Marché des Saveurs without wines !

[toto2]

I am sorry to say that marché des saveurs , for now has stopped selling wines , beer and all alcools. I am not able to say much , but it seem that they have been asked to remove all alcool from the store. If you stop by , give them a word of encouragement , I think they really need it ! A lot of hard work from the 4 owners and there very dedicated staff is being scrapped by authorities.

[carswell]

Terrible news, both for lovers of Quebec alcoholic beverages (many fewer of which will now be easily available) and the store's owners (this is bound to affect their bottom line, including sales of other products). Please let us know if there's an organized campaign to get the government to reverse its decision and what we can do to lend our support. Being in competition with the Marché (through the SAQ), the govenment is in a conflict-of-interest situation and should recuse itself from making these decisions. I hope the media give it hell.

[sf&m]

Oh, my God..I am FREAKING OUT!!

Ok, this is it.... now local producers really have to get their act together. It's take down time.

Last year they shut down the sale of local wines in Grocery Stores. I was afraid this was going to happen then. Now this.

Hate to say this but maybe it's time to sick some US NAFTA laywers on them. NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE. Ok, so we get alls sorts of competiton from all over the world with free trade, but at least I can display and sell my product just like any other business man anywhere I %%#$@ like.

Listen let's say you're starting a business and some jerk politician with $$$ stuck into every orifice tells you where you can sell your product ... HIS store... at what price...HIS price... when.... when HE decides. WTF is that. All of you running a small business, think about that.

Anyway... sorry about the rant... feel better now... Thanks. The greed & corruption is unimaginable.

[docsconz]

This is sad news, indeed.

[toto2]

Now , from what I know , it has to do with the law that permits producers to sell there products only at there production place and at marché publique. Marché des saveurs is part of the corporation of marché public of montréal and the producers rent there space at marché des saveurs. But they dont have there own employes selling the stuff and this is what seems to be the problem. MdS have been in business for 6 years now. This is a very bad news for everyone.

[toto2]

The fight has begun ! le Marché des saveurs is front page of Le Devoir this morning. So I guess I can talk a bit more:

Somebody tried to start the same type of store in the Old port maket in Québec city but was refused. This person then lodged a complain that started the weel.

According to Le Devoir, in december , le marché des saveur was recocgnise by the RACJ as a "marché de producteurs agricole" when the law about selling alcools at public markets was prolonged for two years !

Edited January 17, 2006 by toto2 (log)

[carswell]

Thanks for the heads-up, toto2. For once the article is available on line: Le Marché des saveurs mis au régime sec.

[sf&m]

Here's an article from Toronto Star that will delight you French wine lovers. How about SAQ calling up their French suppliers and ask them to increase the price, so they (SAQ) can make more money.

Toronto Star Jan 14th::

Vive le Québec, and let's all have another round of drinks

Booze monopoly

as nation-builder

Jan. 14, 2006. 01:00 AM

Everywhere in Canada the question of privatizing liquor boards is sparking somewhat irrational debate. Readers may remember what was said in Alberta, when the Klein government privatized its monopoly: drunkards would be reeling in the streets, impure booze would threaten public health — in a word, morality and public safety were at issue.

In Quebec, additionally, debate takes on an ideological dimension. They would have us believe that the Société des alcools du Québec (SAQ) is part of the modèle québécois. What's the modèle québécois? Essentially, a blend of welfare state and economic nationalism.

When a study last fall by the Montreal Economic Institute recommended privatization of the SAQ, former PQ premier Bernard Landry made a rare TV appearance. He was passionate in his defence of the institution, which has "educated" Quebecers and "brought them closer to their roots" in Western Europe. How so? By developing a taste in them for wine rather than for gin, scotch and other Anglo-Saxon beverages. Landry seems to be unaware that it was thanks to England that the Bordeaux wine industry flourished. No matter. The SAQ isn't just about selling alcohol. It does patriotic work.

Whatever the case, in Ontario or in Quebec, and whichever party happens to be in control, the State generally finds reasons for preserving its monopoly.

