Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Agriculture

Robbing Western Canada’s Farmers to Pay for Eastern Canada’s Car Batteries

Published

17 minute read

From the C2C Journal

By Gwyn Morgan

That the Liberal government would put productive, self-supporting western Canadian canola farmers at risk in order to protect heavily subsidized jobs in Ontario and Quebec is despicable but hardly out of character

If one were to rank contenders in the global trade wars, Canada would likely sit somewhere between pint-sized and pipsqueak. Then why would such a nation’s government choose frontal assault against the world’s biggest and most ruthless economic combatant, one wielding a range of weapons and tactics to organize a counter-attack? Yet this is just what the Justin Trudeau government has done in imposing massive import taxes on electric vehicles from China, writes Gwyn Morgan. And worse, Morgan notes, Trudeau & Co. are sacrificing farmers from western Canada on an altar dedicated to eastern auto workers – while taxing those farmers to help pay for the vast subsidies needed to keep the auto workers employed.

October 1 the federal Liberals’ new “surtax” of 100 percent on the import of Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) kicked in. Announced in late August and echoing a U.S. move three months earlier, the surtax comes on top of an existing 6.1 percent import tariff and doubles the landed price of those considerably less expensive EVs made across the Pacific Ocean. (New tariffs are also being imposed on imported Chinese aluminum and steel products.) China wasted no time in striking back where it would hurt most, launching an anti-dumping “investigation” into exported Canadian canola. Since there’s no evidence Canada’s agriculture sector is engaging in this anti-free-trade practice – which technically involves selling a product in a foreign market at a lower price than domestic buyers pay in the producing country – there’s a very high likelihood China’s investigation is a procedural pretext to halting imports of Canadian canola.

China’s move on the versatile oilseed was predictable given what happened following Canada’s arrest of Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer, Meng Wanzhou, in 2019. Along with arresting two innocent Canadian expatriates and triggering the infamous “two Michaels” imbroglio, the Communist regime  also blocked imports of canola from two major Canadian export handlers. Canola producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba lost an estimated $1.5-$2.4 billion in revenue as a result of that year-long boycott.

Striking back where it hurts most: Following the Justin Trudeau government’s (top left) new “surtax” of 100 percent on the import of Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), China wasted no time in launching an anti-dumping “investigation” into exported Canadian canola, Canada’s second-most important farm crop. Shown at bottom right, Chinese President Xi Jinping. (Sources of photos (clockwise starting top-left): ©Kyodonews via ZUMA Press; Ethan Llamas, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0Paul Kagame, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0Paul Howard Photo, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Canola seeds are Canada’s second-most widely grown agricultural commodity, generating a critical 25 percent of the nation’s farm crop receipts, totalling $13.6 billion last year (agricultural prices fluctuate significantly). China has long been Canada’s biggest foreign canola buyer – importing 4.5 million tonnes worth nearly $4 billion last year – and was expected to purchase 70 percent of this year’s bumper crop.

The Justin Trudeau government’s initial press release described Chinese EVs as an “extraordinary threat” to Canada’s auto workers. (There aren’t any Chinese EV brands for sale in Canada yet.) But the reality is that Canada produces almost no EVs and there are few projects on the table to do so. The genuine long-term threat to Canada’s auto workers is the Trudeau government’s “mandate” that the auto industry phase out the manufacture of internal combustion engine-powered cars and light trucks by 2035.

Much of the global auto industry has been sliding into a state approaching panic over such national mandates, which are now regarded even by some of the industry’s most established and storied brands as an existential threat. Some countries are showing signs of abandoning the 2035 changeover or at least extending the timeline. Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, for example, recently termed the European Union’s phase-out policy “self-destructive”, while her energy minister has urged the EU to lift the impending ban on gasoline/diesel-powered engines.

“Self-destructive”: While the Trudeau government continues to push for the phaseout of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035 in order to force Canadians entirely into EVs, some European leaders are beginning to question similar mandates, including Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni (bottom left). (Sources of photos: (top right) DealerOn; (bottom left) AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski; (bottom right) FaceMePLS, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

But not Canada, at least not under the current government. What is on the table are subsidies – some $52.5 billion as of April, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer – to Honda, Swedish battery maker Northvolt, Ford, Stellantis, Volkswagen and General Motors to build EV battery plants in Ontario and Quebec. The total government support exceeds what the private-sector manufacturers are themselves investing. The labour forces at these facilities will thereby represent some of the costliest jobs ever “created” in Canada, and it is entirely guesswork whether any of these plants will ever recover their prodigious expense.

