Business
Vanishing lines and fading logic

From Resource Works
Canada’s road paint rules are fading fast—along with public patience
The short paint story that’s actually a big deal
Across Canada, road crews are repainting more often, spending more taxpayer money, and—ironically—emitting more carbon. Why? Because of a federal regulation aimed at reducing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in traffic paint. The change sounds technical, even trivial. It’s not.
In warm months—from May 1 to October 15—Canadian regulations now cap VOC content in road marking paint at 150 g/L, down from 450 g/L the rest of the year. The reason? To reduce smog formation during periods of high air pollution risk.
But the real-world consequences are showing up fast. Paint doesn’t last. Lines fade. And in rural areas without streetlights, that’s not a minor annoyance—it’s a serious hazard.
This isn’t just a quirky tale of bureaucratic overreach. It’s part of a larger pattern where well-intentioned environmental policy drifts into untested technocracy—implemented with little transparency, consultation, or regard for operational impact.
Municipal leaders, from Halton Hills to Brazeau County, are speaking up. First responders and firefighters are reporting crashes tied to disappearing lane markings. Yet the federal stance remains firm: the air must be cleaned—whether or not the paint adheres.
And here’s the kicker. These seasonal VOC limits? They’ve been in place since 2012 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. But what’s new is a 2023 proposal to tighten VOC limits even further, aligning Canadian standards with California’s most aggressive targets. According to the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association (CPCA):
“Canada is now expected to meet these same low VOC limits in the proposed regulations expected to pass in 2024… If passed, the outcome will mean a loss of products for Canadians, a high cost of reformulation for businesses, and minimal or no improvement in air quality.”
Let’s be clear: these proposals have not yet been enacted. But the direction is unmistakable—and it’s raising alarms in industries that value both environmental responsibility and real-world functionality.
On environmental policy, we’ve crossed a line—ironically, one you can’t see anymore because the paint wore off.
The same pressure groups lobbying against Canadian resource development are now campaigning against VOCs in coatings. And once again, Ottawa is listening—without due consideration for trade-offs, unintended consequences, or operational feasibility.
Environmental rules must pass a basic test: Do they deliver measurable public benefit without causing disproportionate harm or risk? In this case, the evidence suggests the answer is no.
If new paint regulations increase taxpayer costs, degrade road safety, and achieve little to no net environmental gain, what exactly are we doing?
We all want to live in a cleaner world. But climate stewardship does not mean blind acceptance of every restrictive measure wrapped in green.
It means balancing outcomes, respecting evidence, and listening to those who are affected on the ground. A policy that forces municipalities to paint more often, at higher cost, with lower durability, is not sustainable by any definition.
Business
Canada’s ‘supply management’ system makes milk twice as expensive and favours affluent dairy farms

From the Fraser Institute
By Fred McMahon
While the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations continue, with much speculation about potential deals, one thing is certain: Canada’s agricultural marketing boards remain a barrier to success.
A White House official said as much: “[Canada] has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of seriousness in trade discussions as it relates to removing trade barriers.” That’s a clear reference to agricultural marketing boards, our Iron Curtain trade barrier. International trade lawyer Lawrence L. Herman aptly described boards as “Canada’s Soviet-style supply management system.”
Agricultural marketing boards are as Canadian as maple syrup, but more so. Maple syrup is international. Supply management is uniquely Canadian. No other country has such a system. And for good reason. It’s odious policy, favouring an affluent few, burdening the poorest, and creating needless friction with allies and trading partners.
President Trump’s distaste for the boards is well known. But, it’s not just Donald. The European Union, the United Kingdom, the World Trade Organization (effectively all of Canada’s trading partners)—and, wait for it, the majority Canadian farmers—all oppose the boards.
Canada claims to support free trade, except when we don’t. Canada seals off a large portion of its agricultural market with the system, but gets irritable when another country closes part of its market—say for autos, aluminum or steel.
Marketing boards employ a variety of tools, including quotas and tariffs, and a large bureaucracy to block international and interprovincial trade and deprive Canadians of choice in dairy, eggs and poultry. Without competition, productivity stagnates and prices soar.
The cost of living in the United States is 8.4 per cent higher than in the Canada, rent 14.9 per cent higher. But, thanks to our marketing boards, milk is twice as expensive—C$3.07 a litre on average in Canada versus C$1.47 in the United States. The most recent estimate of the cost of the system revealed, using 2015 data, that the average Canadian household pays an extra $300 to $433 annually because of marketing boards, hitting hard poorer Canadians, who spend a higher portion of their income on food than affluent Canadians.
Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal MP and leadership contender, now director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, wrote with outrage, “The average Canadian dairy farm’s net worth is almost $4 million…. This archaic [supply-management] system forces a single mother on welfare to pay hundreds of dollars more per year than she needs to, just so we can continue to enrich a small number of cartel millionaires… members of the oft-vilified ‘one-percent’.”
Don’t expect meaningful negotiations. Canada’s Parliament, endorsed by the Senate, recently unanimously passed Bill C-202, which prohibits the foreign affairs minister from negotiating increased quotas or reduced tariffs for imports of supply-managed products.
The dairy industry, particularly in Quebec, is the big player. To protect this mighty lobby, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet proposed C-202, backed by all parties, fearing a Quebec backlash if they stood up for Canadians, including for Quebecers who lack the privilege of owning one of province’s 4,200 multi-million-dollar dairy farms of Canada’s 9,400.
The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (CAFTA), Grain Growers of Canada (GGC), and other farm groups oppose C-202. Scott Hepworth, acting chair of GGC, said, “Parliament chose to prioritize one group of farmers over another. As a grain producer, I know firsthand how important international trade is to my family’s livelihood. Without reliable access to global markets, farmers like me are left behind.”
Canada has 65,000 grain farms and 53,000 pig and beef farms, compared to 14,700 supply-managed farms, less than one per cent of the total of 190,000 farms in Canada.
Marketing boards benefit a tiny minority of Canadian farmers while damaging the majority and increasing prices for all Canadians. One benefit of Donald Trump’s trade war against Canada has been the resolve on all levels of government to reduce home-grown obstacles to growth, including iron trade curtains between provinces.
The spineless response to C-202 reveals the weakness of that resolve and politician’s willingness to bend the knee to rich lobbies, toss other farmers under the bus, and carelessly pile on costs for Canadians, particularly low-income ones.
Business
Conservative MPs denounce Liberal plan to strip charitable status of pro-life, Christian groups

