Calgary Openings, Closings, and Developments

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Doesn’t Quebec have the second highest population in all of Canada? That seems fairly lucrative. What is specifically onerous about doing business there?

Really doesn’t seem like that big a reach to say multiple packaging runs, and extra shipping logistics could be prohibitive if your not selling enough product to that “special needs” group. Maybe they’re still making a profit, but the switchover from 2mil English only units to 20k English & French units, segregated storage, etc just isn’t worth it? Switchover from American to Canadian English packaging probably uses the same basic printing template, where English & French is more compressed?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Doesn’t Quebec have the second highest population in all of Canada? That seems fairly lucrative. What is specifically onerous about doing business there?

Quebec has more onerous rules in pretty much every industry. I sell travel. For me to sell in Quebec I would need to write an exam, pay a fee, put down a $25,000 bond, register with a government department, and advertise in French. It's not even close to being worth it.

By comparison, California has the most onerous rules in the US by far. They are less onerous than Quebec, and California has a market bigger than all of Canada.

I think the main difference here is perspective - "2nd biggest province in Canada" is not really a big market, but their regulatory burden is easily the highest in North America.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Brendone

Really doesn’t seem like that big a reach to say multiple packaging runs, and extra shipping logistics could be prohibitive if your not selling enough product to that “special needs” group. Maybe they’re still making a profit, but the switchover from 2mil English only units to 20k English & French units, segregated storage, etc just isn’t worth it? Switchover from American to Canadian English packaging probably uses the same basic printing template, where English & French is more compressed?

The other differences are likely small enough you could consider using the same packaging for English only. If you put the weight in oz/gr at the bottom that'd probably be about it. Maybe "imported by xyz Canada" in super small print on the bottom as well, which would probably also not be a deal breaker.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

Uniqlo had big lineups when their store opened in Chinook: https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/2-000-peo...ntre-1.6536048

The lineups were insane, I walked past it at 8:30 PM on Friday and people were still lined up outside along some roped queuing areas (what do you call these?)

How was it over the weekend? I haven't bothered even trying to go back. At first glance, the space is way too small (the old Victoria Secret) and if the demand keeps up, they would be well served by moving into one of the Nordstrom floors.

The Pretzel place is making out like gangbusters being outside Uniqlo.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Quebec has more onerous rules in pretty much every industry. I sell travel. For me to sell in Quebec I would need to write an exam, pay a fee, put down a $25,000 bond, register with a government department, and advertise in French. It's not even close to being worth it.

By comparison, California has the most onerous rules in the US by far. They are less onerous than Quebec, and California has a market bigger than all of Canada.

I think the main difference here is perspective - "2nd biggest province in Canada" is not really a big market, but their regulatory burden is easily the highest in North America.

Its like how every contest and raffle you see has fine print saying that it's not applicable in Quebec. Different legal/regulations/rules, all sorts of things that it does not make sense at scale for companies to spend the extra money to be try to be compliant with.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont have an argument. I know why I personally dont do business in Quebec, but I cant really speak for other businesses.

It’s plausible that those other business owners went to French immersion school, found the experience to be traumatic and just don’t want to be triggered by reminders. It happens.

I really think that article by the Professor articulated it best.

The margins are thin and if you're not #1 you're making next to nothing. It makes more sense to quit and move along.

Yeah that’s a much more reasonable explanation than blaming package labelling requirements that the competition somehow has managed to overcome. That was what my original post was suggesting, not sure why a few of the usual suspects came in guns a blazing trying to put words in my mouth that Quebec has no regulations that could be considered cost prohibitive. Not sure why some people can’t help themselves from doing that in a discussion. Maybe it’s a reading comprehension issue or something.

Peut étre je devrais écrire mes méssages dans les deux langues officielles pour réduire la confusion? Tabernacle.

[timun]

Peut-être nous pourrions...

Spoiler!

(Not gonna lie I had to double-check my conjugation, and I'm still not entirely sure that's correct.)

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

the competition somehow has managed to overcome.

The firms with the largest market share are making the most money in a high-fixed-cost consumer goods market, that shouldn't be a surprise. That makes them the best situated to deal with higher costs.

But as Canadian consumers we should really want the marginal producers to stay in business here, because that provides a lot more price competition. There are plenty of industries where there are giant oligopolies in Canada from grocery to telecom, and I don't think it's to our advantage.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The firms with the largest market share are making the most money in a high-fixed-cost consumer goods market, that shouldn't be a surprise. That makes them the best situated to deal with higher costs.

But as Canadian consumers we should really want the marginal producers to stay in business here, because that provides a lot more price competition. There are plenty of industries where there are giant oligopolies in Canada from grocery to telecom, and I don't think it's to our advantage.

So you’re doubling down on the packaging labels being the straw that broke the camel’s back?

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The new McDonald's on 17th is crazy. Rooftop patio!

Too bad there's next to no parking after you take out the curbside pickup stalls. There's way too much roadway, not nearly enough parking space.

[spetch]

Once bill 96 came into law, I restricted my webstore from purchasing in Quebec. I did not want to get sued because I don't have any staff that could speak French. So its not only packaging that companies need to worry about.