There are valid reasons for great concern about the importation of Chinese-made EVs. One is the recently voiced allegation that the regime is having EV manufacturers embed technology in the cars’ computers so that China’s military could one day remotely turn them off en masse, causing chaos in the targeted countries. But Canada’s options as a trade warrior are severely limited. A crude response like the one Trudeau has attempted – levying a “surtax” steeper than anything that was ever imposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump, the man Trudeau probably despises more than anyone else in the world – is definitely not one of them. Canada’s canola exports – our country’s number-one item sold to China – offered China an easy target for a punishing tit-for-tat response.

That’s because the American situation is substantially different from Canada’s. While the U.S. does manufacture EVs, the U.S.-China trading relationship is more complex and involves multiple large industries. This means there is no obvious single target for China to strike. And this makes Trudeau’s mimicking of the American tariff profoundly irresponsible. China holds the top cards at this trade table. Late last month, for example, China initiated further steps towards retaliation when its Commerce Ministry announced a three-month-long “anti-discrimination” investigation into Canada’s new tariffs.

Not-so-mighty trade warrior: With canola being Canada’s primary export to China, Trudeau’s crude “surtax” on Chinese EVs, steel and aluminum opened the country to a foreseeable – and foreseeably punishing – tit-for-tat response. (Source of graph: Janice Nelson)

That the Liberal government would put productive, self-supporting western Canadian canola farmers at risk in order to protect heavily subsidized jobs in Ontario and Quebec is despicable but hardly out of character. The Trudeau Liberals have a long record of making decisions or imposing policies that harm the West – and western farmers in particular.

Data from the Agricultural Carbon Alliance show that during just one month in 2023, livestock farmers paid an average of $726 per month each in carbon taxes, field crop farmers $2,024 and greenhouse operators $17,173. A sampling of 50 farms showed total carbon tax payments of $329,644 in just that one month. With the tax rate rising inexorably every year, within a few years those same 50 farms will be paying nearly $900,000 per month – $11 million in 2030 alone. There are 190,000 farms in Canada. The carbon tax has become yet another inter-regional financial transfer that skims wealth generated in the West to be spent on subsidy-dependent industries in Laurentian Canada.

A sampling of just 50 of Canada’s 190,000 farms showed total carbon tax payments of $329,644 in one month, an amount projected to triple by 2030 – while battery manufacturers based in eastern Canada are to receive $52.5 billion in subsidies. Shown at bottom, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau observe an assembly line at an event announcing plans for a Honda electric vehicle battery plant in Alliston, Ontario, April 2024. (Sources: (graph) Agriculture Carbon Alliance; (photo) The Canadian Press/Nathan Denette)

The harmful new 100 percent EV tariff comes at a time when the entire Canadian farming sector’s future is in doubt. A study sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada predicts that by 2033, 40 per cent of Canadian farm operators will retire. A shortfall of 24,000 general farm, nursery and greenhouse workers is expected over that period. “These gaps loom at a time when Canada’s agricultural workforce needs to evolve to include skills like data analytics,” the study states. “To meet our medium and long-term goals, we’ll need to build a new pipeline of domestic operators and workers.” Every new policy move that adds to the agriculture sector’s woes makes such a metaphorical pipeline as unlikely as the physical pipelines that the Trudeau government’s other policies have killed, from Energy East to Northern Gateway. Ruinous policies such as the carbon tax need to go, and new policies that place agriculture at risk must be avoided.

The most perverse aspect of this lengthening saga is that the future of those battery plants that the Liberals intend to subsidize with $52.5 billion and counting, raised through carbon taxes and additional debt we cannot afford to incur, is itself in serious jeopardy. That is because the grandiose global plan to transition the world to EVs is looking increasingly like a house of cards, as we have long warned (please see herehere or here). As this has seeped into public consciousness, the once-exponential growth in EV sales has flattened.

