|
bunnyofdoom posted:So, the Gov is going to loosen up the definition of beer Speaking of booze, what are the chances that inter-provincial wine sales policy changes after this gaffe? Probably nil since it's not really anyone's priority.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:So, the Gov is going to loosen up the definition of beer If Beau's is behind it, it can't be that bad I guess. However, I'd like to know what exactly this changes. There are already some excellent Canadian Pumpkin Ales that have spices and citrus fruit added to them. How will this law make that any different? Honestly, the first thing I thought of was that they were loosening the definition of beer so that the major brewers could continue to sell us fermented rice and corn and call it beer, but that already happens anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Maybe I'm reading a bit too much into what is really just a business decision, and honestly I have no idea if Peladeau still has active oversight and authority over Quebecor now that he's an MNA, but the timing does seem to line up well. He does. He's refused to place his assets in a trust or divest himself of them, so he's still the controlling shareholder of Québecor. He signed off on this. (Québec's ethics rules only prevent ministers of the crown from managing companies that may place them in conflict, and don't force anyone to divest themselves. If he became premier, he would have to place Québecor in a "blind" trust, though everyone working there would still know who owns the company. It's, um, a bit lacking.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
a primate posted:If Beau's is behind it, it can't be that bad I guess. However, I'd like to know what exactly this changes. There are already some excellent Canadian Pumpkin Ales that have spices and citrus fruit added to them. How will this law make that any different? Yeah, that's my question too. We make lots of wicked beers flavoured with fruit and spices, from BC to Quebec and New Brunswick and everywhere in between (except Alberta, because our brewers are lovely and shameful).
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, that's my question too. We make lots of wicked beers flavoured with fruit and spices, from BC to Quebec and New Brunswick and everywhere in between (except Alberta, because our brewers are lovely and shameful). Big Rock isn't that bad. I enjoy their warthog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:He does. He's refused to place his assets in a trust or divest himself of them, so he's still the controlling shareholder of Québecor. He signed off on this. I don't see how being one of the country's most powerful media moguls and a politician in your company's largest media market could be seen as anything but an inherent conflict of interest. Then again there's practically nothing about Canada's media that doesn't seem ridiculous to me these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, that's my question too. We make lots of wicked beers flavoured with fruit and spices, from BC to Quebec and New Brunswick and everywhere in between (except Alberta, because our brewers are lovely and shameful). Of all the things you have said over the years, this one is the worst. Village Blacksmith is civilisation, you scoundrel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
StoicRomance posted:Of all the things you have said over the years, this one is the worst. Village Blacksmith is civilisation, you scoundrel. Village Blacksmith is decent, I'll give it that. Still, Village is pretty much the best of the best that I've tried of Alberta beer so far. Wild Rose and Big Rock can't make a good beer to save their lives, it would seem, and I haven't had an Alley Kat that's any good either. Compared with breweries like Phillips, MacAuslan, Dieu du Ciel, even Unibroue, even our best efforts are poo poo. EDIT: Dieu du Ciel is an essential service, but I don't have a problem with them making profit off it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I don't see how being one of the country's most powerful media moguls and a politician in your company's largest media market could be seen as anything but an inherent conflict of interest. Then again there's practically nothing about Canada's media that doesn't seem ridiculous to me these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
You have good taste in beer, PT6A.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:You have good taste in beer, PT6A. Now I'm going to be heretical, though: I think American macrobrew is way better than Canadian macrobrew. At least Bud Light and MGD take "flavourless pisswater" and make it into the very pinnacle of flavourless pisswater. Canadian, Keith's, Blue, etc... are all too strong to fill that niche, but too bad-tasting to be called a good beer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Now I'm going to be heretical, though: I think American macrobrew is way better than Canadian macrobrew. At least Bud Light and MGD take "flavourless pisswater" and make it into the very pinnacle of flavourless pisswater. Canadian, Keith's, Blue, etc... are all too strong to fill that niche, but too bad-tasting to be called a good beer. Disagree: they're all terrible (MGD is the best though, you're right) Ok, so we're pledging $10M in aid for Syrian and