News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Should the LCBO be deregulated?


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .
Both smaller, and less grand than I was anticipating.
It's functional. The selection seems to be quite good, a measurable improvement, but still too much space is given to the same product, even in the Vintages section. They don't need to display two full cases of a single wine at a time. Hopefully this is a work in progress and we'll get more variety.

More higher end products than before seem to be locked up, including the Rémy Martin VSOP which used to be out in the open in the old store (and that I remember paying $20 for in the 1970s).

Sadly, money is a bit tight this week, so I didn't get the $9,200 bottle of Château Pétrus.
 
It's functional. The selection seems to be quite good, a measurable improvement, but still too much space is given to the same product, even in the Vintages section. They don't need to display two full cases of a single wine at a time. Hopefully this is a work in progress and we'll get more variety.

More higher end products than before seem to be locked up, including the Rémy Martin VSOP which used to be out in the open in the old store (and that I remember paying $20 for in the 1970s).

Sadly, money is a bit tight this week, so I didn't get the $9,200 bottle of Château Pétrus.

That's @Bayer for you.......slumming it with a bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape
 
It's functional. The selection seems to be quite good, a measurable improvement, but still too much space is given to the same product, even in the Vintages section. They don't need to display two full cases of a single wine at a time. Hopefully this is a work in progress and we'll get more variety.

More higher end products than before seem to be locked up, including the Rémy Martin VSOP which used to be out in the open in the old store (and that I remember paying $20 for in the 1970s).

Sadly, money is a bit tight this week, so I didn't get the $9,200 bottle of Château Pétrus.
Maybe you can barter for that Château Pétrus from someone in the United States, in exchange for insulin from Canada? o_O
 
IMO, it's overall a nice store, and the new LCBO store design is such an improvement over the old one. That said, I feel like the beer selection is smaller than in the old store, and it's a little disappointing they went with just a bank of refrigerators, as opposed to a cold room as in many other recent stores.
 
IMO, it's overall a nice store, and the new LCBO store design is such an improvement over the old one. That said, I feel like the beer selection is smaller than in the old store, and it's a little disappointing they went with just a bank of refrigerators, as opposed to a cold room as in many other recent stores.

I still prefer Summerhill in terms of selection but then again, the Summerhill store has always been the flagship in my mind.
 
I still prefer Summerhill in terms of selection but then again, the Summerhill store has always been the flagship in my mind.
With Queen's Quay probably a close second.

I visited the Manulife store again today, and it seems busier than the old one. When you get in, the best wines are on the left - where all good things should be, really.
 
* Cross Post with 100 Queen's Quay thread *

Press Release for the opening is here:


From the above:

1643997960093-png.378630


And

1643997911670-png.378629


Photo from BlogTo:

1643998018273-png.378631


"Grand Opening" moved to Monday February 7th:

1643998064794-png.378632
 
* Cross Post with 100 Queen's Quay thread *

Press Release for the opening is here:


From the above:

1643997960093-png.378630


And

1643997911670-png.378629


Photo from BlogTo:

1643998018273-png.378631


"Grand Opening" moved to Monday February 7th:

1643998064794-png.378632
A lot different when the LCBO opened its doors on June 1, 1927, with 86 stores, three mail-order outlets and four warehouses.

timthumb.php

The original LCBO store no. #5 at 1881 Queen St. E. at Woodbine in 1927. From link.


A once-illegal substance. Heated debate about whether the public should be allowed to buy it in government-operated stores. Finally, the decision to make it available to those deemed responsible enough to consume it. When the first stores open in select communities, there are long lineups. Some customers gratefully grab their purchase; others grumble about the confusing new rules, the stock shortages, the unfairness of government monopolies.

No, the substance in question is not marijuana, and this is not a vision of what might happen in Ontario when the first LCBO-run weed stores get up and running in 2018. This is how the LCBO’s first day of business unfolded on June 1, 1927.

After 11 years of prohibition, thirsty customers lined up for hours to buy legal liquor. The first outlets were nothing like the boutique liquor stores of today: the original system was designed to make the experience of purchasing alcohol feel as shameful as possible, and to allow the province to pry into the private habits of Ontarians.

Temperance-minded newspapers hated what they saw that first week. “The thirsty queues of humanity stretching to every liquor store, including men and women, are not only not edifying,” a Globe editorial observed, “but are disgraceful street scenes, a spectacle long to be remembered by a youthful generation which has not learned about booze.”
LCBO%201965.JPG


From link.

