Rob Breakenridge: Defying supply management could lead to beneficial changes
The quest by Premier Danielle Smith to establish more clearly delineated lines of 'autonomy' is certainly not intended to deliver benefit to the rest of Canada.
Article content
Frankly, it's not clear that some of these ideas even benefit Alberta. However, there are areas where a benefit to this province overlaps with a benefit to the country. Prioritizing those issues would be the smart strategy.
Article content
Article content
Article content
The premier's response strongly implies that the door is open to such a move.
Article content
'Creating our own Alberta version of supply management, maybe as a pathway to a market system and maybe just because it would stick our finger in the eye of Quebec . . . might be (something) we want to do a little consultation on,' she said.
Article content
We'll see just how serious the premier is about this, but it is something Alberta should further explore, for a variety of reasons.
Article content
If nothing else, this could finally advance the debate in Canada around an issue where many politicians have been afraid to take such a contrarian stance. It's unfortunate that federal politicians are so beholden to the status quo that it takes a rebellious provincial leader to push for change.
Article content
Article content
Supply management — the regime that regulates the production and price of dairy, eggs and poultry — has been thrust into the national conversation amid trade talks with the U.S. and American frustration over the system's blatant protectionism.
Article content
That frustration is not confined to just our American partners — our stubborn intransigence on supply management previously derailed trade talks with the U.K. and jeopardized our involvement in the Trans Pacific Partnership. (In fact, just last week, New Zealand prevailed in a TPP dispute against Canada over supply management quotas).
Article content
Given the importance of global trade to much of Alberta's ag sector — including the billions of dollars worth of beef and canola exported annually to the U.S. — we should champion their cause and oppose policies that imperil that market access.
Article content
There's also the fact that supply management artificially limits the size of these specific sectors within Alberta. As the premier noted in her remarks last week, Alberta is underrepresented in its share of the quotas under supply management, whereas Quebec holds about 37 per cent of dairy quotas.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
11 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
GOLDSTEIN: Alberta's separation question, unlike Quebec's, is crystal clear
Premier Danielle Smith speaks to reporters during a press conference at the Alberta Legislature, in Edmonton, May 6, 2025. Photo by David Bloom / Postmedia Network Whatever one thinks of Alberta's separation movement, the referendum question it seeks to pose to Albertans is a vast improvement over those confronting voters in the 1995 and 1980 Quebec referenda on separation. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Proposed by Mitch Sylvestre, chair of the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project, it seeks a 'YES' or 'NO' answer to the question: 'Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?' That would appear to satisfy the first requirement of the federal Clarity Act passed by Parliament in 2000, incorporating the legal advice of the Supreme Court of Canada, that the question on separation must be 'clear' to those voting on it. Particularly so when compared to the question posed to Quebecers in the 1995 Quebec referendum on separation. It read: 'Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. While Quebecers are astute followers of politics, understanding this question required knowing, as explained by The Canadian Encyclopedia online, that 'the bill' referred to Quebec's Bill 1, An Act Respecting the Future of Quebec, which included a declaration of sovereignty in its preamble, while 'the agreement signed on 12 June 1995' referenced an accord between the Parti Quebecois and the Action democratic du Quebec (ADQ) party, ratified by then-Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau, then-BQ leader Lucien Bouchard and then-ADQ leader Mario Dumont. The question posed to Quebecers in the first separation referendum in 1980 was even more complex. It read: 'The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The 'NO' side, opposed to separation, won the 1995 referendum by the narrowest of margins — 50.58% to 49.42% for the 'YES' side — a winning margin of a mere 54,288 votes out of 4,671,008 valid ballots cast, with a registered voter turnout of 93.52%. The 1980 Quebec referendum on separation failed by a much wider margin, with 59.56% voting 'NO' to 40.44% for the 'YES' side — a winning margin of 702,139 votes out of 3,673,843 valid ballots cast, with a registered voter turnout of 85.6%. In the wake of those votes and, in particular, given the razor-thin vote for the 'NO' side in the 1995 Quebec referendum, the 2000 federal Clarity Act specified that in addition to a 'clear question,' a 'clear majority' of voters was required to decide the issue, without explaining what a clear majority meant. The proposed referendum question in Alberta still has several legal and political hurdles to clear and faces a competing referendum question asking: 'Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?' That said, it would be hard to fault Alberta's proposed question on separation for a lack of clarity. Read More MLB Celebrity Wrestling Toronto & GTA Ontario
