From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

Senior Fellow Brian Giesbrecht says it’s time to stop coddling millionaire dairy barons. Supply management drives up grocery bills, blocks trade and makes Canada a global joke. Australia fixed it—we can too.

Canadians are paying the price for political cowardice

Canada’s outdated supply management system forces the average Canadian family to spend $500 a year to protect a small group of wealthy dairy producers, most of them millionaires. This protectionist regime enriches a few at the expense of many, drives up food prices and undermines Canada’s credibility in trade negotiations. It no longer fits the times, and it has to go.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about attacking dairy farmers. Most are hardworking, conscientious people who’ve built their lives around a system they didn’t create. They rise early, work long hours, rarely take holidays and deserve fair compensation if the system is dismantled. But good intentions don’t justify bad policy.

Under supply management, the government tightly controls how much dairy, poultry and eggs Canadian farmers can produce and imposes steep tariffs—sometimes more than 400 per cent—on imported products to limit competition. The result is artificially high prices, limited consumer choice and retaliatory tariffs from other countries.

This system, once designed to protect small family farms, is now dominated by fewer than 10,000 large operations, many worth millions. It no longer serves its original purpose, yet it remains in place because of political cowardice. Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney both know the system is flawed but won’t challenge it. Why? Because it’s popular in Quebec, a province with significant electoral influence. No party wants to risk alienating those voters.

Australia and New Zealand once faced similar challenges. They phased out their systems, fairly compensated farmers through levies and built globally competitive dairy sectors. We can too. Trump’s return to power may force our hand, but it also gives us an opportunity to act on what we should have done long ago.

Even without outside pressure, the inefficiency is clear. Every year, billions of litres of milk are dumped when quotas are exceeded. At the same time, Canadian companies like Saputo are forced to relocate abroad to reach global markets. Our artisan cheese producers are trapped in a small domestic economy while foreign markets block our exports in retaliation for our own protectionism.

The hypocrisy is glaring. We call for free trade but defend a system that imposes up to 400 per cent tariffs on imports. Our global partners are right to scoff.

Trump did. In a social media post, he wrote: “Canada is a very difficult country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400 per cent Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products.” And in his July 10 letter announcing 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods, he added: “Canada charges extraordinary Tariffs to our Dairy Farmers—up to 400 per cent—and that is even assuming our Dairy Farmers even have access to sell their products to the people of Canada.”

This isn’t just an American objection. High-quality dairy from France and Germany can’t be sold in Canada because of our import barriers. Their governments respond by blocking our dairy exports. Canada loses jobs, investment and credibility.

Some defenders claim foreign dairy is unsafe. But countries like France and Germany have food safety standards as strict as ours. And Canada already has legal mechanisms to block substandard imports. We don’t need tariffs for that.

Former Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay said it plainly: supply management is a dead end. So did Maxime Bernier, who made it a central issue during his bid for the Conservative leadership. The dairy lobby made sure he didn’t win. And we’re still stuck.

Now, all parties have voted to exclude supply management from current trade talks. We are entering negotiations that demand fair treatment while protecting one of the most unfair systems in the developed world. It’s a national embarrassment.

But this can change. A phased buyout funded by a modest, temporary levy—not taxpayer dollars—could end supply management and open our dairy sector to global opportunity. Australia and New Zealand proved it works. Their citizens don’t pay $10 for butter or yogurt. Neither should we.

It’s time to stop protecting the past. Dismantle the system. Free our producers. Lower grocery bills. Restore our credibility.

Maxime Bernier saw it in 2017. Trump is saying it again in 2025.

This time, we’d better listen.

Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge and senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

From the Fraser Institute

By Lydia Miljan

In How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that while some democracies collapse due to external threats, many more self-destruct from within. Democratic backsliding often occurs not through dramatic coups but through the gradual erosion of institutions by elected leaders—presidents or prime ministers—who subvert the very system that brought them to power. Sometimes this process is swift, as in Germany in 1933, but more often it unfolds slowly and almost imperceptibly.

The book was written during Donald Trump’s first presidential term, when the authors expressed concern about his disregard for democratic norms. Drawing on Juan Linz’s 1978 work The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, Levitsky and Ziblatt identified several warning signs of democratic decline in Trump’s leadership: rejection of democratic rules, denial of the legitimacy of political opponents, tolerance or encouragement of violence, and a willingness to restrict dissent including criticism from the media.

While Trump is an easy target for such critiques, Levitsky and Ziblatt’s broader thesis is that no democracy is immune to these threats. Could Canada be at risk of democratic decline? In light of developments over the past decade, perhaps.

Consider, for example, the state of free speech and government criticism. The previous Liberal government under Justin Trudeau was notably effective at cultivating a favourable media environment. Following the 2015 election, the media enjoyed a prolonged honeymoon period, often focusing on the prime minister’s image and “sunny ways.” After the 2019 election, which resulted in a minority government, the strategy shifted toward direct financial support. Citing pandemic-related revenue losses, the government introduced “temporary” subsidies for media organizations. These programs have since become permanent and costly, with $325 million allocated for 2024/25. During the 2025 election campaign, Mark Carney pledged to increase this by an additional $150 million.

Beyond the sheer scale of these subsidies, there’s growing concern that legacy media outlets—now financially dependent on government support—may struggle to maintain objectivity, particularly during national elections. This dependency risks undermining the media’s role as a watchdog of democracy.

Second, on April 27, 2023, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-11, an update to the Broadcasting Act that extends CRTC regulation to digital content. While individual social media users and podcasters are technically exempt, the law allows the CRTC to regulate platforms that host content from traditional broadcasters and streaming services—raising concerns about indirect censorship. This move further restricted freedom of speech in Canada.

Third, the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act to end the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa was ruled unconstitutional by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley who found that the government had not met the legal threshold for such extraordinary powers. The same day of the ruling the government announced it would appeal the 200-page decision, doubling down on its justification for invoking the Act.

In addition to these concerns, federal government program spending has grown significantly—from 12.8 per cent of GDP in 2014/15 to a projected 16.2 per cent in 2023/24—indicating that the government is consuming an increasing share of the country’s resources.

Finally, Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, which became law on June 26, grants the federal cabinet—and effectively the prime minister—the power to override existing laws and regulations for projects deemed in the “national interest.” The bill’s vague language leaves the definition of “national interest” open to broad interpretation, giving the executive branch unprecedented authority to micromanage major projects.

Individually, these developments may appear justifiable or benign. Taken together, they suggest a troubling pattern—a gradual erosion of democratic norms and institutions in Canada.

Lydia Miljan

Professor of Political Science, University of Windsor