Iraqi refugees http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/iraq-aid-announced-as-mps-debate-6-month-isis-combat-mission-1.2788829 posted:Canada is pledging $10 million to provide services and treatment for Syrian and Iraqi refugees who have been victims of sexual abuse, as MPs debate the plan to deploy six fighter jets and 600 troops to support an air combat mission against ISIS in Iraq. And it looks like we'll be sending troops as well as the CF-18s. "600 personnel" means boots on the ground, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Edit: personnel doesn't imply soldiers, it's just anyone from enlisted men to officers to civilian contractors. We could be sending 600 generals over to drink martini's and it would still be accurate. Probably a lot of soldiers though, yeah Dreylad posted:You have good taste in beer, PT6A. I'm a bit hurt that he stopped the love explicitly at NB There's 2 and a half provinces to go  (That said, my palate for beer isn't exactly the widest, so maybe we just suck a lot!) egg tats has issued a correction as of 18:36 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
senae posted:I'm a bit hurt that he stopped the love explicitly at NB I have many scars from working in a microbrewery. I was shocked at the explosion of them in the Maritimes when I was home, there's some good stuff kicking around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
a primate posted:Ok, so we're pledging $10M in aid for Syrian and Iraqi refugees[/url] The aid is nice. The personnel number probably refers to logistics and support people rather than combat focused, but then again, who knows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
senae posted:I'm a bit hurt that he stopped the love explicitly at NB Nova Scotia has a couple good ones that I've heard of (Propeller and Garrison). PEI has I think one brewing company, but I've never tried any of their stuff. When I lived in Newfoundland a year or two ago the only local craft beer was Quidi Vidi (decent), Yellowbelly (pretty good, and their brewpub just off of George Street is awesome as well), and a really small operation called Storm Brewing (decent as well). There are also a ton of "local" beers (Blue Star, Black Horse, Dominion, India Ale, etc.) that are actually just disguised versions of Molson's and Labatt's and not worth trying. In the two years I was living there it definitely did take off though, the NLC barely carried any craft beer when I arrived and by the time I left they had started stocking quite a bit from Ontario and Quebec. e: Seriously, if you are in St. John's, go to this place: 
colonel_korn has issued a correction as of 18:40 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, that's my question too. We make lots of wicked beers flavoured with fruit and spices, from BC to Quebec and New Brunswick and everywhere in between (except Alberta, because our brewers are lovely and shameful). It seems like any beer with flavours that aren't specifically allowed for under the beer labeling regulations fall into a catch all category that is open to the interpretation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. As far as I know most of these beers are still allowed, but it can be a time consuming process which is obviously a problem when you're producing a product with a shelf life. The new regulations seem to be aimed at specifically allowing for spice and fruit beers, and also getting rid of separate labeling standards for beers and ales/porters/stouts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
a primate posted:If Beau's is behind it, it can't be that bad I guess. However, I'd like to know what exactly this changes. There are already some excellent Canadian Pumpkin Ales that have spices and citrus fruit added to them. How will this law make that any different? I'm thinking this is less about craft fruit beers and more about selling blue raspberry flavored malt liquor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I'm thinking this is less about craft fruit beers and more about selling blue raspberry flavored malt liquor. That's along the same lines as what I was thinking. They'll talk about how confectioner's sugar has been used in Trappist ales for centuries, ergo here is some Smirnoff Ice "Beer".
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
colonel_korn posted:Nova Scotia has a couple good ones that I've heard of (Propeller and Garrison). PEI has I think one brewing company, but I've never tried any of their stuff. Yellow Belly's blueberry ale is just the best, but seriously- for a place so steeped in Irish culture the craft/microbrewery scene is just so disappointing. Doubly so given George Street's level of fame as a place to get loaded- every drat bar ought to have it's own house brew. I've been drinking loads more since moving to Hamilton. Double Dead Elephant is loving lovely and my new favourite.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Why is alcohol even so over-classified? It seems like it would massively benefit everyone involved, from the regulators to the producers to the consumers if all our weird rear end liquor laws were just totally thrown out and some very simple universal modern standards adopted. Maybe just have a few categories of drinks based on their percentage but otherwise have the exact same language as "alcohol".