[Manhattanboy]

My Canada includes Kleenex.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

My Canada includes Kleenex.

Then unfortunately your Canada is dead....

[Calgary14]

Planet Fitness going in where the Value Village used to be in Midnapore

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It’s plausible that those other business owners went to French immersion school, found the experience to be traumatic and just don’t want to be triggered by reminders. It happens.



Yeah that’s a much more reasonable explanation than blaming package labelling requirements that the competition somehow has managed to overcome. That was what my original post was suggesting, not sure why a few of the usual suspects came in guns a blazing trying to put words in my mouth that Quebec has no regulations that could be considered cost prohibitive. Not sure why some people can’t help themselves from doing that in a discussion. Maybe it’s a reading comprehension issue or something.

Peut étre je devrais écrire mes méssages dans les deux langues officielles pour réduire la confusion? Tabernacle.

You called people out for being prejudiced.

People with actual businesses came in and explained why - FOR THEIR BUSINESS - the regulatory and cost requirements of dealing with Quebec don't make sense.

You reduce that argument to 'packaging labels' and declare: yes, people are prejudiced towards Quebec! And then you get all self-righteous about it and throw in some French to be condescending.

That's a hell of a series of posts. Businesses run on profit. I get that that isn't the motivation of unions. But it shouldn't be hard to understand, without trying to label people for presenting opposing arguments.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You called people out for being prejudiced.

People with actual businesses came in and explained why - FOR THEIR BUSINESS - the regulatory and cost requirements of dealing with Quebec don't make sense.

You reduce that argument to 'packaging labels' and declare: yes, people are prejudiced towards Quebec! And then you get all self-righteous about it and throw in some French to be condescending.

That's a hell of a series of posts. Businesses run on profit. I get that that isn't the motivation of unions. But it shouldn't be hard to understand, without trying to label people for presenting opposing arguments.

Lol.

The post by Manhattanboy that was being responded to literally only mentioned the bilingual labelling as being a barrier, so yeah that’s what I’m going to continue discussing.

I don’t think you’re as good at what you’re trying to do here as you think you are. Bonus points for trying to bring Unions into it though.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You called people out for being prejudiced.

[...]

You reduce that argument to 'packaging labels' and declare: yes, people are prejudiced towards Quebec!

Let's be clear this discussion came from a hypothetical that Manhattanboy threw out:

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Selling products in Canada is unduly expensive.

I wonder what would happen if bilingual labeling laws were repealed.

bizaro86 chimed in to say that bilingual packaging requirements are a "hidden subsidy" to Quebec that the rest of Canadians pay for, which is just nonsense. Wormius chimed in to ask "Would the printing really make any difference at all? [...] It’s not like anything appreciable changes by having a bilingual text on the package." To which iggy_oi responded:

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It’s usually just used as a talking point by people who don’t like Quebec.

And he's right, it is usually just a talking point by people who don't like Quebec.

To your assertion that:

People with actual businesses came in and explained why - FOR THEIR BUSINESS - the regulatory and cost requirements of dealing with Quebec don't make sense.

... only two people came in and explained why, for their business, the regulatory requirements of "dealing" with Quebec don't make sense. bizaro86 explained that in order to sell travel he would need to jump through the extra hoops of "taking an exam, paying a fee, putting down a $25,000 bond, registering with a government department, and advertising in French". Spetch added that he restricted his webstore from being accessible in Quebec because under the (unconstitutional) provisions of Quebec's Bill 96 amendments to their language laws, he was worried he could be sued for not having the website in French/having staff who spoke French.

Locke said "the only place I do not do taxes for is Quebec", saying "it's not worth it" because of "the cost outlay and too many hassles", but that doesn't explain why the regulatory and cost requirements of "dealing with Quebec" don't make sense: it's just a statement that "it's not worth the hassle".

You said "in my business, we have eliminated all of our Quebec clients, because the regulators have made it too onerous to serve them," which, again, isn't an explanation. It's just a statement with no explanation at all about what it is exactly that is too onerous.

And then you get all self-righteous about it and throw in some French to be condescending.

This is also very condescending:

Businesses run on profit. I get that that isn't the motivation of unions. But it shouldn't be hard to understand

[jayswin]

Excellent post

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by timun

Let's be clear this discussion came from a hypothetical that Manhattanboy threw out:

bizaro86 chimed in to say that bilingual packaging requirements are a "hidden subsidy" to Quebec that the rest of Canadians pay for, which is just nonsense. Wormius chimed in to ask "Would the printing really make any difference at all? [...] It’s not like anything appreciable changes by having a bilingual text on the package." To which iggy_oi responded:

And he's right, it is usually just a talking point by people who don't like Quebec.

To your assertion that:

... only two people came in and explained why, for their business, the regulatory requirements of "dealing" with Quebec don't make sense. bizaro86 explained that in order to sell travel he would need to jump through the extra hoops of "taking an exam, paying a fee, putting down a $25,000 bond, registering with a government department, and advertising in French". Spetch added that he restricted his webstore from being accessible in Quebec because under the (unconstitutional) provisions of Quebec's Bill 96 amendments to their language laws, he was worried he could be sued for not having the website in French/having staff who spoke French.