The stores, generally located away from main streets, resembled banks. Clerks were stationed behind wire grills. New customers could not simply approach them, though: first, they had to be vetted by an LCBO employee whose job it was to determine whether they were moral enough to deserve an annual purchasing permit.
LCBO%20application.jpg

If the customer passed muster, they would be given a passport-sized permit book. To make a purchase, they filled out an order form and took it to a clerk, who reviewed their buying history. If the clerk felt the customer was purchasing too much, he made a note in the permit book, and the order was partially or fully refused. Those who were deemed to have abused their purchasing privileges — because they had tried to exceed government limits, or because the employee thought the amount, even if legal, was too much for the customer's own good — would lose their permit and find themselves added to the provincial “interdiction” list. If some or all of the purchase was approved, a detailed record of the sale would be written in the permit book. The order would then be brought out from the stockroom in a brown paper bag.

LCBO officials believed that superior customer service was reflected not in sales volume but in the “prevalence of good social conditions in the surrounding community and absence of drunkenness and of complaints from neglected dependents.” They felt that the strict regulation of purchases improved the lives of families whose main income earner might otherwise drink away their money. Store staff were buried in memos ordering them to follow highly detailed procedures and reporting requirements, which could be stressful to carry out when it came to handling the orders of friends and neighbours. The system was highly prejudicial — women and visible minorities were effectively prevented from working in stores, while members of First Nations weren’t allowed to hold permits until 1959.
LCBO%20permit%20book.jpg

Such paternalistic attitudes took decades to ease up. Permit books were scrapped in 1958, replaced by wallet cards, which remained in effect for four more years. Eventually, liquor was allowed to be displayed on the sales floor: small wine displays appeared in 1958, followed by catalogues in 1965. LCBO officials sensed that Ontarians were tired of being made to feel ashamed when buying alcohol, but the agency still feared the influence of temperance activists, who complained that government money should be spent on education or health care, rather than better liquor stores.

A radical reinvention of customer service debuted in Weston in February 1969. “The customer will enter through a turnstile, select the bottles of his choice and leave through one of five desks,” the Toronto Evening Telegram reported. “Two walls are now lined with rum and Canadian whiskys and there are three islands of shelves loaded with liqueurs, brandies and other hard exotics. A separate room, panelled and ornamented with wine barrels, contains a wide range of wines.” Out went order slips, and in came a pair of product consultants, who were trained to offer advice. Customers raved about the new freedom self-service allowed, but there were criticisms from temperance advocates (“Criminality is related to alcohol,” a Toronto minister observed) and some LCBO employees (“It’ll never work,” a clerk at a traditional store noted. “It’ll be slower and there will be a lot of shoplifting”). Although the LCBO announced in 1973 that all stores would convert to self-service, it would take another 20 years for the last counter-service locations to be phased out.
Not all employees immediately embraced the move toward helpful customer service. “There is a general surliness about these gloomy guys which hangs like a pall about the counter,” observed a letter to the editor in the Globe and Mail in 1974, which also pointed out that staff frequently displayed contempt for and ridiculed customers with drinking problems. As for product knowledge, historian Donald Creighton complained in 1977 that staff were “ignorant of the merits of rival brands and firms, and even of the quantities of different wine-producing regions. They have never heard of vintages. And at the checkout counters they parcel up bottles as if they were bags of sugar or cartons of salt.”

The LCBO retail experience lurched toward its current form when former Metro Toronto police chief Jack Ackroyd was appointed chairman in the mid-1980s. He asked McDonald’s president of marketing Gary Reinblatt to assess the situation. “Your stores are neat and clean, your staff are neat,” Reinblatt noted. “But, God, you’re dull. I’d almost label you as deliberately dull.” Cue Project Image, which introduced gift certificates and higher-end Vintages outlets, increased advertising, and gave more power to store managers. Even more radical store overhauls came during the subsequent tenure of Andy Brandt: larger locations, demo kitchens, product knowledge courses, and Food & Drink magazine.

The awards for store design and innovative retailing that the LCBO received by the end of the 20th century would have horrified the early shapers of the agency. It remains to be seen which incarnation of the LCBO — stern and sterile, or colourful and customer-friendly — will be used as a blueprint for the marijuana stores of the 21st century.
 
A lot different when the LCBO opened its doors on June 1, 1927, with 86 stores, three mail-order outlets and four warehouses.

timthumb.php

The original LCBO store no. #5 at 1881 Queen St. E. at Woodbine in 1927. From link.