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
senae posted:I'm a bit hurt that he stopped the love explicitly at NB I don't think I've ever had a beer made east of NB (other than imports), so I can't say personally, but odds are it's quite a bit better than Alberta's offerings. Baronjutter posted:Why is alcohol even so over-classified? It seems like it would massively benefit everyone involved, from the regulators to the producers to the consumers if all our weird rear end liquor laws were just totally thrown out and some very simple universal modern standards adopted. Maybe just have a few categories of drinks based on their percentage but otherwise have the exact same language as "alcohol". Then the government wouldn't get to over-regulate the production, sales and use of alcohol to death, and it might lose its ability to stick its nose into people's private lives where it doesn't loving belong. That simply can't happen! The government knows what's best for you, citizen, and its ability to micromanage the smallest things must not be impeded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why is alcohol even so over-classified? It seems like it would massively benefit everyone involved, from the regulators to the producers to the consumers if all our weird rear end liquor laws were just totally thrown out and some very simple universal modern standards adopted. Maybe just have a few categories of drinks based on their percentage but otherwise have the exact same language as "alcohol". Not a bad idea. The only thing they should limit is methanol content, and they should force producers to put ingredient labels on their products (or at least on the packaging). And reduce sin taxes, while we're at it. I know they technically curb consumption, but they should at least raise the price of entry for low-end stuff while leaving the high end stuff alone. I assume this would open a can of worms for producers, who want their Grey Goose to be separated from Absolut by a certain amount. It's just frustrating paying as much for a lower-end product as others in the U.S. would pay for higher-end stuff. I'm still drinking the same amount, but I'm less free to choose what I want. We don't even have to privatize anything to pull this off, although the LCBO might lose a bit of profit. a primate has issued a correction as of 19:27 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
 So, uhh is John Baird trying to look like Kim Jong-Il on purpose here? Knowing this government and it's message control fetish I'd have to guess yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:
I think he just looks similarly unattractive in big shades
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
a primate posted:Not a bad idea. The only thing they should limit is methanol content, and they should force producers to put ingredient labels on their products (or at least on the packaging). Not to mention that sin taxes are really, really regressive and target addicts more than anyone else. Yeah, I'm sure the homeless guy picking tobacco out of cigarette butts on the street just hasn't considered that maybe it'd be in his best interest to quit smoking, and the guy pounding a fifth of cheap vodka every day is going to say, "gently caress it, I'm out!" when the price goes up another dollar. Also, as I'm a cigar smoker, I'd like to point out that the sin taxes are even more hosed up when applied to cigars. Unlike cigarettes, pipe tobacco and pretty much all forms of alcohol, a "special duty" is applied to cigars based on their price instead of the amount of tobacco they contain. If it had anything to do with health or smoking prevention, it would be based on weight (there is a much smaller tax by weight on cigars, but the bulk of the tax is based on value). It's a pure and simple money-grab.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:
It's been said before, but ever since the Duffy scandal the Harper gov has had an increasingly hard time getting their spin working again. It's one tone-deaf talking point after the next. Something's gone wrong with their message control because where they used to excel they've become almost inept. I've heard it floated (from the last thread I think) that Nigel Wright was their wunderkind spin manager and throwing him under the bus screwed them more than they are willing to admit. (apologies to whichever posters I'm not remembering enough to quote and am to lazy to search for) Ron Paul Atreides has issued a correction as of 19:41 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not to mention that sin taxes are really, really regressive and target addicts more than anyone else. Yeah, I'm sure the homeless guy picking tobacco out of cigarette butts on the street just hasn't considered that maybe it'd be in his best interest to quit smoking, and the guy pounding a fifth of cheap vodka every day is going to say, "gently caress it, I'm out!" when the price goes up another dollar. They do work, though. Sin taxes do reduce consumption of certain products like alcohol and curb the financial consequences of heavy drinking/smoking. You have a good point about cigars though - if they're not taxing the tobacco (or nicotine content), what exactly is the point? I like cigars as well, but only smoke them if someone brings some back from Cuba or if I'm out of the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Awww yeah this is hella sweet *pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew*
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:It's been said before, but ever since the Duffy scandal the Harper gov has had an increasingly hard time getting their spin working again. It's one tone-deaf talking point after the next. Something's gone wrong with their message control because where they used to excel they've become almost inept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
