How New Zealand Cracked Canada’s Dairy Fortress – Here’s How They Did It - "Instead of trying to tear down Canada’s entire quota fortress — which, let’s be honest, has about as much political support as telling Wisconsin farmers to switch to soybeans — the Kiwis focused on something much more tactical. They proved Canadian processors were basically gaming their own system."
The Food Professor on X - "Here is what has barely been reported about the dairy dispute between Canada and the U.S. (read carefully). Milk protein isolates are concentrated dairy ingredients made by removing most of the water, fat and milk sugar from milk, leaving mainly protein. Food manufacturers use them in products such as yogurt, cheese, nutrition drinks and protein-enriched foods. Under CUSMA, isolates containing at least 85% protein can generally enter Canada tariff-free. Before CUSMA, Canada created discounted milk Classes 6 and 7, allowing Canadian processors to buy domestic protein cheaply, displace American imports and export surplus dairy ingredients at highly competitive prices. CUSMA was supposed to end this practice. Instead, Canadian dairy boards shifted similar pricing into another category, Class 4(a). In simple terms: Canada agreed to stop playing the game, then largely continued it under another name. That's not all. American exporters were also denied meaningful access to Canada’s dairy import quotas because much of that access was allocated to Canadian processors—their direct competitors. Dairy Farmers of Canada and the dairy boards were looking for trouble. They shut out American protein, expanded Canadian protein exports and did so as the CUSMA review approached. That put a large target on the sector’s back. And now, they are worried. And now, Canada is struggling to produce enough protein for its own processors due to high demand. Imports from the United States are reportedly rising, while excess butterfat is contributing to growing butter and cheese inventories. More milk could be dumped because farmers are reaching their production quotas. After years of playing games, nobody should be surprised that Washington is targeting Canadian dairy. This confrontation was entirely predictable—and represents a major lost opportunity for Canadian dairy farmers. We need to change supply management."
Clearly, Big Dairy is noble and good in protecting Canadians from evil American milk
Ong Gia Fiin Su on X - "I'm pretty happy I am allergic to milk and eggs. But ironically when I get Brown Cheese from Norway i am not impacted by the milk in it as I am from Canadian Cheese and Milk. Hum, I wonder what they do differently. Maybe, Canada is doing this deliberately."
Damn toxic American milk!
Trevor Szott on X - Bang on, I’m impressed with your work and reporting the facts the cartel doesn’t want Canadians to know. They keep selling us the dairy farm is just this little family farm BS, when it’s far from it. Excellent research"
FarNorth on X - "USA dairy: 1) allows toxic growth hormones banned in Canada and EU for good reason. 2) employs many illegal migrants working below minWage. 3) Subsidizes farmers by the cow and massively dumps million 600k gallons daily. 4), 5) etc"
Trevor Szott on X - "And Canadian dairy dumps millions litres of milk to keep their artificial inflate milk prices high. If Canada’s dairy is so good, what are you afraid of? The consumers will stay loyal to your products and not buy any USA dairy products. Protectionism only benefits the producer"
FarNorth on X - "Absolutely 100% WRONG! If Canadian farmer plans poorly and buys more cows to produce more milk than consumers consume - yes that farmer is screwed. Contrast with US where it is guaranteed that milk gets dumped because no link between production and consumption! Get it?!!!!!"
Trevor Szott on X - "Maybe if more milk enters the system we can see lower prices. Oh I was in the dairy industry in Canada and I spent lots of time in Wisconsin, so I know which country has a better product and price"
Left wingers hate choice and freedom
Clearly, to protect Canadians from American dairy products, we need to ban European butter
MaTT on X - That the dairy lobby turned out to be a bunch of arrogant incompetent clowns is the most unsurprising but also hilarious thing I’ve read today."
The Food Professor on X - "And now they are asking for protection."
Mario Zelaya on X - "BREAKING: Algonquin Power, a publicly traded, $6 billion market cap, Ontario utility company is moving its headquarters out of Canada, to Chicago. They’ve been based out of Oakville since 1988. Their reasons:
-lower US taxes
- better access to US capital
- eligibility for US investment funds Canada can’t offer
Carney knows a thing or two about why a publicly traded company would want to relocate their HQ to the US."
