Skip to main content
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Imagine what would happen if an entrepreneurial Montreal tech whiz dared to launch a milk-sharing app. It would link Quebec dairy farmers looking to sell (rather than dump) regular excess supply with local cheese makers or restaurants via their smartphones. Tentative name: Moober.

It wouldn't be five minutes before Quebec's omnipotent farmers' union and provincial bureaucrats moved to shut the operation down, charging Moober with violating the sacrosanct rules of supply management that have "stabilized" the province's milk market for five decades.

From milk to maple syrup, supply management is seen in Quebec as a way to impose order on a messy free market. No matter its costs to consumers or its economic inefficiencies, no Quebec government wishes to see the current system disrupted by innovative upstarts.

Story continues below advertisement

Protecting the value of producer quotas takes precedence over everything else. Opening up supply-managed sectors to competition would render those quotas worthless, wiping out the effective pension plans of thousands of farmers. The Quebec government would be compelled – morally, but perhaps even legally – to compensate them, costing it billions it doesn't have.

This same logic explains why Quebec moved this month to side with the taxi industry in its existential struggle with Uber, the ride-sharing service that has bulldozed the rules of the road to upend urban transportation services almost everywhere.

A May 12 bill tabled by Liberal Premier Philippe Couillard's government would force Uber drivers to buy or rent a taxi permit and comply with a host of other regulations, such as the purchase of commercial insurance and background checks, that already apply to the traditional taxi business.

Quebec's proposed law, which goes further than other attempts to regulate ride sharing in North America, would effectively make Uber's services uneconomical.

Uber maintains that three-quarters of its drivers work fewer than 20 hours a week, while a similar proportion generate less than $5,000 a year in revenue. For most, driving for Uber is a complementary source of income and it would not be worth their while to rent a taxi permit, much less buy one. Hence, the bill, if adopted, would drive Uber out of the Quebec market.

"The alternative, which was looked at, would be to end the [current] system and buy out [exisiting] taxi permits," Quebec Finance Minister Carlos Leitao said this month. "There, we're talking about several hundred million dollars."

Supply management – in this case, limiting the pool of potential taxi competitors – won out again. The bill shows the lengths Quebec governments will go to stifle innovation in the name of the status quo. Scant regard seems to have been given to the longer-term costs of discouraging entrepreneurs, gouging consumers or preventing a more efficient delivery of services.

Story continues below advertisement

Members of the Quebec Liberal Party's youth wing came out strongly against the bill. "We can't plant ourselves in the middle of the river and stop the current," one young Liberal told Le Journal de Montréal. But in the end, the government was unmoved. Even Mario Dumont, the former leader of the defunct free-market Action Démocratique du Québec, defended the government, calling the bill "probably the best option available for a minister forced to proceed by elimination between unfair, impractical or unrealistic options."

Uber didn't help its case by flouting existing laws and bragging about it. That might work in places with a more libertarian bent, but Quebec is not one of those. Neither, apparently, is Austin, Tex., despite the city's reputation as a hub for hipsters and techies. Residents there voted this month to require Uber drivers to undergo fingerprint background checks, prompting Uber to suspend its services.

Uber has opted for the carrot over the stick in Quebec. This week, it proposed to pay an annual $100,000 administration fee and charge up to 35 cents per ride, in lieu of requiring its drivers to hold a taxi permit. The fees would generate about $3-million a year for the province. Another 7 cents per ride would be collected and forwarded to the provincial automobile insurance board. And Uber drivers would begin collecting federal and Quebec sales taxes.

Mr. Couillard rejected the proposal, saying, without a hint of irony, that Uber "must innovate more, go farther with their proposition than they have." It's a question, he said, "of fairness and social justice."

It's not clear what's fair and socially just about rewarding the rent-seeking behaviour of the taxi industry at the expense of consumers and suppressing economic efficiencies that benefit everyone. But in the capital of supply management, whether it's Uber or Moober, woe is she who would disrupt the sacred cows.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies