Senate passes bill to protect supply management from any future trade deals
Article content
'We won,' said Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet enthusiastically, hours after the Senate adopted his party's bill.
Article content
Article content
Article content
C-202 sought to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to prevent the minister from 'making a commitment' that would increase the tariff rate quota for dairy, poultry, or eggs in trade negotiations. It would also prevent tariff reductions on these products when they are imported in excess.
Article content
Article content
The Bloc wanted to strengthen the long-standing federal government policy to maintain Canada's supply management system, including its production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls.
Article content
The House of Commons unanimously passed the bill last week and the Senate did so 'with division' on Tuesday evening.
Article content
'The notion of unanimity really weighed heavily. It was all parties and the unanimity of elected officials. So, everyone who speaks for Canadians and Quebecers was in favour,' Blanchet said at a press conference.
Article content
Article content
Bloc Québécois MP Yves Perron has been championing this bill for over five years. In an interview with the National Post, Perron expressed his pride.
Article content
'We have just demonstrated that the Bloc Québécois serves a purpose. I think we are capable of moving forward on issues and on a scale that is extremely positive for Quebec, but also positive for the rest of Canada,' he said. 'And the rest of Canada has finally understood this.'
Article content
But the Grain Growers of Canada argued that 'Parliament chose to prioritize one group of farmers over another,' while the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance said it was 'deeply concerned' by the adoption of 'a flawed piece of legislation that sets a troubling precedent, undermining Canada's longstanding commitment to the rules-based international trading system.'
Article content
Even if the Senate passed the bill, many senators still had some reservations on Tuesday. In a speech in the Senate, Alberta Sen. Paula Simons expressed concerns about what Bill C-202 means for national unity because it was from a Bloc MP, which advocates for the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
5 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
HANSON: Who has been busy destroying democracy?
In this pool photograph distributed by the Russian state agency Sputnik, US President Donald Trump listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a joint press conference after participating in a US-Russia summit on Ukraine at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025. Photo by Gavriil GRIGOROV/POOL / AFP via Getty Images 'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. 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 How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster, though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia, by altering the Constitution, as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' 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. Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat cancelled his re-election effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state, and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 re-election bid? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10-12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers, and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60-70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviours of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle class through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hell-bent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So, it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows, given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Toronto & GTA Columnists Money News Canada CFL
National Post
15 hours ago
- National Post
Raymond J. de Souza: When trust falls in the forest, can anybody hear?
Article content It's been more than thirty years since Francis Fukuyama published his eponymous book on trust, with a focus on economics. Trust was essential to lowering the transaction costs of trade, Fukuyama observed. The more steps required to verify the trustworthiness of a potential customer or supplier, the more expensive trade becomes, and the less economic activity results. High trust societies can have highly efficient wealth-creating markets. Low trust societies cannot. Article content At the micro level, online shopping only functions because there is a high level of trust on the part of consumers that they are not going to be swindled by whomever they just authorized to bill their credit card. At the macro level, money itself depends upon widespread trust that the national government and bank will honour the value of currency. Article content One reason for the rise of private cryptocurrencies was declining trust in such institutions. Of course, those holding cryptocurrencies put their trust in other agents — not always wisely. Article content Article content Fukuyama's observations — not original to him — do not only apply between private actors. Trust is essential in government-citizen interactions. In countries where there is low trust in the honesty and competence of the state, tax avoidance is much greater. Government regulation is only effective if citizens are generally willing to abide by the rules. If they feel at liberty to flout them, or to bribe the enforcing officials, a tool of governance is lost. Article content Law enforcement authorities are granted quite formidable powers, including arrest and incarceration. If those powers are used arbitrarily and unfairly, a criminal justice system eventually becomes an instrument of power, not justice. That claim is made by no less than the president of the United States, with Donald Trump arguing that is what was done to him. Article content Trusting strangers is essential for economics and for politics — really for any civilized order. It cannot, though, be generated by the market itself, which operates on self-interest, or the state itself, which operates on power. Trust must be generated in the institutions of culture — families, churches, neighbourhoods, fraternal associations. Article content
Globe and Mail
2 days ago
- Globe and Mail
Trump's economic meddling suggests a new kind of pay-to-play corporatism