Rick on X - "Another reason is to try to avoid being used as a pawn against the US by our governments. Algonquin exports power to the US and Ford has said he wants to use our resources as leverage."
Our federal government keeps trying to defy economic gravity | Financial Post - "Some recent examples of ideas that were never going to hold weight include the short-term rental expense denial rule that strips a landlord of the ability to deduct legitimate expenses against rental income if the property runs afoul of provincial or municipal licensing rules. It uses the tax system to punish a licensing violation, with consequences wildly disproportionate to the offence since these landlords are supposedly the cause of Canada’s housing problems. A tax-compliant drug dealer can deduct their business expenses, but these landlords cannot. It isn’t just poor policy; it’s upside-down logic. The luxury tax on aircraft and vessels is the cleanest example of gravity winning outright. Introduced in 2022 to tax the portion of a private aircraft or vessel’s price above a set threshold, it was repealed last November once it became clear it was mostly succeeding at pushing Canadian aircraft and yacht sales across the border. The tax on luxury vehicles, harder to avoid and easier to defend politically, survived untouched. Capital doesn’t negotiate; it simply goes where the drag is lowest. Economic gravity eventually won. Then there are the measures where the warnings existed and were overridden anyway. The private corporation tax proposals in July 2017 tackled three things at once: income splitting, converting income into capital gains and passive investment income held inside private corporations. The timing gave away the intent: released in the dead of summer, with comments due a mere 76 days later. It was not a genuine consultation; it was a box checked to minimize scrutiny. The income-splitting rules were sold as a crackdown on the wealthy, but they have never needed income splitting, so the rules landed on the average small business owner. The result was a genuine firestorm because the proposals were never built to survive contact with the people they affected. The Underused Housing Tax told the same story. Aimed at non-resident, non-Canadian owners of vacant housing — another politically attractive housing villain — the tax was drafted so broadly that average Canadians who owed no tax at all still faced filing requirements and large penalties just to prove an exemption they were entitled to. The tax was mercifully scrapped in the last budget after a three-year run. The bare trust reporting rules followed this exact same arc. Despite years of warnings from the tax community and a series of recent amendments, the upcoming filing season is setting up to be yet another preventable gong show. The third category is the most telling because gravity wasn’t even allowed to do the correcting. Politics did it first. The Digital Services Tax was rescinded in 2025 within days of becoming collectible, under direct United States trade pressure. Last week, it was revealed that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s streaming-services levy, the so-called Netflix tax, is being scrapped after similar U.S. trade pressure, with the foregone revenue replaced by taxpayer-funded federal spending. The 2024 capital gains inclusion rate increase was eliminated after poor consultation and a lot of political fury. None of these examples reflect a government that reconsidered the merits; they reflect one that discovered the political cost first. New Zealand recognized decades ago that tax policy works best when taxpayers, practitioners, business leaders and government all stress-test ideas before they become political announcements. Its Generic Tax Policy Process, running since 1995, builds genuine consultation into the earliest stage of policy development rather than bolting it on after an announcement. Canada has drifted in the opposite direction. Consultation typically begins only after the government has already announced its preferred outcome. It’s then too late to test whether an idea should proceed and it only pays lip service to the feedback. The United Kingdom once had a rigorous tax policy design process — a formal five-stage Tax Consultation Framework that became an international benchmark for disciplined tax policy development — but it was replaced in June 2025 with looser Tax Policy Making Principles that trade staged rigour for government flexibility, a shift some tax professionals are already warning could mean less consultation, not more. Canada should view this as a cautionary tale. Recognizing that our tax system is failing, the Liberals promised an expert review of the corporate tax system during the 2025 election campaign. However, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne has since said he doesn’t need one. Instead, the government will once again rely on pre-budget consultations, a charade that is long on submissions, but short on meaningful influence. To date, the consultations have collected 1,300 submissions, but virtually all those submissions will be ignored. We don’t simply have bad tax policies; we have a broken process for creating them and both need reform. Engineers don’t ask the public for input and then build whatever they’d already decided to build. That’s the difference between consultation and theatre. Our government has spent more than a decade proving it can’t tell them apart. Gravity doesn’t reward the appearance of listening. It rewards the load-bearing work of doing it. Canada hasn’t reviewed or rebuilt its tax system from first principles since the Royal Commission on Taxation 60 years ago."
