Damn Quebec!

[Boges]

Ontario has no private liquor stores?

Not really. In rural areas I hear they do simply because, I guess, the province doesn't see a cost benefit analysis of having an LCBO there.

Some grocery stores have Wine retailers, but they only sell Ontario wines and have to be closed by 6pm on Sundays and 9pm on Weekdays.

Other than that it's The Beer Store and the LCBO and that's it.

Convenience stores have been begging the province to allow them to sell beer and wine now that tobacco sales has been reduced but our idiotic premier has refused.

It's a major cash cow for the province. News came out yesterday that the LCBO actually requested that a French supplier charge them more for a shipment of Brandy because they have a set mark-up and the price they were charging would fall below the minimum price they want to charge.

Ontario is becoming a real nanny state, it's really annoying. But that's for another thread.

[guyser]

...forcing us to go to a government retailer for beer and wine, like Ontario does

I like the better selection

Edited September 20, 2012 by guyser

[Wild Bill]

By the same token, BC pays and Nova Scotia takes. Newfoundland and Labrador pays and Manitoba takes. What, then, is your point?

The issue is not who pays and who takes. Rather, it is who takes and then bitches about how much they get!

Very different and I would think, obvious.

[The_Squid]

Not really. In rural areas I hear they do simply because, I guess, the province doesn't see a cost benefit analysis of having an LCBO there.

In BC we have a mix of government and private stores.

In the small towns in BC there are designated "liquor agents" that where you can get booze in the middle of nowhere at the same prices that you would pay in Vancouver.

I generally buy from gov't stores because I like the fact that the workers get a proper wage, rather than minimum wage.

Although, that is changing a bit... one private store gets many more micro-brews than any other place and I do shop there for beer a lot. They also do beer tasting events...

I don't buy the swill like Molsons or Labatts. Those are crap beers with no taste and lots of additives. Crap.

Convenience stores have been begging the province to allow them to sell beer and wine ...

BC doesn't allow that either.

It's a major cash cow for the province.

It still is a cash cow for BC since all distribution goes through the gov't.

[Boges]

I like the better selection

That's fine, but if I want a 6-pack of Canadian I shouldn't have to go into a Lickbo between the hours of 11am and 9pm.

[guyser]

That's fine, but if I want a 6-pack of Canadian I shouldn't have to go into a Lickbo between the hours of 11am and 9pm.

Kind of specious dont you think?

BC, no hr specified.

Alberta can set hours to what they want although they may allow anytime betw 10 and 2 am.

Sask-appears to be 9, most seem to be 6pm tho.

Manitoba-Some 11, most seem to be 8 or 9

Nova Sc-10

[Boges]

Kind of specious dont you think?

BC, no hr specified.

Alberta can set hours to what they want although they may allow anytime betw 10 and 2 am.

Sask-appears to be 9, most seem to be 6pm tho.

Manitoba-Some 11, most seem to be 8 or 9

Nova Sc-10

Can't you get beer and wine at convenience stores in those provinces? I know you can in Quebec. Most convenience stores are open 24/7.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Boges

[The_Squid]

Why would anyone want a 6-pack of Canadian? Gross.

betaglucanase can be used to speed up the brewing process, while propylene glycol alginate can be added to help stabilise a beer's head of foam.

Although both are safe food additives, they hardly sound tempting, and beer drinkers would most likely wish to avoid them.

----------------

Ever since the German Purity Law or Reinheitsgebot of 1516, beers in Germany can only legally be produced using the core ingredients of water, hops, yeast and malted barley or wheat.

Forget chemicals; German brewers are not even allowed to add sugar or lesser grains such as maize or rice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4942262.stm

Heil German beer!!

[Boges]

Why would anyone want a 6-pack of Canadian? Gross.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4942262.stm

Heil German beer!!

We have a beer snob on our hands.

Just picked an example of a domestic larger. In my circle of friends, if we want to get our drink on, we usually buy a Niagara Falls beer called James Ready, it's cheaper and 5.5 alcohol.

You wouldn't be going to a Mac's Milk to get beer unless you wanted to get your drink on anyway. Or perhaps decided to entertain at the last minute.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Boges

[The_Squid]

We have a beer snob on our hands.

