Quebec has made an uber mess out of what should have been something so simple.
This does not bode well for the Liberals who promised less government, less interference in our lives, less economic nationalism.
We may soon be known as one of the few places in the world in which Uber will not operate.
It is so typical of the nanny state attitude of Quebec, where so often vested interests and acquired rights trump common sense and the best interests of the citizens.
Why do we pay so much for dairy products, or eggs or chicken or beer or maple syrup?
It’s all because of quotas or price minimums designed to protect not consumers, but a Soviet-style system of supply management.
We love quotas so much that Revenue Quebec has them for its inspectors and we all know our police departments are expected to deliver a monthly quota of tickets.
Q is for Quebec. Q is for quota
This all brings us back to the silly protectionist legislation designed to put Uber out of business and deny Quebecers cheaper options.
It’s not about consumer protection. It’s about protecting an industry that has failed to modernize.
All Uber did was rattle some rusty cages.
Taxi companies are to blame and municipal governments are to blame for allowing a system where fares are controlled, the number of taxis on the road is controlled and where the black market value of permits has reached into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
By basically banning competition, some owners of permits have done very well indeed.
What the government needs to do is level the playing field.
Perhaps a buyback of taxi permits would work and each Uber ride would be taxed to pay for it.
The taxi drivers aren’t to blame for this mess and they need some help to adjust to a new reality. They should not be penalized.
It’s an industry that was created and nurtured based on restriction, lack of competition and total self-interest without regard to customers who actually pay the bills.
So ask yourself whose interest is the government protecting with its anti-Uber bill?
Not yours, not mine.
A big mess from a minister who seems to have run out of ideas and doesn’t understand innovation.
PQ's leadership candidates
Veronique Hivon, a McGill-educated lawyer, is bright, likes consensus and is looking for a new approach.
She seems sincere and well meaning. And she wants to be PQ leader.
Madame Hivon says she wants to re-invent the PQ to make it more attractive to young people and to avoid talking about referendums... at least for now.
That’s like not wanting to talk about that big elephant in the corner.
Not sure how well that is going to sit with the hardliners in the party.
I often think the best part of a journey is not the destination but getting there.
But for Hivon, when talking about her quest for sovereignty, she says the getting there is not really important.
She says separation is a lot like vacation planning.
“When I talk about sovereignty and attaining our full freedom, if people were asking us ok ... What about the flight, what about the schedule? That’s not what it’s all about.”
The getting there is important. How you get there is important. And so is what’s left standing.
The new generation Pequistes like Hivon and Alexandre Cloutier seem a little out of their depth.
This PQ field promises to campaign in the shallow end of the pool .
They may be a new generation but they are not well seasoned.
They sort of remind me of Beaujolais Nouveau, a kicked-up grape juice which tries to pass as wine.
Harmless enough, but hardly serious.