Per-person (inflation-adjusted) provincial government debt increased faster under Premier David Eby than any other B.C. premier over the last 50 plus years : r/ilovebc - "doesn't matter. a ton of people these days view that as a virtue. that simply means the government cares about the people rather than be stingy like doug ford /s"
"Billions every year for interest payments on debt but that’s alright just put more taxes on those of us that live here"
Per-person (inflation-adjusted) provincial government debt increased faster under Premier David Eby than any other B.C. premier over the last 50 plus years : r/ilovebc - "Obviously. They took office from the Liberals with a surplus and have blown that into a massive deficit. While also increasing the size of the provincial government from 18k employees to 35k at the same time. But hey, Elbows Up, right?!"
"Socialist governments doing socialist things again."
Per-person (inflation-adjusted) provincial government debt increased faster under Premier David Eby than any other B.C. premier over the last 50 plus years : r/ilovebc - "yeah, you keep voting for it. Same on the federal level nothing will ever change because you keep voting for it."
Per-person (inflation-adjusted) provincial government debt increased faster under Premier David Eby than any other B.C. premier over the last 50 plus years : r/ilovebc - "Remember how they kept telling us that diversity would be not only a strength but out greatest strength? How has that worked out thus far? Life in BC has gotten worse in every measurable statistic over the past generation. From debt, wages (when adjusted to inflation, cost of living, ability to find a place to live, youth unemployment, drug related deaths, ethnic violence/gangs/drug superlabs and human trafficking , money laundering, foreign buyers, new business owners that will not hire locals, trucks smashing in to over passes etc... Can we not as a province open our eyes and implement policies like Quebec to minimize the damage of federal immigration policies on our province so that we can preserve what little we have left here?"
Per-person (inflation-adjusted) provincial government debt increased faster under Premier David Eby than any other B.C. premier over the last 50 plus years : r/ilovebc - "Im lost as to why ndp voters keep voting for him Starting in 2017 they promised a crack down on gamg and drug crime. Failed
Cheap daycare. Failed Cheaper rent failed Cheaper housing failed Cancelled a massey bridge we would be driving on now , new tunnelnis 3x the pojected cost and hasnt started, all for sinister reasons
They have turned bc into a dump as they always do.
Promised better healthcare. Failed
Legalized hard drugs
David eby pretends hes mad about street disorder but whem he was part of bc civil liberties he fought to help those who commit those crimes
He flip flopped wildly to win the election and back off after he won
He likes to hide his wife is a doctor. Probably to pretend hes avg guy.
Im surprised how stupid bc voters are to be honest.
These mentally unhinged ndp voters still arr crying over christi. Its been 8 years. At what point will these morokns blame eby
None of them are aware american steel bought and paid for the bc ndp to get them elected in 2017
Bc ndp voters are leeches and stupid"
CTV News on X - "PM Carney says Ottawa is ‘loyal’ to supply management system protecting dairy sector"
Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 on X - "So they'll volunteer the sacrifice of Alberta's oil and gas industry in their trade war with the U.S., but they won't touch the privileges of Quebec dairy farmers -- even though that would dramatically lower prices for Canadians, too. No wonder Alberta separatism is growing."
The same people who defend supply management complain that high grocery prices are due to "greed"
Canada's internal trade barriers cost more than US tariffs, report finds - "Canada's self-imposed internal trade barriers carry a heavier economic cost than anything Washington has levied against the country and a new report released this week is demanding Ottawa and the provinces stop waiting and act. The Patchwork to Prosperity report, published by the Toronto Region Board of Trade, draws on International Monetary Fund analysis estimating that interprovincial trade barriers across more than 230 sectors impose costs equivalent to a 9.5 per cent tariff on the Canadian economy. That figure dwarfs the Bank of Canada's January 2026 assumption of an average US tariff rate of 5.8 per cent on Canadian goods. Eliminating those domestic barriers, the IMF has calculated, could expand Canada's GDP by roughly seven per cent over the long term, equivalent to approximately $210 billion in additional economic output. "Canada cannot control U.S. trade policy. But it can control the barriers that hold its own economy back," said Giles Gherson, president and CEO of the Toronto Region Board of Trade. "At a time of growing global uncertainty, businesses don't need another round of announcements. They need governments to deliver one Canadian market."... the report warns that piecemeal progress is not the same as a single market. Mutual recognition agreements carry exceptions, non-binding status, and withdrawal clauses. A business operating nationally can still face 13 separate regulatory systems. As the report puts it, even where individual reforms succeed, firms are left navigating "a patchwork of agreements rather than one single Canadian economy.""