Just picked an example of a domestic larger. In my circle of friends, if we want to get our drink on, we usually buy a Niagara Falls beer called James Ready, it's cheaper and 5.5 alcohol.

You wouldn't be going to a Mac's Milk to get beer unless you wanted to get your drink on anyway. Or perhaps decided to entertain at the last minute.

Absolutely I'm a beer snob!! Why would I want to drink chemical shit beer that tastes like piss?

I'm a food snob too!

[Benz]

They had no such thing. They were colonies; as I said, all the powers they had they derived from the Crown through the British parliament and Cabinet. They therefore had nothing to "lend" to the new federal government created in 1867. That federal government then drew its power via the British parliament and Cabinet, just as the pre-Confederation colonies had.

I don't know what any of this has to do with western alienation.

[ed.: +]

Wrong. The provinces could have refuse this and Ottawa would had to step down and comply. It's not crystal clear at all that the federal could have taken all those powers from the provinces if they would have refused back then.

Indeed. The question is: how much and is it the same for everyone?

Canada is already one of the world's most decentralised federations.

Not enough.

------------

There is an important difference here. Alberta PAYS and Quebec TAKES!

Since no one here is capable to demonstrate it, it's just cat food.

How much do Alberta gets from Ottawa's Oil program vs Québec and the others? 100% goes to Alberta. How much of that is considered into the equalization math? None. So what difference does it make who are the takers and givers if you only look at the equalization? You'll never look at the real picture.

[Benz]

Stronger provinces and weaker federalism.

Could be a good thing.

In fact, that's the way Canada started: The powers of the Crown were actually vested in the then existing territories - Upper and Lower Canada, the Maritimes, and the Western territory, I believe.

The territories lend their power to the feds.

I think it makes some sense to consider returning to that model, if it helps quell the animosity currently evident.

It would in the case of Québec, that's 100% sure. The 1867's Canada was much closer to a real confederation than this very centralised federalism.

Having universal social supports, the same no matter where you live, is a nice thing but perhaps not worth the resentment and ill will it is currently generating.

I don't know about the other provinces but, in Québec we don't bug on that. We are rather concerned about all the intrusions into provincial matters the federal does or/and try to do.

[Benz]

By the way guys, you all already forgot that Newfoundland retired the Canadian flags few years ago?

NF was outraged that the federal was taking a huge amount in royalties from offshore oil and leave almost nothing to the province, they wanted the same ratio the Alberta gets. Ottawa did not care. St-John's decided to remove the Canadian's flag and bang! They got what they wanted from Ottawa.

Not likely to happen anytime soon with Québec.

[g_bambino]

The provinces could have refuse this and Ottawa would had to step down and comply. It's not crystal clear at all that the federal could have taken all those powers from the provinces if they would have refused back then.

What the hell are you talking about? Ottawa had no provinces to deal with before 1867.

[g_bambino]

The issue is not who pays and who takes. Rather, it is who takes and then bitches about how much they get!

Well, that's not the way you worded it. But, yes, I agree. However, "Quebec" is not synonymous with "Quebec sovereigntists" or "Quebec nationalists".

[guyser]

Can't you get beer and wine at convenience stores in those provinces? I know you can in Quebec. Most convenience stores are open 24/7.

Hours for most provinces seem set by the Alcohol boards.

They may be open 24/7 but may not (and appears not) to be able to sell booze on off hours.

[Wild Bill]

By the way guys, you all already forgot that Newfoundland retired the Canadian flags few years ago?

NF was outraged that the federal was taking a huge amount in royalties from offshore oil and leave almost nothing to the province, they wanted the same ratio the Alberta gets. Ottawa did not care. St-John's decided to remove the Canadian's flag and bang! They got what they wanted from Ottawa.

Not likely to happen anytime soon with Québec.

Benz, you know full well that Danny took the flag down as a protest over the oil revenue split with Ottawa. It was a temporary thing. The flag was back quite soon.

Marois has taken it down and as long as she or her party has the power it will never fly again!

She has just added to the pile of ill will felt by TROC. People do not forget.

And you still think it will be an amiable divorce!

I want some of what you have been smoking.