The Liberal government of Jean Charest, for example, theoretically more rightist and, therefore, inclined to partnerships with the private sector, has absolutely no intention of dismantling the SAQ. In fact, they want it to pay more dividends ($545 million last year).

And in that regard, between Christmas and New Year's we got wind of a strange piece of news. The SAQ called about 100 European wine producers to encourage them to raise their prices.

Strange? Sure, if the SAQ is considered an enterprise that operates in the field of alcohol retailing. But if, on the other hand, the SAQ is considered a government tax-collecting organization, then this is completely normal behaviour.

The thing is, the Canadian dollar has gone up by 17 per cent over the euro in the past year. And sales prices are "constructed" on the basis of the sales price set by the producer. If the price of European wines goes down, the SAQ's sales figures go down with them, and so do tax receipts. So, the goal is to maintain prices.

Most suppliers, principally French, refused to play along — at last an opportunity to beat their Australian or American competitors. Has a buyer ever been known to ask a supplier to raise his prices?

The SAQ countered this embarrassing bit of news by announcing on Wednesday that the price of European wines would dip by 8 per cent on Feb. 1. But the euro fell by 17 per cent. Where did the other nine percentage points go? Somebody drank them.

In addition to playing the anti-Wal-Mart role when it comes to prices, the SAQ is busy making considerable reductions in the number of products offered. Large inventories entail enormous costs, and the SAQ wants to hang onto just its biggest sellers.

One of the favourite arguments of defenders of the SAQ, however, is that the Crown corporation develops Quebecers' "taste" by offering a wide variety of products throughout its territory.

Yves Michaud, a great friend of René Lévesque, a famous PQ militant and president of the Association des agences d'importateurs de vin, said last year that if privatization took place, a handful of untutored "boutiquiers" (little shopkeepers) would take over the market and sell us plonk.

In Alberta, though, exactly the opposite took place. The number of outlets increased threefold. There are 300 more than in Quebec for less than half the number of residents. They sell 11,575 products there, as against 7,148 (and going down) in sophisticated Quebec. Not bad for a bunch of Anglo-Saxon cowboys!

Oh, and another detail: State alcohol revenues have increased in Alberta, with no significant rise in consumption.

But, so what. A "fundamental" feature of Quebec, stated Landry, involves electricity and wine being offered everywhere in the province at a fixed price. A question of "solidarity."

Maybe one day supermarkets will be nationalized and this policy will be applied to broccoli and sardines. After all, "national" solidarity should obligatorily entail supplying antioxidants and omega-3 to all our compatriots.

So let's drink to solidarity — it's included in the bottle anyway.

[riboflavinjoe]

they should open an SAQ in kuujjuaq.

[eat2much]

they should open an SAQ in kuujjuaq.

←

what are the correct pairings for seal, walrus, and/or beluga?

[toto2]

Hum....ice wine ?

[jfl91]

The laws should change in quebec. It's too difficult to get a alcohol liscence and liscenced restaurants should be able to accept people bottles of wine like in the US with a corkage fee. So many laws should change here about the alcohol.

Edited January 17, 2006 by jfl91 (log)

[jfl91]

There is by the way 8446 choices at the SAQ at the moment.

It's more easy to find the total of product available at SAQ than in Alberta wich I doubt they have the 11 000+ choices.

The market in Alberta is far to be good as here and even some retailers from Alberta try to sell wine over here.

[sf&m]

So restaurants in QC that serve wine can't not open a customers bottle against a corkage fee? What is the grounds for that? I know - stupid question.... but it seems bizarre, since SAQ alreday got their nick when you purchased the bottle. Or does SAQ get a special cut of the resto markup? I guess it must have to do with probiting tourist and travellers from consuming wine they purchased somewhere else. There is always a monetary object to SAQ/Alco law regulations and and don't see this one...

[carswell]

We should probably be discussing this under the SAQ thread (we are, after all, in the Marché des saveurs thread). But, hey, go with the flow...

The author of the Toronto Star article is obviously biased in favour of privatization. Too bad he lets his smugness trump his argument. Astoundingly, his "analysis" leaves out key factors like the SAQ's unions (the goverment would privatize only over their dead bodies and those of the rest of the province's powerful union movement, and that just ain't going to happen) and public support for the monopoly (every survey shows phenomenally high approval ratings). What really kills me, though, is this quote:

The SAQ countered this embarrassing bit of news by announcing on Wednesday that the price of European wines would dip by 8 per cent on Feb. 1. But the euro fell by 17 per cent. Where did the other nine percentage points go? Somebody drank them.

Uh, not exactly. As La Presse (which broke this story) and the SAQ have pointed out, the falling euro (whose drop they peg at 14.31%, not 17%) affects only the price the SAQ pays for the wines, not things like freight, warehousing, brokerage and other service fees and even certain taxes, none of which have been renegotiated. And those charges are proportionally higher for inexpensive wines than for expensive wines. So, not only is it possible that an 8% drop in the retail price may well be a fair reflection of the 14.31% drop in the SAQ's cost price, it's also true that the more expensive the bottle, the greater the decrease (it's hardly the across-the-board 8% that the Star claims). By way of illustration, La Presse provides the following figures, which it obtained from the SAQ:

Current retail price / Retail price on Feb. 1 / Percentage decrease

$10.05 / $9.20 / 8.5%

$20.00 / $18.25 / 8.8%

$40.00 / $35.00 / 12.5%

With all the accusations, counter-accusations, denials and counter-denials, the SAQ's true motivations for going over the heads or — depending on who's talking — behind the backs of local agents are next to impossible to determine. Sloppy, partisan reporting like the Star's only obfuscates and, as such, does a disservice to the privatizers it purports to support.

[carswell]

So restaurants in QC that serve wine can't not open a customers bottle against a corkage fee? What is the grounds for that? I know - stupid question.... but it seems bizarre, since SAQ alreday got their nick when you purchased the bottle.  Or does SAQ get a special cut of the resto markup?  I guess it must have to do with probiting tourist and travellers from consuming wine they purchased somewhere else. There is always a monetary object to SAQ/Alco law regulations and and don't see this one...

←

Interesting question. Will ask around. I suspect the answer might have something to do with prohibiting smuggling, always a problem in jurisdictions that heavily tax consumables. Wines and spirits bought by commercial establishments have a special sticker. If agents of the Régie find stickerless bottles on the restaurant premises (and I've been told they have been known to search through garbage bins), the restaurant pays a hefty fine and, I believe, can even lose its licence in the event of repeat offences. Resto/bar owners also pay slightly more than retail for their bottles, or so I have been told.

[sf&m]

Carswell, I agree with you about the condesending tone of that Toronto Star article.... that cheeky attitude towards Quebec plays in the T. burbs I guess.

And maybe the price changes (lower!) are fair. However, how about the fact (?) SAQ tried to get a higher price from their suppliers?? True or false? That's what set me off, p... off as I already was about MdS.

I grew up with a very similar system to SAQ in Sweden. Monopoly - now about 9 million people market. Quite similar in yearly turn over to SAQ. LAst I checkd about 12 monhts ago, the Swedish monoploy had about double the sales per employee. Much more efficient. The pressure from the EU has done them good. Stores are moderns, prices are fair (lower than here) and the inventory is much much bigger than most private stores in the US for instance or in nearby private store Denmark.

So, I am not a rabid privatizer. The SAQ inventory is great. But reform is sorely needed at SAQ, and some ways has to be found to sever the unholy connection between SAQ and politicians. OR - it will be done for them. It's only a matter of time before Gallo and other big guys set up a lawsuit on NAFTA grounds. The achilles heel - I think - is the SAQ greed in placing cheap bulk wine they import and sell at outrageous markups in grocery stores and depanneurs. I think that can be their undoing, because they are in an open market and they prohibit free trade. I am no legal expert but that's my take...

Mainly they need some serious external pressure to reform...

Then you have the Kafkaesk situation that the Monopoly granted by the citizen of Quebec is not supporting local taxpaying producers that employs same taxpaying citizen. It's treason.