This doesn't stop Canadians blindly blaming the US for all of Canada's problems. Time to call the Toronto Region Board of Trade unpatriotic and Maple MAGA
Left wingers think words speak louder than actions, so they take a Carney photo op as proof of success
Fixing Canada's productivity problem could cost trillions | Financial Post - "Canada’s dismal productivity that has significantly lagged other OECD countries over the past few decades is a common complaint. However, fixing it won’t come cheap, says a leading economist. Charles St-Arnaud, a former strategist at the Bank of Canada, says the main culprit for this underperformance has been a lack of investment in the economy. Remedying that will take an outlay he describes as “staggering.” Decades of underinvestment have resulted in Canada’s stock of capital per worker (buildings, machinery and intellectual property used in production) falling severely behind its advanced nation peers, said St-Arnaud, who is now chief economist at Servus Credit Union...
The stock of capital per worker of the OECD’s 10 most productive countries is 50 per cent higher than in Canada on average. At the top end, Switzerland’s is 118 per cent higher than Canada’s.
Since the oil bust of 2015 Canada’s stock of capital per worker has increased just 0.2 per cent a year on average, compared to 1.2 per cent in the more productive countries...
To catch up to the productivity level of these nations, Canada’s stock of capital needs to grow by up to 5.4 per cent per year over the next decade which would require an investment of $7.6 trillion. Closing half that gap would require Canada’s capital stock per worker to grow by up to 3.5 per cent annually, an investment of up to $4.5 trillion. Just to prevent the gap between Canada and its peers from widening would take an investment of up to $2.2 trillion... Doing nothing doesn’t seem an option, because if Canada’s pace of capital investment doesn’t pick up, the gap between it and its OECD peers will widen to over 60 per cent in 10 years. The elephant in the room is how to pay for it. St-Arnaud’s report also considers the costs of fixing Canada’s housing affordability crisis which over the next 10 years could take an extra $1.7 trillion above and beyond what would normally be spent on home construction. Add the two “generational challenges” together and the total nears $9 trillion. Most of the heavy lifting would fall to foreign investors. However, St-Arnaud warns that relying on money from abroad runs the risk of Canada becoming even more of an “extractive” economy where profits flow out of the country and are not invested domestically. Attracting capital may also require higher interest rates, which brings its own set of problems."
Mark Carney's Liberals back away from Billy Bishop expansion | Toronto Sun - "A carefully timed leak to the Liberal-friendly Toronto Star, published around 8 p.m. Friday, featured comments from Minister Steve MacKinnon that stopped short of explicitly cancelling the project. Still, MacKinnon’s statement and the reaction from Liberal MPs suggest the government is abandoning a project it privately supported. “At this stage, I can confirm that our focus lies on the approved safety enhancements, which are currently taking place,” MacKinnon said. The entire letter was meant to appease the people who have been campaigning against the airport’s expansion for decades, many of whom would like to see it closed. So much for Carney’s call for Canadians to think big, act bigger and move at speeds not seen in generations. Like so many promised major projects, the reality under Carney is that we’re thinking small, acting smaller and moving at the pace of Ottawa bureaucrats and NIMBYs. Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced the expansion with great fanfare in March, even including provincial funding in his budget. “With an upgraded airport on the waterfront, Toronto and Ontario will be able to compete with world-class cities around the globe, supporting tourism and business travel across Ontario and creating thousands of new jobs for Ontario workers,” Ford said at the time. The plan was to expand the runway to allow jets that are quieter and more fuel-efficient than turboprops to land at the airport. Ford’s announcement did not come out of nowhere. He had been speaking about the idea publicly for some time, and also had the backing of the Toronto Region Board of Trade, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and several other business and municipal groups. Ford also believed he had Carney’s support after the prime minister privately encouraged the expansion. That support appears to have evaporated as Carney, and his 24 Liberal MPs in the Greater Toronto Area, became the target of a public relations campaign by airport opponents. Ford’s team insists the airport expansion