Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

NDP says BC move to privatize liquor distribution "highly tainted"


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 12 July 2012 - 06:21 PM

Another BC Rail?

NDP say B.C.'s move to privatize liquor distribution "highly tainted"

Newly-released government documents show the B.C. government changed its decision not to privatize its liquor distribution system after it was approached by a private logistics company using a paid lobbyist with deep Liberal Party connections.

In June, 2011 Solicitor-general Shirley Bond told the proponent, Exel Logistics that the government had no intention of proceeding with the privatization at that time. But documents released by the NDP on Thursday show that the government's position changed following one meeting Bond had with an Exel official at a golf event in Prince George.

The following month the official, Scott Lyons, Exel's vice-president of business development, met with Bond again with other company officials and a representative of Progressive Group, a well-known lobbying firm, to lobby for the government for its liquor distribution and warehousing business.
Progressive's principal owner, Patrick Kinsella, was an adviser to Premier Christy Clark during bid for the leadership of the B.C. Liberal Party. He was also the campaign manager for Premier Gordon Campbell in his 2001 and 2005 elections. The government's lobbyist registry shows Progressive officials were representing Exel since at least 2006.

In releasing documents it obtained under Freedom of Information, the New Democratic Party said Thursday the process was "highly tainted" and that the government appeared to be trying to get the deal done before the next election in 2013 because it knows it faces difficulty being re-elected.
But Labour Minister Margaret MacDiarmid told reporters there was nothing wrong with a company approaching government if they could offer a service cheaper than what it now costs. She said the government had considered privatizing the system as far back as 2002 and as recently as 2006. She said by some time in July, 2011 the government decided to reconsider privatizing its liquor distribution system as part of a larger government-wide review of assets it could sell in order to balance its budget.
However, she offered no documents supporting that instruction and there was nothing in the NDP's Freedom of Information file that showed the government had reconsidered its position on privatization as part of a budget-cutting exercise.
NDP MLA Shane Simpson said the province appears about to repeat mistakes it made in its failed plan to bring in the Harmonized Sales Tax and its controversial sale of BC Rail.
"It looks far too much like the mess around HST. It looks far too much like the debacle around BC Rail. British Columbians don't need this again. It is time for this to end now," Simpson said.
The government, which is riding very low in public opinion polls, announced in February it would proceed with plans to privatize the liquor distribution system. It named six bidders, of which one is Exel Logistics, a subsidiary of German-based Deutsche Post DHL, the world's largest logistics company. On July 20 the government plans to winnow the list down to a short list of three, with an expectation a "preferred bidder" will be named by mid-October. The government has said it expects to award a 10-year monopoly contract by March 1.
The next general election is on May 14, 2013.
But documents released by the NDP show that it was only at Exel's urging — with the assistance of Progressive Group's Mark Jiles and Kinsella — that the government began to consider privatizing its liquor distribution system. The documents show that Exel as far back as 2010 it was hoping to influence the government's procurement process, going so far as to offer criteria it thought should be used in the selection of a new partner.
In a briefing note to Bond for her August 24 meeting with Exel's Lyons, two B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch officials said the company had been after the government for years to privatize the system, claiming "that they could operate the LDB's distribution system more efficiently and could free up government money ... "
They said Exel has operated the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission's liquor distribution system since 1993.
Simpson said the most startling revelation in the documents was that Bond had clearly told Lyons, Exel's vice-president of business development on June 21, 2011 the government was not interested in privatization. But Lyons persisted, and met with Bond later in the month at a golf game in her riding in Prince George where he secured from Bond the promise of another meeting. Lyons then met with Bond on August 24 in Victoria, accompanied by another Exel executive, Frad Takavitz, Exel consultant Rob Madore and Progressive's Jiles. Shortly after that the government announced it would consider privatizing the system.
In a letter to Bond accompanying his request for the meeting, Lyons said Exel was proposing a public-private partnership in which Exel would "build, finance and operate a world-class distribution system for the long-term benefit of government, industry and consumers." He said the deal would allow Exel to "almost immediately unlock over $100 million of the B.C. Government's money tied up in assets."
Simpson said it was highly inappropriate for the government to be pushing ahead with a plan driven solely by a single company's overwhelming desire to control a monopoly.
"What I am suggesting here is that one company has aggressively driven and wanted this contract. They've been wanting it for years and they have been actively pursuing it," Simpson said.
"What we're saying is when you have no business case and you can demonstrate no benefit to the public and you have one proponent, a proponent who is actively supported by lobbyists who the public know are very closely connected to the government, you've created a perception MacDiarmid told reporters the privatization plan has to be good for taxpayers.
"As I have said before with respect to the distribution and warehousing of liquor if we don't find that there are savings for taxpayers, if it is not a good deal for British Columbians, we simply won't be going ahead with this," she said.
The documents show that as early as 2010 Exel was lobbying Housing and Social Development Minister Rich Coleman to sell off the liquor distribution system. It suggested using its Alberta model, in which suppliers fund the warehousing and distribution and reimburse Exel for the cost of operations. In his letter to Coleman, Lyons outlined 10 points he thought the government should consider including in any procurement process, including experience, stability and infrastructure of any bidder.
But MacDiarmid insisted that neither Exel nor any of the other selected bidders had any hand in designing the request for proposals.
MacDiarmid insisted the government had considered privatizing liquor distribution as long ago as 2002. But when asked what it was that Lyons said to Bond at their golf meeting to convince her to reverse her decision not to sell the distribution system, MacDiarmid couldn't say.\
The government ultimately decided to proceed with privatization of its distribution system, but not get rid of its two warehouses in Vancouver and Kamloops until 2014 or 2015. MacDiarmid said some of the bidders have indicated they may need those warehouses until they are able to build their own. After that the government will sell the properties, which MacDiarmid estimated are valued at $50 million.
Simpson said the government might save $5-$10 million over the life of the contract but it would come at the expense of jobs and higher costs for suppliers and ultimately end users.
"To this date there is not one shred of evidence to suggest there is any motivation for this other than appeasing Exel Logistics. They either show that there is evidence they have some reason to proceed with this or it is our view the government needs to halt this process right now, stop this privatization scheme right now."

