So, I was watching the news, and the topic of the privatization of the LCBO came up and it got me thinking...should it become privatized, or should it remain a Crown Corporation? I know that often, the idea of privatization is a point of contention but sometimes it may be necessary to privatize a business in order to increase profits, increase selection and offer more effective and efficient services.
With the case of the LCBO, however, I think it is necessary that it remain a Crown Corporation, that is, it is solely owned and operated by the government, only because I think that it is doing such a good job.
The LCBO is very socially responsible – It is to my knowledge that they sponsor MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), they provide their employees with SMAART training (Strategies for Managing Age- and Alcohol-Related Troubles) and they are also environmentally friendly (you can return your bottles and receive $0.10 back!) If the LCBO becomes privatized, who knows if this will continue. The fact that the government owns the LCBO shows me that the government isn’t so bad after all. I never really had a good outlook on the big people up there, but they seem to be taking care of things, socially AND they are profitable as well. I’ll point to the case of the CBC who takes all the taxpayers money to help deal with their debt…I don’t think the LCBO is doing such a thing.
If the LCBO becomes privatized, don’t you think that alcohol will be more easily accessible to under aged people? I believe in Quebec, it is so easy to get alcohol because it is sold in convenience stores and they are not strict at all in checking I.D. I know that some people would probably LOVE to have easy access to alcohol but realistically speaking, there’s an age limit for a reason. It’s just not safe to have little youngsters roaming around drunk and acting silly. So I guess my point is that, because the LCBO is owned by the government, it is helping to protect under aged people from any harm that may come their way if they put their hands on alcohol. (Of course, we cannot avoid the cases in which older people would purchase alcohol for their younger brothers and sisters, but at least the government is trying to do its best).
The LCBO should remain a Crown Corporation!
-SS
2 comments:
This is an interesting issue, but I cannot understand why the government would be willing to privatize the LCBO. I am sure it is a good source of revenue for them, and if they sold it, wouldn't they be losing money?
As for alcohol becoming more accesible to youngsters I really don't know.
If the LCBO were privatized does it mean that alcohol would be sold in convenience stores?
Wouldn't the government place regulations on that sort of thing?
Anyways, I don't see why the government would want to sell the LCBO. It seems like a profitable business, and they would lose money.
Does anyone want enlighten me on the subject?
The basic theory behind privatization is that healthy competition
strengthens businesses and their products. As the LCBO has no
competition, there isn't the same market pressure to improve
performance. The government has regulated (rigged?) the service sector
such that they are the only player in town. Short of voter frustration,
the LCBO can be as wasteful as it wants to be and not suffer any loss in
its 100% market share.
Contrast this, for example, with personal computer technologies, where
AMD and Intel push one another in the CPU market, ATI / Nvidia in
graphic card development, or even Sony / Panasonic / LG in the
television space. Were LCBO to be privatized, and other companies
allowed to enter the alcoholic beverage distribution market, new
efficiencies _might_ emerge.
I say _might_ because the basic theory doesn't always hold. e.g.,
compare our government-run health care industry with the U.S. privatized
equivalent, and there is no comparison. Sure, we wait a little longer
for some things, but our universal coverage is cheaper than their
selective coverage.
Post a Comment