Ford’s keenness to undermine public sector unions makes a mockery of his claim to be concerned about the affordability crisis facing Ontarians.

Nothing contributes more to the affordability crisis than low-paying jobs.

Like so much this premier does, the basic animating force appears to be a zealous desire to privatize, to hand over ever more of our province to private interests, to further cannibalize Ontario’s strong tradition of public services and public enterprises that have served the province well. Ford is following the path of former Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris, whose needless privatizations produced some disasters for Ontario.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), a crown corporation, has been doing a fine job selling alcohol — not exactly a risky enterprise requiring a lot of innovation — through its 677 outlets across the province. And since it is publicly owned, its healthy annual profit — $2.5 billion in 2023 — goes into the public treasury, where it pays for things like health care and education. Ontarians have long seemed satisfied with this reasonable arrangement.

But business interests and the pro-business media have long been opposed. In an editorial this week, The Globe and Mail objected to the very existence of the LCBO, insisting that governments should raise revenue through taxes, not through competing with the private sector. Yet the Globe is quick to denounce any tax increase (certainly any tax increase that impacts corporations or rich people). Indeed, given the business community’s hostility to taxes, it would be quite a challenge to raise taxes enough to replace the $2.5 billion in revenue the government receives each year from the LCBO. Furthermore, it’s doubtful that Ontarians would want to pay higher taxes so that more profits from alcohol sales could go to highly-profitable grocery store chains.

  • joshhsoj1902
    14·
    4 months ago

    It’s so frustrating. There isn’t a single situation where Ontario needs this change. If people are unhappy with alcohol access and want less alcohol revenue, we could easily open more stores and allow them to be less profitable per store.

    There is absolutely no reason to route money away from the LCBO as it is (at least I’ve you’ve actually looked at the financials, I can understand how people who haven’t might be convinced otherwise)

    • psvrh
      9·
      4 months ago

      The reason they’re doing this has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility.

      It’s a sick combination of

      • a) retail politics, where leaders like Ford substitute populism for being effective
      • b) conservative ideological purity, where die-hard ideologues can’t abide by the idea of public ownership of anything
      • c) crude political strategy, where chopping billions of revenue handicaps future governments, meaning they’d need to raise taxes (and lose elections), cut services (and lose elections) or basically, be conservatives
      • d) make people who are already rich even richer. There’s a lot of talk about “mom and pop” convenience stores, but most c-stores are owned by franchisees who are the same kind of capitalist slimeballs that own Tim Hortons franchises.
    • alexc@lemmy.world
      4·
      4 months ago

      The only real argument I can see for Fords argument is that the choice at the LCBO sucks, even in the “big” stores. It’s mostly “canoe” beers and cheap spirits when I go in looking for decent single malts.

      Then again, that could easily be managed with a policy and whatever happens, I don’t want Galen f*cking Weston taking over any more retail in this country.

      • shinratdr
        7·
        4 months ago

        You can also offer all of that online without having to do anything but hold some more stock. Rather than have fancier LCBOs, in this day and age it makes more sense to yank anything over $250 and offer it online only with ISPU.

        All the complaints people have about the LCBO are easily fixed. Not enough locations, open more licensed agents. Convenience stores would kill to be able to sell spirits, even if 100% of revenue goes back to the LCBO and it’s just a traffic draw. Hours are too short, increase hours.

        The union has already offered much of this stuff, but the province won’t budge. Could we do without the LCBO? Of course, the argument that it isn’t needed because most other places manage liquor sales privately is sound. I wish they would stop arguing that they’re doing a better job preventing underage drinking when we all know that’s nonsense.

        There is only one thing that they should be saying: the LCBO exists, offers great jobs, and delivers a massive amount of money to the province. There is no reason to eliminate it now for a short-term windfall when it will cause multi-billion dollar deficit down the line and put more dollars in the hands of private grocery conglomerates.

        Why would you get rid of it? Longer hours? They can do that. More selection? They can do that. More locations? They can do that. Lower prices? Those prices are high because of liquor taxes which won’t go down with no LCBO (and will arguably go UP because the LCBO gets such good deals due to its massive purchasing power).

        There is no good argument for eliminating it, except “I’m Galen Weston and I want more money”.