isn’t dead and they plan to keep moving ahead with their end of the project. There is enough wiggle room in MacKinnon’s statement that one could claim he hasn’t explicitly killed the project, but opponents of the airport are celebrating like they have won the war, not just a battle... This is not the first time the Liberals have squashed this project and hurt Canada economically. In November 2015, without conducting any study, the Justin Trudeau Liberals made cancelling the expansion of Billy Bishop Airport one of their first orders of business. That decision was a factor in Bombardier being forced to sell its C Series commercial jet program to Airbus. Porter Airlines had committed to buying 12 C Series jets, with options for 18 more, contingent on the airport expansion. When Ottawa killed the project, the order disappeared, helping throw the entire C Series program into doubt. The A220 may no longer be Canadian-owned, but it is still assembled in Montreal and could replace much of Porter and Air Canada’s aging Dash 8 fleets. The A220 is quieter overall than the Dash 8, alleviating concerns raised by activists, and it burns less fuel, making it a greener option. The airport is already undergoing a federally mandated runway extension for safety reasons. Approving the expansion at the same time should have been a no-brainer — that is if the Carney Liberals actually believed what they sold to the Canadian public about “Building Canada Strong.” Building Canada Strong apparently ends where NIMBY opposition begins."
Left wingers hate progress, development and change. But of course, high speed rail needs to be rammed through
70% of Canadians say high taxes destroying standard of living: poll | National Post - "A new poll has revealed that 70 per cent of Canadians think their high tax bill reduces their standard of living, while the majority of respondents also feel they pay too much in taxes and government subsidies are not worth the cost. The poll, which was conducted by Ipsos for the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI), reveals that the proportion of respondents in Quebec who feel their tax burden reduces their standard of living is even higher, at 74 per cent, followed by West Canada (72 per cent), Atlantic Canada (68 per cent) and Ontario (66 per cent). In addition, 63 per cent of all respondents feel they pay too much income tax (though this is down from a peak of 72 per cent in 2024) and 66 per cent believe that subsidies are not worth the cost of taxes... When it came to spending, 52 per cent of Canadians think the federal government spends too much, versus just 5 per cent who say it doesn’t spend enough. No level of government received a majority of support from respondents when asked if they felt they got their money’s worth from taxes, but provincial governments received the worst ranking, with 56 per cent of respondents saying they do not get their money’s worth... And of the sovereign wealth fund, which was announced in April, 58 per cent of respondents oppose borrowing the $25 billion set out to finance the fund’s creation. “People understand that with a federal budget in deficit, each dollar put into this fund is a dollar more of debt,” Brossard said. “Canadians don’t want more subsidies and they don’t want more spending; what they want is a government that respects their ability to pay.” The MEI report notes that the federal government is projecting a deficit of $65.4 billion for the current year. The poll comes after a recent Fraser Institute report revealed that the top 20 per cent of income-earning families in Canada pay nearly two-thirds (65.3 per cent) of the country’s personal income taxes and more than half (58.3 per cent) of total taxes. Meanwhile, the same report detailed that the bottom 20 per cent of income-earning families are estimated to pay 0.7 per cent of all federal and provincial personal income taxes and 1.7 per cent of total taxes in Canada, while earning 4.3 per cent of the total family income. Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute, said in a news release: “Canadians should be aware that the country’s tax system is already progressive, and calls to raise taxes further on top earners can have unintended economic consequences.”"
Damn Maple MAGA! Can't they understand that taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilised society?!
Time to tax the "rich" even more to pay for the left wing agenda of unlimited spending
Time to dismiss the poll because of who commissioned it, because clearly IPSOS is also corrupt and can be bought. If the MEI says the earth is round, that means it's flat. And if a left wing organisation funds a study, that can definitely be trusted because conflict of interest is only a problem when it hurts the left wing agenda
Hilariously, I saw a Canadian blame Trump for this
