ FAQ - LCBO Media Centre, accessed January 24, 2008 ^ Thurlow, S. "Controlling the Flow of Wine from Coast to Coast" Wine Access, 2006. ^ a b "The Impact of Privatizing the Liquor Control Board of Ontario" (Jazairi, Nuri T., 1994). ^ Nuri T. Jazairi, (1994) THE IMPACT OF PRIVATIZING THE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO" York University.Lcbo Privatization Study ^ The 1924 ballot: Wet vs. dry, Toronto Star, September 24, 2007 ^ Nuri T. Jazairi, (1994) THE IMPACT OF PRIVATIZING THE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO" York University.Lcbo Privatization Study ^ Thompson, Scott and Gary Genosko,(2009) Punched Drunk: Alcohol Surveillance and the LCBO 1927-1975. Fernwood Publishing. p. 35 ^ Thompson, Scott and Gary Genosko,(2009) Punched Drunk.ca "http://www.puncheddrunk.ca/why-politics.html]" ^ Thompson, Scott and Gary Genosko, (2009) Punched Drunk: Alcohol Surveillance and the LCBO 1927-1975. Fernwood Publishing. "" ^ Bird, Malcolm G., Revolutionary Change: The Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 1985-2005, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, 2006 ^ Thompson, Scott and Gary Genosko, (2009) Punched Drunk: Alcohol Surveillance and the LCBO 1927-1975. Fernwood Publishing. p. 39-44 "" ^ Thompson, Scott and Gary Genosko,(2009) Punched Drunk: Alcohol Surveillance and the LCBO 1927-1975. Fernwood Publishing.p. 87-165 "" ^ Thompson, Scott and Gary Genosko,(2009) Punched Drunk: Alcohol Surveillance and the LCBO 1927-1975. Fernwood Publishing. p.56-65 "" ^ Thompson, Scott and Gary Genosko,(2009) Punched Drunk: Alcohol Surveillance and the LCBO 1927-1975. Fernwood Publishing. p.152-153 "" ^ Nuri T. Jazairi, (1994) THE IMPACT OF PRIVATIZING THE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO" York University.Lcbo Privatization Study ^ About The LCBO ^ "Beverage Alcohol System Review" (Lacey, John (chair), 2005). ^ Public Appointments Secretariat ^ K. Ejbich "Protest Mounts Over "Cellared in Canada" Wines" Wine Spectator, August 28, 2009 External links Official LCBO site Official LCBO Vintages site v d e Provincial and territorial alcoholic beverage authorities of Canada Retail and/or licensing: BC Liquor Stores Sask Liquor MLCC (Manitoba) LCBO (Ontario) SAQ (Quebec) Alcool NB Liquor NSLC PEILCC NLC (Newfoundland) NWT Liquor Nunavut Liquor YLC (Yukon) Licensing only: Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (British Columbia) Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Rgie des alcools, des courses et des jeux (Quebec) Alcohol and Gaming Authority (Nova Scotia) Liquor Licensing Board (Northwest Territories) Liquor Licensing Board (Nunavut) Categories: 1927 establishments Canadian provincial alcohol departments and agencies Alcohol monopolies Crown corporations of Ontario Ontario government departments and agenciesHidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from March 2007 Articles with unsourced statements from July 2009 The e-commerce company in China offers quality products such as Pneumatic Butterfly Valve Manufacturer , China Butterfly Valve Manufacturer, and more. For more , please visit Pneumatic Butterfly Valve today!
Related Articles -
Pneumatic Butterfly Valve Manufacturer, China Butterfly Valve Manufacturer,
|