http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz20Sefl1ws


B.C.'s move to privatize liquor distribution tainted by corporate interests:


The NDP is calling on the government to halt its plan to privatize liquor distribution in the province following the release of documents suggesting the process was initiated by a private company with links to the Liberal Party.

Freedom of Information documents released on Thursday by NDP critic Shane Simpson suggest that the government had no interest in selling its liquor warehouses -– one in Kamloops, one in Vancouver –- until Exel Logistics presented a business plan to Liberal ministers.
According to the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia, Liberal insiders Patrick Kinsella and Mark Jiles lobbied several government ministers on behalf of Exel relating to privatization of the province’s liquor distribution system

Kinsella served as an adviser to Premier Christy Clark during her successful leadership run. He was also Gordon Campbell’s election campaign manager in 2001 and 2005.
He was also hired as a consultant to B.C. Rail shortly before it was sold.
“It is time for this to stop,” said Simpson. “It looks far too much like the mess around HST. It looks far too much like the debacle around B.C. Rail. British Columbians don’t need this again. It is time for this to end now.”

The privatization of liquor distribution was a plan put forward by Finance Minister Kevin Falcon on release of the budget in February.

More to come

http://www.theprovin...4331/story.html


Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

Dr. Rand Paul 2016!

INFJ


#2 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,209 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 12 July 2012 - 06:29 PM

Probably.
Almost everything in politics serves some private interest.

Jagermeister.jpg


#3 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,368 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:36 PM

Step one: Sell the distribution branch.

Step two: Sell all the liqour stores.

Step three: Deregulate liqour sales.

There's no reason government should be in the booze business. The distribution of booze between brewers and vendors should be between the brewer and the vendor. Should they choose a third party to do that for them should be up to them.

Under my plan it wouldn't matter if it was tainted since the assets would be near worthless when I was done changing the rules.

#4 Fanuck

Fanuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,709 posts
  • Joined: 09-September 04

Posted 12 July 2012 - 11:12 PM

I'd like to know a single move made by Christy or any of her henchmen in the last 24 months, heck since her time in government, that wasn't 'tainted'. I pray quite regularly that there is swift and just punishment delivered when the truth about BCRail comes out - then I come back to reality and realize Clark will go unpunished, she will leave politics next spring, collect a massive pension indexed to the cost of living all paid for by taxpayers, and find a job in media somewhere or perhaps a super-high paying government job a-la Campbell and ride the tax-paid gravy train into the sunset.

But yeah, this distribution thing will get uglier before it gets settled, that is for certain.

#5 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,239 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:17 AM

Course the NDP would say anything is tainted...all government is in one way or another - no way to please everyone...

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#6 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:23 AM

Step one: Sell the distribution branch.

Step two: Sell all the liqour stores.

Step three: Deregulate liqour sales.

There's no reason government should be in the booze business. The distribution of booze between brewers and vendors should be between the brewer and the vendor. Should they choose a third party to do that for them should be up to them.

