Bye bye BCLDB, or not?

[MAPearce]

Surprise , surprise .......sigh

[NAB]

Probably "wasn't on their radar", ...much like the HST, or even BC Rail ;-)

Nab

[Urbane]

Gawd forbid, though, that any government might change its mind about anything. WAC Bennett became famous for his "second look" at things and I would rather have a government do the right thing even if it means changing their collective mind. There is nothing untoward, in my opinion, about changing a policy.

[hobbyguy]

This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test.

[D suzuki]

its a joke, right now, all that the gov makes money on is the taxes , the transportaion only has to break even , but after excel gets their greedy lil hands on it , to make a profit, they will have to add a big increase to the price. and it seems, after a lil golf game in pg, things went from no privatization to , yea lets do it

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Fo ... story.html

[Smurf]

This smells worse than a family of excited skunks.

[steven lloyd]

Few would begrudge a government for taking a ‘second look” or changing its mind when warranted, or when coming clean with the electorate as to the reasons, purpose and justification for such a change in course. The sale of the LDB satisfies none of that, however, and this deal has recently been making much news as a real stinker – with the inclusion of insider lobbyists and backroom deals it is right up there with the sale of BC Rail and the BC Hydro IPP multi-generation payouts.

[flamingfingers]

Follow liquor lobby paper trail
By Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun July 13, 2012 3:04 AM

When the B.C. Liberals reversed themselves and came out in favour of privatization of the liquor distribution branch earlier this year, they raised a burning question about how this discredited notion got back onto the public agenda.

The Gordon Campbell government looked at the option in the first term and concluded there was no value to taxpayers. That didn't stop Exel, the private sec-tor holder of the liquor distribution monopoly in Alberta, from lobbying the Liberals to change their minds.

But the notion remained inoperative until the possible sale of liquor distribution turned up as a one-line bolt from the blue in this year's budget papers.

Seeking an explanation, the New Democratic Party crafted a request under access to information legislation for "all" materials related to the decision."

The government sent back some 37 pages of material, dutifully released to the news media Thursday by Shane Simpson, the Opposition critic for liquor distribution. Though large chunks were whited out for one "because we say so" excuse or another, what survived told a story to further discredit an already dubious proposal.

First of all, the documents con-firm that as of this time last year, the Liberals were still fending off the persistent folks at Exel. Here's the relevant passage from a letter to the company, drafted in June 2011 and sent out in August by the then minister in charge of liquor distribution, Shirley Bond: "At this time, the government is not considering making any changes to the existing liquor distribution system."

There the matter might have ended. But as Margaret MacDiarmid, the cabinet member now in charge of the current very active privatization process, told reporters Thursday, "Governments do change their minds."

The best clue as to how that happened is an email to Bond's office from Exel vice-president Scott Lyons on July 4 of last year. He recounted how he'd caught up with the minister at a golf tournament in her riding and was now requesting a for-mal meeting.

"The purpose of the meeting is to establish a relationship with the minister and to discuss the future direction of the B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch supply chain operations in the province."

His company wanted a piece of the action: "Exel is proposing a public-private partnership to build, finance and operate a world-class distribution system for the long-term benefit of government, industry and consumers. With this proposal Exel can almost immediately unlock over $100 million of the government's money tied up in assets."

Unlock over $100 million in government money? To what end and to whose benefit? The email didn't say, though the corporate VP did offer reassurances on one point: "Exel is not pro-posing trading a public monopoly for a private monopoly."

Rather it had in mind an alter-native distribution system to replace the one run by the liquor distribution branch.

"At present the LDB supply chain is operating in what can be described as a fairly inefficient and outdated environment," wrote Lyons. "We see the opportunity to collaborate, partner and invest with the province of B.C. to re-engineer the sup-ply chain to provide B.C. with a world-class distribution system for the long-term benefit of the government, the industry and consumers."

He got his meeting. In attendance for the session in Vancouver last Aug. 25 were four Exel representatives (including well-connected lobbyist Mark Jiles), one from the LDB, a government aide and Bond.

She came armed with a briefing note from the branch, recounting Exel's long-standing interest in taking over liquor distribution along with the risks of surrendering to those entreaties.

"There are a number of issues related to the transferring of the LDB's distribution operations to a private company," it began. "The most significant of these issue are briefly discussed below."

There followed about two pages of details, all suppressed in the government release. Did I mention that MacDiarmid's ministerial bailiwick includes responsibility for "open government."

The meeting was billed as a "listen only" session for Bond. But notwithstanding her earlier letter of demurral to Exel, the privatization of liquor distribution was by fall an active proposal inside the government.

Bond signed off on a "concept paper" on the liquor distribution project in December. Then in January, the Treasury Board, the cabinet's budget-making committee, approved the plan as part of the proposed asset sale, made public with the February budget.

A formal request for proposals from private companies keen to take over the liquor monopoly followed in April and is continuing. Exel, no surprise, is among the six prospective bidders.

Not to say the terms of the tender call incorporate every aspect of the Exel proposal to government, leastways to the extent those have been made public.

Still the paper trail generates a strong impression that the company had as much to do with activating this privatization scheme as anyone inside government.

[email protected]

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Fo ... z20Vo1hqmp

[Smurf]

Proof that this government has still not realized what has gotten them to the bottom of the heap. They just keep digging themselves in further and further. They deserve to get zero members in the next election.

Why can't they just give us some figures and some actual justification for what they are planning. We are paying the bills and own the system. We deserve at least that much. Lets put it to a referendum and see how the actual owners feel.

[steven lloyd]

Sign the petition:

http://www.dontdroppublicliquor.ca/

[Smurf]

Done. Right or wrong I don't think it should proceed any further until we have enough information to make an honest secission. However I doubt that will ever happen with this government.

[Homeownertoo]

I won't be signing any such petition until I hear more about Exel's proposal. Nothing in Vaughn Palmer's column, excepting the blanked-out portions of the documents, sounds at all suspicious or untoward.

I am not at all surprised that a liquor distribution outfit in Alberta can see inefficiencies in how the same industry operates here under government ownership and control. And that opens the door to savings that can generate profit for both a private operator and the government.

They mention unlocking nearly $100 million in government assets. I assume that means sunk capital costs to BC that are generating less profit than they should under current operations. If Exel can hand over that chunk of change to BC and continue to generate public revenues as today, while making a profit for itself, I'm all ears. And that is the point entirely missed by Palmer ("To what end and to whose benefit?") and other critics, who see conspiracies at every turn and in every discussion between a government official and a private sector executive.

If Exel this time made a solid business case for liberating government assets while operating on a more efficient basis (even if that is due to lower salaries/benefts), the government would be derelict in its mission not to listen. But apparently that is exactly what some people, who constantly harp on how bad this government is, think the Liberals should do -- ignore an opportunity to improve the delivery of services.

[twobits]

I won't be signing any such petition until I hear more about Exel's proposal. Nothing in Vaughn Palmer's column, excepting the blanked-out portions of the documents, sounds at all suspicious or untoward.

I am not at all surprised that a liquor distribution outfit in Alberta can see inefficiencies in how the same industry operates here under government ownership and control. And that opens the door to savings that can generate profit for both a private operator and the government.

They mention unlocking nearly $100 million in government assets. I assume that means sunk capital costs to BC that are generating less profit than they should under current operations. If Exel can hand over that chunk of change to BC and continue to generate public revenues as today, while making a profit for itself, I'm all ears. And that is the point entirely missed by Palmer ("To what end and to whose benefit?") and other critics, who see conspiracies at every turn and in every discussion between a government official and a private sector executive.

If Exel this time made a solid business case for liberating government assets while operating on a more efficient basis (even if that is due to lower salaries/benefts), the government would be derelict in its mission not to listen. But apparently that is exactly what some people, who constantly harp on how bad this government is, think the Liberals should do -- ignore an opportunity to improve the delivery of services.

Couldn't agree more! The mistake made here was the choice of lobbyists. It just served to raise red flags where there should be none. Even if this privitization does not happen, the presented business plan by excell will serve as an interesting comparative model and hopeful review of distribution operations. Then again, perhaps not as governments have historically proven again and again how bad they are as business operators.

[Smurf]

From the information I have seen so far if their cost savings are similar to their current Alberta setup included increased cost to the consumer. The same consumer who is suppopsedly saving money as a taxpayer. I'll be waiting for any information proving otherwise but till that time I'm voting against it and not holding my breath.

[Smurf]

Homeownertoo wrote:

If Exel this time made a solid business case for liberating government assets while operating on a more efficient basis (even if that is due to lower salaries/benefts), the government would be derelict in its mission not to listen.

That makes real sense. Take away the buying power of the employees who support our economy and increase the cost to the consumer/taxpayer, as they apparently have done in Alberta. That makes good economic sense alright.

I would say it is fine to listen, but this is moving quickly past that point with absolutely no information on why. It just looks like another case of push it through no matter what.