U.S. President Donald Trump has long taken a transactional approach to economic management. He has threatened tariffs against trading partners to extract concessions, and pushed them to purchase American energy, soybeans and Boeing Co. BA-N jets to maintain access to the world's largest consumer market. Recently, the President has found a new group to shake down: American companies. This week chipmakers Nvidia Corp. NVDA-Q and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. AMD-Q agreed to pay the U.S. Treasury 15 per cent of the profits earned from selling certain advanced semiconductors in China in return for export licences. With never-ending tariff drama, the Canadian economy limps along Earlier this year, Mr. Trump demanded the U.S. government get a 'golden share' – giving it certain veto powers – as a condition for approving Nippon Steel Corp.'s NPSCY takeover of U.S. Steel Corp., and the administration is in talks to take a direct stake in Intel Corp. INTC-Q, according to media reports. The President has also called for Intel's chief executive officer to step down and said Goldman Sachs should fire its chief economist. These interventions in the private sector are happening alongside attacks on institutions that underpin well-functioning markets. Mr. Trump has threatened to fire Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell for not lowering interest rates. And he sacked the head of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics last week following an unflattering jobs report and is seeking to install a MAGA loyalist. The United States is not about to abandon market capitalism for state-centric planning, economists say. But the President does seem to favour a pay-to-play economy in which foreign countries and domestic companies pay tribute to the White House for special privileges, and business decisions are increasingly influenced by political considerations. That, economists warn, is a recipe for slower economic growth, less innovation and lower living standards over time. Past American presidents, from both parties, have used their bully pulpit alongside more aggressive measures, such as antitrust investigations, to bend the private sector, said Ryan Bourne, an economist at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-oriented think tank. 'The difference this time is that we've got to a position where the President is making deals with specific firms and demanding specific individuals resign, and telling specific companies how they can advertise their prices, and tying licences to export, effectively, to direct payments to the Treasury,' Mr. Bourne said. 'I think that the best way to think about this as a kind of economic framework is kind of like maximalist corporatism,' he said. That model is more familiar in emerging-market economies, in which weak institutions let politicians skim off the top and direct business to well-connected insiders, or in state-centric systems, such as China, where governments play a major role in allocating capital. The U.S. is hardly China – although Mr. Trump has said he'll personally direct the hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of investments other countries have promised to make in the U.S. as part of recent trade deals. And American institutions, particularly the courts, remain a check on government overreach. But there is a risk that President Trump's private-sector deal-making will distort business decisions and undercut smaller companies. 'I really worry about the competitive landscape with this,' said Mr. Bourne. 'You can come to a deal with Nvidia, AMD, Apple, these massive global companies. But the idea that some small manufacturer being squashed by tariffs is going to be able to get an audience with the President, specific exemptions or carveouts, is for the birds.' Economists also worry about Mr. Trump's attempt to exert more control over institutions, such as the Fed and the BLS, which help create the conditions for private markets to operate. Mr. Trump has walked back his threats to fire Mr. Powell, whose term as Fed chair ends in May, and financial markets have largely discounted the possibility. But the President and his top officials continue to call for huge interest rate cuts, muddying the water for the independent central bank as it tries to balance the inflationary impact of tariffs against a possible economic slowdown. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump's decision to fire the BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer – after a monthly employment report that revised down recent job creation numbers – and replace her with E.J. Antoni, chief economist of the Trump-aligned Heritage Foundation, has led some economists to worry about the quality of U.S. government data going forward. Opinion: How the new policy elite have caricatured the dismal science John Sabelhaus, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Fed statistician, said it would be difficult for a Trump loyalist, or anyone else, to rig U.S. economic data. Information about the labour market comes from too many different sources, at the state and national level, as well as from the private sector, to fudge over an extended period, he said. The bigger concern is 'that they're going to gut the BLS, and that they'll just stop producing the numbers that you need, and we lose the ability to measure the economy,' he said. Statistical agencies have already been starved of funding for years, and that trend could accelerate, he said. 'Operating in a market environment involves having the information, and we're destroying that. So, the ability of companies to make good rational decisions is really at risk.' In all of this, it's not clear whether Mr. Trump is pursuing an ideological agenda or simply trying to shore up his power and secure 'wins' he can sell to the American public, said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative, market-oriented think tank in Washington. 'Xi Jinping wanted to create a model of corporatism, state capitalism, and was very good at doing that … I think it's going beyond the evidence to argue that President Trump wants to inaugurate a state capitalist regime,' said Dr. Strain, referring to China's President. 'It's probably more likely that President Trump doesn't have strong views on different economic systems and just kind of wanted to shake down Nvidia.' Dr. Strain said that Mr. Trump's approach to the economy is currently ascendant in Washington, but it doesn't necessarily run deep within the rest of the Republican Party. 'If you put all 53 Republican senators in a room and you ask them in an anonymous poll: 'How many of you think that Nvidia should be shaken down to hand over 15 per cent of their Chinese sales revenue? How many of you think the U.S. should have a golden share in Nippon Steel? How many of you think the President should be able to ignore the law and not enforce the TikTok legislation that passed both houses?' You get 52 of them who would say this is all crazy,' said Dr. Strain. But publicly, politicians formerly committed to free markets and private enterprise have largely kept their heads down and avoided criticizing the powerful President. 'If you look, you can already see people standing up,' Dr. Strain said. 'But it's not most of them.'