Winnipeg Free Press
11 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Biden aide denounces GOP probe as baseless and denies any cover-up
WASHINGTON (AP) — A longtime close aide to President Joe Biden on Wednesday denounced Republican investigations into the former president as 'baseless' in testimony to lawmakers and defended Biden as capable of carrying out his presidential duties 'at all times.' Steve Ricchetti, a senior advisor to Biden during his presidency, wrote in his opening statement to the House Oversight Committee that he was willing to answer lawmakers' questions about Biden's mental state while in office despite Republicans' effort to 'intimidate officials who served in the previous administration.' 'I believe it is important to forcefully rebut this false narrative about the Biden presidency and our role in it,' Ricchetti said. 'There was no nefarious conspiracy of any kind among the president's senior staff, and there was certainly no conspiracy to hide the president's mental condition from the American people,' wrote Ricchetti, who has served as an aide to Biden since 2012. He said Biden was 'fully capable' of carrying out his duties throughout his term. Ricchetti's testimony comes after weeks of appearances from former Biden aides as House Republicans seek to build their investigation, which is central to their oversight agenda as they seek to turn the spotlight back to the last administration. Some former staffers, including Biden's physician, Kevin O'Connor, and Anthony Bernal, a top aide to former first lady Jill Biden, invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer questions from the committee. Others, including former White House chief of staff Ron Klain and Neera Tanden, former director of the Domestic Policy Council, have answered the committee's questions at length. The committee will hear from seven more senior Biden staffers in the coming weeks. The Trump White House has launched its own inquiry into Biden. In June, Trump issued an executive order that argued there were 'clear indications' that Biden 'lacked the capacity to exercise his presidential authority' and ordered an investigation into 'whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden's mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the president.' Ricchetti argued the Republican-led inquiries were 'an obvious attempt to deflect from the chaos of this administration's first six months.' He contrasted it with what he said were Biden's accomplishment on issues like infrastructure, inflation, climate policy and the coronavirus response. 'I firmly believe that at all times during my four years in the White House, President Biden was fulfilling his constitutional duties. Did he stumble? Occasionally. Make mistakes? Get up on the wrong side of the bed? He did — we all did. But I always believed — every day — that he had the capability, character, and judgment to be president of the United States,' Ricchetti said. At the heart of the Republican probe is a legal dispute over the Biden White House's use of the autopen, a device used in all presidential administrations to issue the president's signature for laws and executive orders. Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration allege, without evidence, that Biden was not in a cogent state of mind for much of his presidency and that many policies enacted during his time in office may consequently be illegal. Biden has called Trump and House Republicans 'liars' for the claim and said he 'made every single one' of the decisions in office that involved an autopen. Biden's aides are now echoing that sentiment directly to the committee. Republicans are still eager to highlight Biden's various gaffes as a political cudgel against Democrats. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, have largely dismissed House Republicans' probe as a distraction from the Trump administration's agenda. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Texas Democrat who sits on the House Oversight Committee, said Republicans in the probe 'look like losers' after she exited the deposition for Anthony Bernal, the former chief of staff to Jill Biden.
Global News
an hour ago
- Global News
US ends ‘de minimus' tariff exemption for all low-value packages
The United States is suspending a 'de minimis' exemption that allowed low-value commercial shipments to be shipped to the United States without facing tariffs, the White House said on Wednesday. Under an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday, packages valued at or under US$800 sent to the U.S. outside of the international postal network will now face 'all applicable duties' starting August 29, the White House said. Trump earlier targeted packages from China and Hong Kong, and the White House said the recently signed tax and spending bill repealed the legal basis for the de minimis exemption worldwide starting on July 1, 2027. 2:07 Carney says U.S. trade talks at 'intense phase,' as deadline looms 'Trump is acting more quickly to suspend the de minimis exemption than the OBBBA requires, to deal with national emergencies and save American lives and businesses now,' the White House said in a fact sheet, referring to the bill known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Story continues below advertisement Goods shipped through the postal system will face one of two tariffs: either an 'ad valorem duty' equal to the effective tariff rate of the package's country of origin or, for six months, a specific tariff of $80 to $200 depending on the country of origin's tariff rate.