Edited January 18, 2006 by sf&m (log)

[jfl91]

Restaurants and bars pay a 2$ fee for every bottles and a tax on top of it for the sale of alcohol products.

Don't get me wrong but I think the euro was at 1.61 2 years ago and SAQ was charging us this rate until now even if the euro is at 1.4 at the moment. This is a 21% profit and they have a flat rate also with th US dollar wich was really high 2 years ago compare to now at 1.18.

[jfl91]

sf&m, there is amazing wine shop is the US.

[carswell]

And maybe the price changes (lower!) are fair.  However, how about the fact (?) SAQ tried to get a higher price from their suppliers?? True or false? That's what set me off, p... off as I already was about MdS.

←

Unfortunately, I missed the La Presse article that broke the story and couldn't find it on their website (it may have been in La Presse Affaires, which is never accessible by non-subscribers). An article in Monday's La Presse says that an unnamed supplier claimed the SAQ suggested they raise their prices to cover the falling exchange rate. The SAQ denies that and claims it was all a misunderstanding. Barring a whistleblower, the only chance we ever have of learning the truth is if there's an inquiry into the affair, which the PQ has proposed. With the provincial Liberals firmly ensconced in power for another couple of years, don't hold your breath is all I can say.

It's only a matter of time before Gallo and other big guys set up a lawsuit on NAFTA grounds.  The achilles heel - I think - is the SAQ greed in placing cheap bulk wine they import and sell at outrageous markups in grocery stores and depanneurs.  I think  that can be their undoing, because they are in an open market and they prohibit free trade. I am no legal expert but that's my take...

Not sure about that. As mentioned somewhere in the Sacre Bleu thread, I was once told by an HEC prof that the SAQ is clear and free when it comes to dep wines as long as they don't specify the vintage or the grape varieties. If so, I'd love to know what loophole they're exploiting.

Another instance of misreporting in the Star article, btw: The author implies the price cuts will apply to all European wines. Not true. They apply only to wines the SAQ has contracted to pay for in euros. Wines paid for in, say, Canadian or US dollars won't be affected.

[carswell]

sf&m, there is amazing wine shop is the US.

←

In large cities like New York, DC (with its huge diplomatic corps) and San Francisco, yes. In urban areas of an equivalent size to greater Montreal (greater Dallas and Denver, for example), not necessarily. The great thing some United Statesians have that we don't (at least officially) is distance purchasing from wineries, brick-and-mortar stores and Internet-based retailers, provided the buyer lives in a reciprocal state.

[jfl91]

Some of the articles in La Presse about the SAQ:

Le prix des vins américains baissera aussi

Hélène Baril

La Presse

Comme les vins européens, le prix des vins américains baissera le 1er février, pour refléter l'appréciation du dollar canadien par rapport à la devise américaine. La baisse sera environ de 4 à 5 % sur les vins américains, mais aussi chiliens, argentins ou autres qui sont vendus à la SAQ en dollars américains, a fait savoir hier la porte-parole Linda Bouchard.

Il n'a pas été possible de savoir combien de produits seront touchés par cette baisse de prix. La SAQ règle seulement 1% de ses achats en dollars américains, a précisé la porte-parole. La valeur de ces produits serait de 8 millions $CAN, selon elle.

L'appréciation du dollar canadien érode le chiffre d'affaires et les profits de la SAQ, qui a tenté de contrer le mouvement en suggérant à ses fournisseurs européens d'augmenter leurs prix.

C'est après que ces manoeuvres eurent été révélées par La Presse que la SAQ a finalement annoncé une baisse du prix des vins achetés en euros. La société d'État a nié avoir demandé à ses fournisseurs d'augmenter leurs prix, même si plusieurs d'entre eux l'ont affirmé à La Presse.

Le ministre des Finances, Michel Audet, préfère croire la version de la SAQ, a fait savoir hier son porte-parole Michel Rochette. Selon lui, M. Audet a demandé hier matin au président de la SAQ, Sylvain Toutant, d'être le plus clair et le plus transparent possible dans ses explications sur ce qui s'est réellement passé.