Under my plan it wouldn't matter if it was tainted since the assets would be near worthless when I was done changing the rules.


Like much of the rest of the world.

Its so archaic.

NDP most likely repping for the union votes.
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#7 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,038 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:24 AM

Step one: Sell the distribution branch.

Step two: Sell all the liqour stores.

Step three: Deregulate liqour sales.

There's no reason government should be in the booze business. The distribution of booze between brewers and vendors should be between the brewer and the vendor. Should they choose a third party to do that for them should be up to them.

Under my plan it wouldn't matter if it was tainted since the assets would be near worthless when I was done changing the rules.

If I could + this 100 times I would.

The fact that a 1.75L of Smirnoff vodka costs $60 at government controlled LCBO in Ontario and the same bottle 80 minutes away from my house at a Wine Sellar in Buffalo costs $15 is downright heinous and criminal, we know that the price would be significantly cheaper without such government barriers. Because of this stupid policy, I only buy booze from the states nowadays unless I get something on tap from a brewery or place like Dave and Busters.

You'd think a Canadian of all people might empathise with how much more we pay for products and be understanding of the fact that government control and unnecessarily insane taxes on booze stands as a barrier to economic growth, but logic be damned. I feel for our provinces.

Edited by zaibatsu, 13 July 2012 - 07:29 AM.


#8 hockeyfan87

hockeyfan87

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,502 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 10

Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:41 AM

I'm not thrilled about the Liberals being in power and next election it looks like a NDP majority but Adrian Dix lied and forged memos when he held political office ten years ago. He was forced to resign. Is this the guy people want as Premier? I'm all for second chances when a person makes a mistake. But his actions were deliberate, nefarious and selfish. I'm not voting for the guy as much as I hate the alternatives.

#9 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:42 AM

If I could + this 100 times I would.

The fact that a 1.75L of Smirnoff vodka costs $60 at government controlled LCBO in Ontario and the same bottle 80 minutes away from my house at a Wine Sellar in Buffalo costs $15 is downright heinous and criminal, we know that the price would be significantly cheaper without such government barriers. Because of this stupid policy, I only buy booze from the states nowadays unless I get something on tap from a brewery or place like Dave and Busters.

You'd think a Canadian of all people might empathise with how much more we pay for products and be understanding of the fact that government control and unnecessarily insane taxes on booze stands as a barrier to economic growth, but logic be damned. I feel for our provinces.


Funny enough or maybe not so funny but i pay less here in the middle east (muslim country) for booze than in canada.

The normal stores are 30% tax but if i go to a whole in the wall shop i can get for example 24 tall cans of Kronenbourg for about $20.

Duty free is cheap and even better you are allowed to bring in 5 liters of hard stuff or wine or 48 cans of beers.

???? canada and its 1 bottle policy.
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#10 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 13 July 2012 - 12:11 PM

If I could + this 100 times I would.

The fact that a 1.75L of Smirnoff vodka costs $60 at government controlled LCBO in Ontario and the same bottle 80 minutes away from my house at a Wine Sellar in Buffalo costs $15 is downright heinous and criminal, we know that the price would be significantly cheaper without such government barriers. Because of this stupid policy, I only buy booze from the states nowadays unless I get something on tap from a brewery or place like Dave and Busters.

You'd think a Canadian of all people might empathise with how much more we pay for products and be understanding of the fact that government control and unnecessarily insane taxes on booze stands as a barrier to economic growth, but logic be damned. I feel for our provinces.


There should be some tax slapped on top of the standard GST/PST to cover the added costs to society (medical, police, etc.) due to alcohol consumption, but with the rate as high as it is, it's more of a tax grab making drinkers pay the non drinkers share.

#11 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 13 July 2012 - 12:19 PM

Course the NDP would say anything is tainted...all government is in one way or another - no way to please everyone...


Every bridge, road or rail contract that they render during their time in government should also be put under the microscope.

#12 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 13 July 2012 - 12:21 PM

I'd like to know a single move made by Christy or any of her henchmen in the last 24 months, heck since her time in government, that wasn't 'tainted'. I pray quite regularly that there is swift and just punishment delivered when the truth about BCRail comes out - then I come back to reality and realize Clark will go unpunished, she will leave politics next spring, collect a massive pension indexed to the cost of living all paid for by taxpayers, and find a job in media somewhere or perhaps a super-high paying government job a-la Campbell and ride the tax-paid gravy train into the sunset.


Do you see a future senator in her? Possibly even a GG?

#13 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 13 July 2012 - 12:23 PM

Do you see a future senator in her? Possibly even a GG?


Posted Image

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.