[g_bambino]

She has just added to the pile of ill will felt by TROC. People do not forget.

Please. Since that's exactly what she wants, it's best to just ignore her antics and deal with the few, if any, reasonable demands she makes.

[Wild Bill]

Please. Since that's exactly what she wants, it's best to just ignore her antics and deal with the few, if any, reasonable demands she makes.

No, you give her too much credit. I don't think that's what she wants. I think she has not considered the reaction of TROC at all!

She is playing to a Quebec audience. She is thinking of ways to encourage winning a future referendum. Like most separatistes, she hasn't got a clue about how TROC feels or would react.

Separatistes perpetually complain that TROC does not understand Quebec, when they know more about the far side of the Moon than what the people outside Quebec feel.

Harper has no need to consider ANY demands from Marois! Why? Is she going to help his government in any way?

Quebec has put itself in a position where it is no longer relevant in a positive way with Ottawa. Its only possible moves are negative, like separating. A party in power in Ottawa no longer needs Quebec seats to have a majority. Quebec threw its weight behind the NDP, the opposition party.

Even if Harper did grant any demands from Marois, it wouldn't do diddley squat to help Harper! It would not translate to a single vote for the Tories. Marois would just paint it as how she fought the feds and won!

Marois is like a person trying to play chess but lacks the wit to see more than one move ahead. She might eventually succeed in getting a mandate to take Quebec out of Confederation but she would have drastically hurt any sense of good will from TROC towards any negotiations to make it happen.

She seems an incredibly shallow thinker to me.

[g_bambino]

I don't think that's what she wants. I think she has not considered the reaction of TROC at all!

She is playing to a Quebec audience.

In Quebec, she's playing to a sovereigntist/nationalist audience (must you persist in inferring all Quebecers are separatists?) while simultaneously sticking up her middle finger to "TROC" in the hopes that the collective reaction will be as aghast as yours is. She can then turn back to her laine pure flock and say "Regardez! The colonising Anglos are angry at our free expression of our identity!" If the population outside Quebec and the sane-minded in Quebec ignore these ploys, he audience is greatly reduced and thus so is her influence.

[ed.: sp]

Edited September 21, 2012 by g_bambino

[Wild Bill]

In Quebec, she's playing to a sovereigntist/nationalist audience (must you persist in inferring all Quebecers are separatists?) while simultaneously sticking up her middle finger to "TROC" in the hopes that the collective reaction will be as aghast as yours is. She can then turn back to her laine pure flock and say "Regardez! The colonising Anglos are angry at our free expression of our identity!" If the population outside Quebec and the sane-minded in Quebec ignore these ploys, he audience is greatly reduced and thus so is her influence.

[ed.: sp]

Again, I don't disagree! I'm am simply pointing out that there will eventually be repercussions that she seems too shallow to have considered.

Every salesperson knows that if you piss off a potential customer he will never forget! If someday it is your job to try to get him to deal with you, you have made that job much, much harder than it needed to be.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Wild Bill

[g_bambino]

I'm am simply pointing out that there will eventually be repercussions...

Not if everyone ignores her.

[Wild Bill]

Not if everyone ignores her.

What are the chances of that?

It's a real world, you know.

[g_bambino]

What are the chances of that?

Fairly good, I think. The gist I've got from various editorials through the campaign is that there's a collective journalistic yawn about these same, tired, old separatist tactics; it's been 40-odd years, and it's just the same time after time. The consensus seems to be that the federal government will also mostly just give Marois a shrug. Plus, there was a poll not too long ago that showed a very significant majority of respondents didn't care whether or not Quebec separated. She can use that ambivalence to rile up her parochial nationalist followers; but, at last count, they number barely a third of the provincial population.

[Benz]

What the hell are you talking about? Ottawa had no provinces to deal with before 1867.

I'm talking about the period between 1867 and 1939. So we are not talking about the same thing.

Well, that's not the way you worded it. But, yes, I agree. However, "Quebec" is not synonymous with "Quebec sovereigntists" or "Quebec nationalists".

Quebec is synonymous to Quebec nationalism. It is not with sovereignism though. We are divided on what should be the outcome after all those years of fail to get an agreement with TROC. Neverthenless, we are united when the time comes to define us as a nation.