LCBO%201965.JPG


From link.


LCBO%20application.jpg


LCBO%20permit%20book.jpg
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. When I came of age, the books and ID card were gone but most of the stores, particularly in small towns were still the old style. I recall they favoured war vets for staff (which had its own problems). I remember coming down to the folk's place for Christmas and went into my first self serve store at Vic Park and Ellesmere and felt like the proverbial kid in the candy store. At some point I mentally added up what was in my shopping cart (shopping cart!) and ended up putting half of it back.

The Interdiction List was still a thing for my first few years in law enforcement.
 
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. When I came of age, the books and ID card were gone but most of the stores, particularly in small towns were still the old style. I recall they favoured war vets for staff (which had its own problems). I remember coming down to the folk's place for Christmas and went into my first self serve store at Vic Park and Ellesmere and felt like the proverbial kid in the candy store. At some point I mentally added up what was in my shopping cart (shopping cart!) and ended up putting half of it back.

The Interdiction List was still a thing for my first few years in law enforcement.
When I was a school kid, like other kids, had to fill out the order form for my father. By then it was just the number of the product or products. My father then went to pay for his order, then gave the stamped receipt to the another clerk who got the product(s) into a brown paper bag.

10350448_573219472822238_1579876602452803025_n.jpg
From link.

 
Last edited:
How does it compare to Summerhill?

Historically, Queens Quay was the preferred spot for licensees (restaurants and bars), with parking and location being a key reason.

QQ also has the highest sales (as of 2016), as per CBC.

Its top five selling stores are: the Queens Quay store in Toronto with $51.1 million in sales, the Summerhill store in Toronto with $47.2 million; the Rideau Street and King Edward Avenue store in Ottawa with $30.4 million; the Laird Drive and Eglinton Avenue East store with $29.3 million; and the store at Weston Road and Highway 7 in Woodbridge with $27.9 million.

When the Summerhill-North Toronto Station store was expanded and renovated in 2004, the LCBO planned on the location being the "flagship," but it was never able to match the revenue of Queens Quay.
 
Last edited:

Why Ontarians can’t order booze directly from other provinces — and how some would like to end Canada’s liquor lockdown

From link.

Ron Kubek already has a celebratory bottle picked out for the day he finds out he can sell his wine anywhere in the country.

He’ll open a sparkling wine — the Blanc de Noirs from his Elysia Vineyard in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley. It’s one of his more popular bottles; Lightning Rock, the winery he owns, is doubling its production of the wine after selling out of it in July.

“That’s the one that we would like Canadians across the country to be able to use when they celebrate the end of the COVID or when they celebrate New Year’s,” he said. “We want them to be able to enjoy our sparkling.”

Kubek’s going to have to hold off on popping that cork for a while. In fact, at this point he says, it’s easier to ship that bottle of bubbly to London, England, than it is to send it to London, Ont.

That’s because, right now, there are only four provinces in the country that will allow Kubek to ship his bottles directly to consumers across provincial borders. Ontario and Quebec, two of the biggest markets in the country, are not among them.

But that could change if Kubek’s MP in the Okanagan has his way — potentially making brewers, winery owners and distillers from coast to coast a lot happier.

In December, Conservative MP Dan Albas, who represents the Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola riding in B.C., tabled a bill he’s dubbed the “Buy, Sip and Ship” bill, more formally known as Bill C-260.

The bill seeks to overturn restrictions to shipping wine, beer and spirits from one part of the country to another. The goal, says Albas, is to allow reciprocal trade of alcohol throughout Canada, hopefully opening up new markets for smaller producers and providing them with a little relief from a coronavirus-inflicted economic slump.

“We are dealing with a real challenge with COVID,” he said. “Many of these small family wineries, craft breweries and distilleries have seen their foot traffic drop — there’s been no travel. Especially in my region, where we have so many people retired; people are not going to visit the local winery or the local brewery, because they’re afraid of COVID.”

That translates to low cash flow for businesses that often operate on fine margins, he says.

“I’ve heard directly from wineries, I’ve heard directly from craft breweries that they are in very, very dire straits,” said Albas. “So, giving them the opportunity to sell their products direct to Canadians increases their market massively.”
For a small-scale winemaker such as Kubek, increasing that market could make a huge difference. His operation has seven full-time employees and a couple of part-timers in the peak season. He produces about 2,500 cases of wine a year, giving him an annual revenue of about $500,000.