a primate posted:They do work, though. Sin taxes do reduce consumption of certain products like alcohol and curb the financial consequences of heavy drinking/smoking. There's a certain market of price-conscious people for which they certainly do work (and curbing teen smoking/drinking has traditionally been a big justification for sin taxes, and that's a very price-sensitive market), but as you pointed out, as often as not people will end up drinking the same amount of something cheaper. Not to mention, at the high end of the market, there's really no justification for sin taxes because the products are already so hideously expensive that price-conscious consumers won't buy them. Yeah, I'm sure the extra bit of alcohol tax is really going to put a guy off buying a first-growth Bordeaux...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:There's a certain market of price-conscious people for which they certainly do work (and curbing teen smoking/drinking has traditionally been a big justification for sin taxes, and that's a very price-sensitive market), but as you pointed out, as often as not people will end up drinking the same amount of something cheaper. Not to mention, at the high end of the market, there's really no justification for sin taxes because the products are already so hideously expensive that price-conscious consumers won't buy them. Yeah, I'm sure the extra bit of alcohol tax is really going to put a guy off buying a first-growth Bordeaux... Yea, that's why I think we should make the pricing staircase such that the first step is a doozy, but the rest aren't separated by much. We aren't doing the public any good making high-end liquor so expensive, so why bother?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
a primate posted:You have a good point about cigars though - if they're not taxing the tobacco (or nicotine content), what exactly is the point? I like cigars as well, but only smoke them if someone brings some back from Cuba or if I'm out of the country. The point is to generate revenue for the operation of government services. Anyone buying fancy cigars can afford to chip in more so they should.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
a primate posted:Yea, that's why I think we should make the pricing staircase such that the first step is a doozy, but the rest aren't separated by much. We aren't doing the public any good making high-end liquor so expensive, so why bother? I agree with you in principle, but I'm still not sure what to do about legitimate addicts. You can't get clean unless you want to, and there's almost no price-sensitivity. People will do what they need to do to get their drug when they're addicted, so although you're probably going to discourage consumption somewhat, there's going to be increased societal effects due to theft, smuggling, unsafely-made white lightning, etc. Thinking that making liquor expensive is going to keep drunks from drinking it is the same sort of bad thinking that justifies the War on Drugs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:The point is to generate revenue for the operation of government services. Anyone buying fancy cigars can afford to chip in more so they should. If it weren't for the insane taxes, you could buy a decent cigar for the same price as a beer. Why are cigars more deserving to be taxed punitively compared to any other tobacco product, alcoholic beverage, or any luxury product at all? I mean, I know you're a pinko who thinks people shouldn't have nice things, but try to think like a normal person for just a moment. Another point: the government also isn't getting much bang for its buck -- unlike GST, tobacco taxes are collected by the wholesaler, so of the massive increase in price that taxes cause, the government only collects a small portion. If the tax was collected at sale instead, as GST is, the government could increase tax, collect more money, and keep the end price of the product the same!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
colonel_korn posted:Nova Scotia has a couple good ones that I've heard of (Propeller and Garrison). PEI has I think one brewing company, but I've never tried any of their stuff. Apparently Propeller is very popular and well regarded by beer-nerds. I used to drink it exclusively because it was local, but the novelty of traditional beers made using time-honored recipes started feeling nouveau-yuppy and now I drink lighter stuff or my own. Still, my brother-in-law always brings as much as he can fit in the car when he visits the maritimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:The point is to generate revenue for the operation of government services. Anyone buying fancy cigars can afford to chip in more so they should. That's true and a really good point. However, we already know the LCBO can afford to reduce its prices a bit, since the The Star broke the story that they're terrible at bargaining with their suppliers. This is devolving into a bit more regionalchat than I intended. Apoligies to OP. Maybe something interesting will happen on the hill to save us from booze chat v9.18
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
4 pages in and we're already talking about food. That has to be some kind of record. Re: Quebecor selling off the Sun papers, the sooner those rags disappear, the better. I will however, miss those hilarious front pages that roll out whenever the Liberals win the provincial elections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
a primate posted:That's true and a really good point. Again, why should specific categories of products (especially as narrow as "cigars" and not simply all forms of tobacco) be singled out for this sort of thing? Why not just have a higher GST rate on anything other than food or clothing, or anything above a certain price? A cigar is only an expensive luxury good in Canada because our taxes drive up the price considerably; if they were taxed by weight similar to how pipe tobacco is taxed, they'd be far more within the reach of the average person. Further, it's not like obvious luxury goods like watches that cost more than my salary are subject to an extra punitive tax that in some cases reaches over 100% of wholesale value (and, by the time markups are applied, contribute much more to the cost of the final product). If you want to have a discussion about raising the GST, we can do that. But don't pretend that the specific cigar duty, such as it currently exists, is anything but ill-conceived policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
My understanding is that teenagers are very price sensitive when it comes to alcohol and tobacco products. When you make those things more expensive then teenagers consume less of them, and since many people develop dependencies during their youth we probably can reduce the number of addicts by pricing young people out of those consumer groups. Obviously it's a blunt instrument and really this calls for greater study but in principle it isn't ridiculous to think that raising the price of habit forming substances can reduce addiction rates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:31
|
|