From LifeSiteNews
Conservative MPs presented a petition in Parliament defending pro-life charities and religious organizations against a Liberal proposal to strip their charitable tax status.
Conservative MPs presented a petition calling for the rejection of the Liberals’ plan to strip pro-life charities and places of worship of their charitable status.
During the September 16 session, Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs) Andrew Lawton, Jacob Mantle, and Garnett Genuis defended pro-life charities and places of worship against Liberal recommendations to remove the institutions’ charitable status for tax purposes.
“I have received from houses of worship across this country so much concern, reflected in this petition, that these recommendations are fundamentally anti-free speech and anti-religious freedom,” Lawton told Parliament. “The petitioners, and I on their behalf, advocate for the complete protection of charitable status regardless of these ideological litmus tests.”
Similarly, Mantle, a newly elected MP, added that Canadians “lament that some members opposite are so blinded by their animus towards charitable organizations that they would seek to undermine the good works that these groups do for the most vulnerable Canadians.”
Religious charities provide care and compassion to the most vulnerable in our society, but some members of the Liberal and New Democratic parties are so blinded by their animus towards religion and faith that they are actively seeking to revoke the charitable status of ALL… pic.twitter.com/O12rkw3pJ0
— Jacob Mantle (@jacobmantle) September 16, 2025
Finally, Genuis, who officially presented the petition signed by hundreds of Canadians, stressed the importance work accomplished by religious and pro-life organizations.
“(R)eligious charities in Canada provide vital services for society, including food banks, care for seniors, newcomer support, youth programs and mental health outreach, all of which is rooted in their faith tradition, and that singling out or excluding faith charities from the charitable sector based on religious belief undermines the diversity and pluralism foundational to Canadian society,” he explained.
As LifeSiteNews previously reported, before last Christmas, a proposal by the all-party Finance Committee suggested legislation that could strip pro-life pregnancy centers and religious groups of their charitable status.
The legislation would amend the Income Tax Act and Income Tax. Section 429 of the proposed legislation recommends the government “no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.”
The bill, according to the finance department, would require “registered charities that provide services, advice, or information in respect of the prevention, preservation, or termination of pregnancy (i.e., destroying the unborn)” to disclose that they “do not provide specific services, including abortions or birth control.”
Similarly, Recommendation 430 aims to “amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.”
Many Canadians have warned that the proposed legislation would wipe out thousands of Christian churches and charities across Canada.
As LifeSiteNews reported in March, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) appealed to the Liberal government to rethink the plan to strip pro-life and religious groups of their tax charity status, stressing the vital work done by those organizations.
-
National2 days ago
Chrystia Freeland resigns from Mark Carney’s cabinet, asked to become Ukraine envoy
-
International2 days ago
France records more deaths than births for the first time in 80 years
-
Energy2 days ago
A Breathtaking About-Face From The IEA On Oil Investments
-
Business2 days ago
Ottawa’s so-called ‘Clean Fuel Standards’ cause more harm than good
-
Business2 days ago
The Truth Is Buried Under Sechelt’s Unproven Graves
-
Health2 days ago
Canadians diagnosed with cancer in ER struggle to receive treatment as Liberals keep pushing MAiD
-
COVID-191 day ago
Freedom Convoy leader slams Canadian gov’t agency for praising its treatment of protesters
-
Crime1 day ago
Struggle for control of the Sinaloa Carel has ramifications for Canada