LDB: Clark & Cabinet
Could Face Criminal Charges


By Harvey Oberfeld
   Keeping It Real...
      July 13th, 2012

Christy Clark and some of  her cabinet members could face criminal charges if they sell away the BC Liquor Distribution Branch in the few months remaining in the government’s term.

The proposed sale,  the machinations leading up to it and the characters involved directly and indirectly behind it, stink so much the media can be forgiven for overlooking a VERY important sword of Damocles hanging over the premier and any cabinet members involved.

Members of government … elected or appointed … are required by law to exercise FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILTY in handling public assets and spending: failure to do so is a CRIME.

And in my view … and I’d bet many lawyers and even the RCMP investigators would agree … selling off a government service, especially a MONOPOLY, to any company in the fading months of a government’s mandate would deserve very close scrutiny.

Add to that the fact that, only months ago, the government said it had no plans and could see no reason to sell off the asset.

Add to that that the government “changed its mind” only weeks after being approached by a company with links to prominent businessmen with links to past Liberal governments and strategists.

Add to that the government has failed completely to put forward ANY defensible explanation why this government asset and monopoly should be sold off or ANY defensible proof that the move, in the long run, won’t cost BC consumers MILLIONS OF DOLLARS more each year.

Add to that the evidence that, according to many, many polls this government is on its last legs and will be defeated and tossed from office in only nine months from now.  Polls on their own are not NORMALLY a reason for government to stop governing … but combined with the factors above, I believe Clark and cabinet members selling away assets would indeed be susceptible to criminal investigation and charges.

The selloff of ANY major government asset at this time MUST be left to the next government or put to the people in a referendum in the coming provincial election.

Among the information that has surfaced since the discussion began is that BC tax revenues from liquor sales top $860 MILLION a year; distribution costs are only $32 million … subsidized by the government monopoly on sales.

Does anyone with a sound mind believe privatization of the distribution system in the long run won’t add to the cost of booze for consumers as the MONOPOLY “company” tightens its grip on the province-wide system?

The sell-off of such a huge MONOPOLY under these circumstances is a GIVEAWAY plain and simple: a gift to the private sector and possibly even to friends or friends of friends.

I hope the media will explore the FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY governances that go along with holding public office.

Even the signing of a contract that can be canceled after the election, upon payment of a large penalty, could be a criminal act under FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY.

It would be public service to the people … and to the unelected, unmandated premier and her cabinet members …to know in advance that the give-away of this monopoly within months of an election, could land them all in jail.

And in disgrace.

Harv Oberfeld




.

Yes, the timing is suspect. But why has government ever been in the booze business? Regulate, tax and move on.

Some people believe that if government makes something mandatory (which is a regulation), it should be government run. Examples are insurance, health care and public education. And although everyone needs food and shelter, we allow 'the market' to determine house and food prices. Curiously, government DOES limit rent increases.

Alcohol consumption is NOT compulsory, so the real question is... why wasn't the entire liquor and spirits industry completely privatized years ago? The average price of a bottle of wine in Alberta is 20% below BC's retail prices. In Alberta private liquor stores actually compete with sales and they buy a lot of advertising, especially print. So competition creates ancillary jobs.

Yes, I realize this comes as a shock and an affront to people who believe government and political parties never play favourites, never give friends the inside track on jobs, that people who know other people who are in government or a political party might get the inside track on government work or government-owned goodies. I suppose they believe it has never happened before under any regime, so why should it start now?

A solution might be to have a minimum if three private distributors and let them compete.