The Issue: Privatization of the LCBO in Ontario
It was once accepted that alcohol was the only monopoly product in Canada. This was the case for most of the 20th century in North
America. Today, beer, wine, spirits and other alcohol-related products
are sold in state-run corporation stores, agency outlets and other
licensed establishments. In the province of Ontario, liquor retailing
policy has remained unchanged compared to other provinces. As most
other provinces have moved towards various degrees of privatization of
alcohol sales, there have arisen pressures for the government of
Ontario to sell off the Liqour Control Board of Ontario and for the
get out of the retailing business.
However, the LCBO has become the largest single purchaser of alcohol
in the world and generates nearly $3 billion in profits and taxes for
the provincial government. At issue is the fact that the provincial
government could eliminate budget shortfalls left behind by the last
government by selling off its stores as the province of Alberta did in
the 1990’s. Other advocates of privatization justify their positions
through the fact that the government ought not to profit off a market
that it owns; that the sector be opened up for competion. Also, some
take the moral position that alcohol is a drug, and the government
should not be encouraging and thus profiting from the sale of drugs.
Proponents of the status quo argue that the governemnt is the one body
that can control the product best through regulating its availability,
prices, and selection, not to mention that any short-term gains would
be negated by the loss of long-term revenue.
Questions:
1. What is the best role of the LCBO in alcohol retailing and
distribution in Ontario?
2. Should the LCBO open up alcohol retailing to competion from the
private sector?
Further reading
www.lcbo.com
www.opha.on.ca/advocacy/letters/lcbo.html
Campbell, Murray. “LCBO Could Use a Splash of Competition”. The Globe
and Mail (Toronto), February 9, 2006.
MacLellan, Stephanie. “No Need to Privatize LCBO, Outgoing Boss Says”.
Guelph Mercury, February 10, 2006.
On October 16th, 2007, Parliament came back into session, and the speech from the throne highlighted that Canada would extend its Afghan mission until at least 2011.
So how did Canada get involved in the first place???
After the September 11 attacks, the Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton advised the Governor General (Adrienne Clarkson) to authorize more than 100 Canadian Forces members serving on a military exchange programs in the US and other countries to participate in US operations in Afghanistan. The goal was to identify and neutralize Al Qaeda members and topple the Taliban regime (thought to be supporting international terrorism). At the time of the invasion, the Canadian government defined Canada’s reasons for participating in the Afghan mission as follows: 1) Defend Canada’s national interests; 2) Ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs; and 3) Help Afghanistan rebuild. A Naval Task Group was immediately dispatched to the Arabian Sea to support coalition interdiction efforts, and a Canadian Army battle group landed at Kandahar Airfield in February 2002, prepared to hunt down the Taliban and Al Qaeda. After the Taliban fled from Afghanistan, Canada offered to participate in the NATO-led stabilization mission in Kabul.
Okay, We’re Involved … Now what?
Canada’s role in Afghanistan encompasses peace building, monitoring elections, well digging, infrastructure building, education, development, and aid assistance. For example, in January 2002, Afghanistan became the single largest recipient of Canadian bilateral aid. According to Foreign Affairs, Canada has allocated a total of $616.5 million to Afghanistan, covering the 2001 to 2009 period. More recently, Canada’s commitment to Afghanistan has included the most intense combat since the Korean war between Canadian soldiers and a resurgent Taliban movement intent on reconquering areas held by NATO. As of September 29, 2007 the Canadian Forces have suffered 71 fatalities and over 300 wounded.
Opposing Views on the Afghan Mission… What Do Canadians Think?
When the first survey was done in 2002, 38 per cent said they strongly approved of Canada’s presence in Afghanistan. When asked whether Canada should focus on peace building or on active combat roles with our allies, 80 per cent said peace building, while only 16 per cent said in an active combat role. However, support for Canadians staying in Afghanistan is falling.
Opponents of War:
These people are mainly activists who believe the mission lacked clear objectives and measures of success, and that the counter-insurgency operation was undermining reconstruction in Afghanistan. They also look at the number of casualties and the amount Canada has invested in this mission and see this cost being too high.
People who think Canadians Should Stay:
These people think that the mission in Afghanistan offers a perfect venue for Canadians to demonstrate their 3-D abilities ( e.g. defence, development and diplomacy) to the world. Also, given the recent attacks in London, Madrid and Bali, it seems only a matter of time before terrorists attack Canadian soil. By neutralizing the terrorist movement in Afghanistan Canada’s borders will be more protected. Improve the rule of law and promote democracy is important in this region in order stabilize a potentially radioactive and unstable region in Central Asia. Not to mention, Afghanistan has substantial untapped natural resources, natural gas and copper and hydro-electric power sources as well. Canadian corporations would be ready to take part in such major development projects (financial gains would benefit Canada and Afghanistan alike).
Questions:
- Should Canada stay in Afghanistan and if so what should our role be? What does Canada gain by staying? What does Canada gain by leaving?
- What is Canada’s current role in Afghanistan? Is it working?
- In the summer of 2006, the Prime Minister stated that Canada was at war in Afghanistan. Is this true? How does this war compare with those in the past?
- Is this mission an example of liberal internationalism at work or is it realpolitik at play?
Suggested Readings:
- In depth CBC Article- Canada In Afghanistan: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/canada.html
- Who are we defending in Afghanistan? http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Opinion_Editorials/989
- Ten Reasons to Stay in Afghanistan: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=45072
- Lessons in Terror: Attacks on Education in Afghanistan http://hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/2006/education/letter1.htm