M. Toutant fera parvenir une lettre aux journaux pour faire le point sur la façon dont la SAQ ajuste les taux de change. Une première version de cette lettre a déjà été envoyée, mais elle a été retirée aussitôt pour être «allongée ou bonifiée», a précisé le porte-parole du ministre Audet.

Recours collectif

Par ailleurs, les consommateurs de vins et d'alcools du Québec seraient tout à fait justifiés d'intenter un recours collectif contre la Société des alcools du Québec, qui a suggéré à ses fournisseurs européens d'augmenter leurs prix.

«C'est clair qu'il y a matière à recours collectif», a expliqué hier Gilles Gareau, de la firme montréalaise Adams & Gareau, qui se spécialise dans ce type de procédures.

Selon lui, un détaillant qui s'entend avec un fournisseur pour augmenter le prix de vente d'un produit fait «une violation claire de la loi sur la concurrence». Le fait que la SAQ soit une société d'État ne change rien, a-t-il précisé. «La loi s'applique à tous, sans exception.»

Toutefois, la position de monopole de la SAQ compliquerait la preuve, estime l'avocat, parce que les fournisseurs à qui elle a demandé d'augmenter leurs prix n'accepteraient pas facilement de témoigner contre le seul acheteur pour leurs produits au Québec.

«S'ils refusent, la preuve est impossible à faire», a ajouté Gilles Gareau, qui a souvent buté sur cette difficulté, notamment dans des causes impliquant BCE. Les fournisseurs d'un monopole ne peuvent pas se permettre de se le mettre à dos, a-t-il dit.

the other:

Jacques Benoît

12 janvier 2006 - 08h31

«Il y a peut-être eu un malentendu, peut-être que dans quelques cas, les fournisseurs ont mal compris.» C'est ce qu'a déclaré Alain Proteau, le vice-président à la mise en marché et au développement de la SAQ, mardi après-midi, au cours d'une entrevue avec La Presse au sujet de la hausse des prix de gros accordée à des fournisseurs européens.

Texte: Envoyer Imprimer © Reproduire

Lui et son supérieur immédiat Laurent Mériaux, vice-président à la commercialisation, ont alors maintenu, dans ses grandes lignes, leur version précédente. D'après eux, en effet, la SAQ n'a pas invité ses fournisseurs à augmenter leurs prix.

Mais en même temps, et pour la première fois, Laurent Mériaux a reconnu que la SAQ a accepté, dans certains cas, des hausses de prix de gros nettement supérieures à la limite de 5% pour 2006 qu'avait elle-même fixée la SAQ.

Toutefois, ajoute-t-il en substance, c'est non pas à la suggestion de la SAQ, mais en raison des hausses excessives de leur prix de gros réclamées par certains fournisseurs que la société d'État a fini par accepter de telles augmentations.

Ces hausses, de 10%, et même de 12% selon les informations de La Presse, ont été accordées à des fournisseurs de produits courants qui la facturent en euros, et qui en contrepartie ont versé pour cela 2,5% de ristourne à la société d'État.

Combien de cas de dépassements du genre y a-t-il? «Je n'en ai pas beaucoup, a répondu à cela Laurent Mériaux. Vous savez, on a contacté un peu plus de 100 producteurs et ça visait un peu plus de 140 produits, peut-être 150. Et, sur cela, je peux vous dire qu'il y en a très très peu, et vous allez pouvoir le constater vous-même quand les prix de détail vont sortir.»

Selon les nombreux témoignages recueillis par La Presse, la SAQ invitait en réalité les fournisseurs à augmenter leurs prix suffisamment pour que les prix de détail restent inchangés, ou ne diminuent que très peu à la suite de la forte remontée du dollar vis-à-vis de l'euro.

Version différenteLa version de Laurent Mériaux est différente. D'après lui, c'est en effet parce que des fournisseurs voulaient augmenter de façon excessive leur prix que la SAQ a accepté ces dépassements.