Locke said "the only place I do not do taxes for is Quebec", saying "it's not worth it" because of "the cost outlay and too many hassles", but that doesn't explain why the regulatory and cost requirements of "dealing with Quebec" don't make sense: it's just a statement that "it's not worth the hassle".

You said "in my business, we have eliminated all of our Quebec clients, because the regulators have made it too onerous to serve them," which, again, isn't an explanation. It's just a statement with no explanation at all about what it is exactly that is too onerous.

This is also very condescending:

To the first bold, you are making (repeating) a claim that no one has presented any evidence to support - again, people are being accused of prejudice here, simply because some of you don't see, or won't recognize, the claims they are making about costs. Go ahead and back up the claim that they 'don't like Quebec', if you think you can.

To the second bold, you are claiming that (Locke and) I haven't explained why it doesn't make sense to deal in Quebec. But I literally did. I said the regulators have made it onerous. Would you like me to paste all of the regulatory requirements that my business would face to deal with Quebec? (because I am not going to).

I didn't simply decide not to operate in Quebec, I WAS operating in Quebec, and walked away from it, because it simply wasn't worth it, as it has gotten increasingly onerous in the last few years. You can choose to accept that or not, I really don't care. But my point is not lessened, simply because I didn't post a massive wall of text explaining what exactly all those regulations are.

As to the condescension, it wasn't started by me, I was simply responding in kind. It really pisses me off when people casually call other people racist, as a matter of course, simply because they don't understand, or don't care to understand where those people are coming from - iggy called people racist, and then became condescending when challenged on it.

Anyway, this is the last I'll post on this conversation.

[timun]

With respect to iggy_oi's remark that "It’s usually just used as a talking point by people who don’t like Quebec," the operative "it" in question is the baseless idea that bilingual packaging requirements are a "subsidy to Quebec" and something that materially increases the costs of doing business in Canada in general. In reality, as I pointed out earlier, we have other national standards that have to be met, so packaging for consumer products is (usually) unique for the Canadian market anyway. And, in point of fact, many if not most manufacturers would end up spending more money on unilingual packaging because they'd need separate sets of Canadian English and French packaging anyway.

All I said was "the idea of ditching bilingual packaging 'to save costs' usually is just used as a talking point by people who don’t like Quebec." (And I'm right!) It seems you've concocted an idea that by extension iggy_oi (/me) was implying you baselessly "don't like Quebec" and are "racist" as such, because your business decided to pull out of the Quebec market for whatever reason. I don't know why you did this, because neither iggy_oi nor I ever implied the sort. You were not in any sort of "cross-fire" with respect to this discussion until you inserted yourself into the discussion to say "businesses aren't prejudiced; it's about costs." Yeah, no ####, but the idea that bilingual packaging totally ruins the profitability of a consumer product is complete and utter nonsense as explained before and above. You dove off into this otherwise tangentially-related point about how "onerous" it is to do business in Quebec in general.


That said, with respect to your assertion that people—you in particular—"explained" to iggy_oi (/me) why they/you pulled their businesses out of Quebec: you did so in the most superficial and inadequate way possible.

Re-read what you wrote: "I didn't simply decide not to operate in Quebec, I WAS operating in Quebec, and walked away from it, because it simply wasn't worth it, as it has gotten increasingly onerous in the last few years." YOU DID "simply decide to not operate in Quebec," precisely because "it simply wasn't worth it"!

If you don't want to "paste all of the regulatory requirements that your business would face to deal with Quebec": fine. But don't be surprised that someone like me comes along, reads your comment, and says you need to provide something more substantial than "it's too onerous" to qualify as an "explanation". I have no ####ing clue what it is you even do for a living. Do you sell widgets? Do you offer professional services? (Like Locke?) Locke at least I can kind of extrapolate why he'd not bother doing taxes for people in Quebec, because there is the added complication of dealing with Revenu Quebec separately from CRA and frankly if Locke doesn't speak French it's kind of pointless and stupid for him to even attempt to woo a predominantly French-speaking clientele with tax docs in French. And if he would require a membership in the provincial professional accountants' association—which undoubtedly requires knowledge of French as a prerequisite to membership—then I can see that being a practically insurmountable hurdle. I get it: I'm an engineer and I don't have membership with L'ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, even though I do speak French (poorly, at this point). There's no point in me hanging my shingle in Quebec; I wouldn't win any business out there anyway.

But, conversely, the Quebecois engineers I know don't do business out here either, for essentially the very same reason: they'd have to prove proficiency in English to be registered with APEGA in the first place. It's as much an "onerous" hurdle for them as proving French proficiency is for me, and it would be arrogant presumption for me to pretend Alberta's "hurdles" are more justifiable. And they also face a client base that has far too many kooks who froth at the mouth at the very idea of Quebecois people being here, or Quebec-based companies trying to do business here in the first place.