“For us, a big day would be $3,000 a day,” he said. “If someone buys three cases of wine, there’s 1,000 bucks.”

Opening up direct-to-consumer markets in six provinces, he estimates, could result in at least a 50 per cent increase in revenue — the difference between $500,000 and $750,000 a year.

The battle to open up the interprovincial liquor markets is long-running.

In 2012, a Gerard Comeau, a New Brunswick retiree who liked to pop over to Quebec to buy cheaper beer, was stopped and fined $292 for returning home with more than the province’s allowed 12 pints of beer — about 18 cans.

Comeau fought the charges, and what became known as the “free-the-beer” case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

In 2018, after a five-year legal battle, the country’s highest court ruled that provinces did have the right to limit the amount of alcohol that could be carried or shipped across their borders.

In June 2019, the federal government removed all federal restrictions on the interprovincial shipping of liquor. Provinces, however, are still entitled to govern the supply of liquor within their borders. The manner in which most provinces have chosen to do so has effectively resulted in barriers to shipping alcohol direct-to-consumer in most provinces.

Currently there are four provinces — Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. — that will allow their residents to receive alcohol shipped direct-to-consumer from other provinces. So, if you’re in Winnipeg, you can order wine from the Niagara region and have it sent direct to you.

But that trade is not reciprocal. An alcohol producer in Manitoba cannot send their products direct to consumers in Ontario. In Ontario, as an example, there is no limit to the amount of alcohol that a person can bring in from another province — as long as it’s for personal consumption. But an Ontario resident cannot have out-of-province alcohol shipped from a producer to them direct.

Albas says that’s the fault of what he calls the “liquor monopolies.” He names the LCBO in Ontario and SAQ in Quebec specifically, but other provinces have similar government-run entities.

His bill takes a unique approach to the perceived problem — one that Sylvain Charlebois calls “a stroke of genius.”

Charlebois, a professor in the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University in Halifax, sees both the timing and the target of Albas’s bill are inspired.

It would allow Canada Post to offer direct-to-consumer sales and delivery of out-of-province beverage alcohol.

Albas’s bill aims to change the behaviour of Canada Post. That, Charlebois says, makes the free trade of alcohol in the country a federal issue.

“He’s actually tackling a Crown corporation,” said Charlebois. “He’s trying to make the government accountable to Canadians, trying to get Parliament to fix this problem by using one of its Crowns.”

Also, said Charlebois, the tabling of the bill — in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic — is timely, in that the use of e-commerce and the home delivery of items is far more prevalent.

“People are buying way more online, and supply chains are much more open and democratic now.

“If you’re a brewery, and you’re at the mercy of the LCBO, or SAQ or NSLC, all of a sudden, you have a marketplace that is attainable, that is reachable. You can reach out to consumers much more easily than just 10 months ago.”

If the bill were to pass, Canada Post would be able to transport alcohol anywhere in the country. If a brewer in Winnipeg wanted to send beer to a consumer in Toronto — which they could not do now — Canada Post would be able to make that delivery.

If the bill passed, provinces would have six months to opt out — to keep their borders closed to outside alcohol. But, according to Albas’s bill, doing so would mean that province’s alcohol producers would not be able to ship their products outside the province either. The premiers of those provinces would be forced to explain to the public that they were opting out and explain to their alcohol producers that they would no longer be able to ship their products to consumers outside the province.

“It’s the 21st century; everyone else is using home delivery and Canada Post is a safe and trusted carrier,” Albas said.

Charlebois says Albas’s bill will face stiff resistance. He recognizes that an Opposition member’s private member’s bill would not survive a rumoured spring election, and says provinces such as Ontario and Quebec would also be vehemently opposed.

“These corporations do generate a lot of revenues for the government and they don’t want to compromise that or risk anything at this point without knowing how revenues could be affected if borders open up,” he said.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2018-19, net income and other government revenue derived from the control and sale of alcoholic beverages amounted to $12.4 billion across the country.

An LCBO spokesperson referred questions to Ontario’s Ministry of Finance.

“Ontario is committed to enhancing the interprovincial trade of beverage alcohol in a way that works for consumers and businesses and is consistent and fair to Ontario producers and retailers,” said Finance spokesperson Scott Blodgett.

“In June 2019, the federal government removed restrictions on the interprovincial shipping of liquor but did not remove the province’s authority to regulate alcohol, possession and sale within its boundaries. Ontario is aware of the Private Member’s Bill and is following its progress.”
 

Back
Top