Informé du témoignage d'une société de Bordeaux à laquelle on a offert de hausser son prix de gros de 10%, contre une ristourne de 2,5%, Laurent Mériaux répond ceci, en présentant l'affaire comme un bon exemple de la teneur des conversations avec les fournisseurs: «S'il voulait absolument avoir 10%, peut-être qu'il voulait avoir au départ 13, 15 ou 16% d'augmentation. Et que nous, on lui est revenu en disant: on n'est pas d'accord (...) On lui a peut-être dit: le maximum qu'on est prêts à accepter, c'est 10%, sous rétribution de 2,5%.»

Pour les consommateursSelon lui, toute l'opération avait pour objet de s'assurer qu'il y aurait des diminutions des prix de détail à l'avantage des consommateurs.

Pour cela, peut-on souligner, la SAQ n'avait qu'à laisser jouer le recul de l'euro, qui a fléchi de plus de 15% vis-à-vis du dollar depuis un an. Elle n'avait donc pas à appeler ces fournisseurs.

«Les agents savent depuis quelque temps déjà qu'on veut négocier les prix avec les fournisseurs et qu'on veut avoir les meilleurs prix coûtants au Canada, affirme Laurent Mériaux.

C'est ça que l'on cherche, c'est dans nos objectifs stratégiques. On essaie de faire ça, on travaille fort pour obtenir ce résultat-là, et actuellement vous écrivez des articles qui essaient de tenter de démontrer qu'on veut faire l'inverse alors que c'est totalement l'inverse qu'on est en train d'essayer de faire.»

Pas plus de 5% sur 13 moisPour ce qui est de la limite à la hausse des prix de gros que la SAQ disait vouloir imposer aux fournisseurs, voici ce qu'il en dit: «Ce qu'on a estimé pour l'année qui vient, ce qui peut être raisonnable, c'est 5% d'augmentation maximum sur 12 mois. C'est ce qu'on met en place maintenant, ça ne veut pas dire qu'on va réussir tout le temps, ça ne veut pas dire qu'on refuse tout le temps dès que c'est au-dessus de 5%.»

Manifestement mal à l'aise face à cette histoire, la SAQ a donc choisi de faire parvenir à La Presse en début de soirée hier un communiqué annonçant son intention de baisser d'une moyenne de 8% le prix de 590 vins européens. Résultat, une bouteille au prix de 10,05$ coûtera 9,20$ à compter du 1er février.

[jfl91]

carswell, The Rhone wines and Burdundies are not expensive here but the Bordeaux are almost 2 times more expensive here than every where in the US (and specially the expensive bottles).

SAQ = mafia

[carswell]

carswell, The Rhone wines and Burdundies are not expensive here but the Bordeaux are almost 2 times more expensive here than every where in the US (and specially the expensive bottles).

←

I assumed you were talking about selection, not prices.

SAQ = mafia

And yet you're opposed to privatization. (Or am I misunderstanding your upthread posts, too?)

By the way, what's the date on the Hélène Baril article? It must be fairly recent, no? In any case, I'd missed it.

[jfl91]

4-5 days ago for the Helene Baril article.

I am just saying that I don't trust the numbers from Alberta but at the end I don't care about Alberta. I am 100% for the privatization of the alcohol sales in Quebec.

I want to see some competition and 6-7 wine shops on Ste-Catherine with good deals. I want to see some Bordeaux en primeurs at many wine shops and different method of attribution.

I want to be able to sell my bottles to people in the province if I want (I don't want to pass by SAQ).

I want to see reliable staff.

I want to be able to bring my wine in liscenced restaurants.

I want to buy wines that were cellared properly.

I want to pay less and I shouldn't pay extra for people who live in region (there is positive and negative for people who live in region but wine is a luxury and I shouldn't pay for them).

I want to be able to import a bigger amount of alcohol from the US without the expensive fee of 100%.

SAQ buy wines from second market and make a 100% profit on top (that's why a bottle of La Mondotte is 990$ and every bottles of Le Pin are more than 2500$) .

I would be able to add many more good points but who care really? Most of the people in the province by wine at grocery (83% of the wine sales in the province is at the grocery) and the difference price for this range of wine would not be significative.

Edited January 18, 2006 by jfl91 (log)