As Forbes magazine recently reported, “Fully-electric passenger car demand is softening, fast. Unsold inventories have been clogging dealers’ lots. Manufacturers – from the biggest brands down to the smallest startups – are cutting back on production and investment plans.” Some prospective EV builders – like Apple – are dropping out entirely. Even before the U.S. and Canadian tariffs on Chinese EVs, reports and images came out of China showing fields packed with unsold (and possibly abandoned) EVs, a problem that lately is being “exported” as tens of thousands of Chinese EVs clog ports and shipping hubs in destination markets.

How does the future of Canadian EV manufacturing relate to the future of farming? The answer is that the first cannot exist at all without gigantic taxpayer-funded subsidies, while Canada’s farming sector – despite being an innately risky undertaking at the mercy of fickle Mother Nature and unpredictable market swings – is generally self-supporting and on balance profitable, at times highly so. What it needs above all is to be relieved of debilitating policies – first and foremost the carbon tax. We should not be robbing Canadian farmers to pay subsidies to battery-makers.

Global house of cards: With consumers awakening to the profound shortcomings of EVs, tens of thousands of unsold battery-powered cars have been clogging Chinese ports and shipping hubs (top right) – a problem now being “exported” to destination markets including Canada’s auto dealerships (bottom right). (Source of bottom right photo: Golden Shrimp/Shutterstock)

Instead, we need to encourage young people to enter the farming industry and provide them with the skills needed to “build that new pipeline” of agricultural workers. A country that can’t fuel and feed itself is a vulnerable country even in good times, and a starving, freezing one in bad. We Canadians are fortunate to have the natural resources needed to both fuel and feed ourselves plus create wealth by exporting the products that we derive from those resources. Canada’s oil, natural gas, coal, forests, fisheries and soils represent natural advantages that Canadians long ago became adept at leveraging into livelihoods and prosperity.

We have every reason to be outraged at a government that spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing an entirely artificial industry in which our country has no innate economic advantage, while imposing heavy taxes on an industry that is absolutely vital to thousands of rural communities and to the food security of us all.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Source of main image: bill barber, licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Agriculture

Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive

Published on

Sonia Elijah investigates

Sonia Elijah's avatar Sonia Elijah

Cow feed additive Bovaer meant to curb climate change seems to be killing some Danish dairy cows

Since October 1, 2025, when many Danish dairy farmers began incorporating the synthetic additive Bovaer (containing 3-nitrooxypropanol) into their cows’ feed—alarming reports have come in of animals suffering from: stomach cramps, fevers, miscarriages, drastic drops in milk production, sudden collapses and in some cases, the need to be euthanized.

In the shocking video below, Danish farmer Rene Lillehjælper discusses how her husband is driving their “cow ambulance” tractor— transporting yet another collapsed cow from their dairy farm—because of the “Bovaer Poison.”

Marketed as a “climate-friendly” methane reducer, this product—produced by the Dutch-Swiss giant DSM-Firmenich—became a legal requirement for Danish dairy farmers to add into their animal feed for 80 days or for their cows to be fed extra fat throughout the year.

Notably, farmers experimenting by removing Bovaer saw their herds recover rapidly, only for symptoms to return upon reintroduction. Yet, despite these red flags, authorities insist on pushing ahead, with an investigation only now underway.

Subscribe to Sonia Elijah Investigates

These reports build on the concerns I outlined in my November 2024 investigation into Arla’s UK trials, where EFSA tolerance studies highlighted issues such as reduced feed intake, decreased organ weights (including ovaries and heart), and altered enzyme levels in cows at elevated doses—yet these effects were ultimately classified as “non-adverse” by regulators.

BREAKING: Methane-Reducing Feed Additive Trialled in Arla Dairy Farms

·
November 28, 2024
BREAKING: Methane-Reducing Feed Additive Trialled in Arla Dairy Farms

On November 26th, Arla Foods Ltd. announced via social media their collaboration with major UK supermarkets like Tesco, Aldi, and Morrisons to trial Bovaer, a feed additive, aiming to reduce methane …

What was even more troubling were the findings from my analysis of the safety assessment report, prepared by the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland (FSS), reviewed by Animal Feed and Feed Additives Joint Expert Group (AFFAJEG) and the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF).

It stated: “In relation to safety studies for the consumer, a 2-year carcinogenicity study in Wistar rats showed “mesenchymal cell tumours were reported in 4 out of 49 females at the top dose of 300 mg/kg bw/day of 3-NOP given orally. Based on these results, the original study report concluded there was evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats.”

AFFAJEG noted potential for mesenchymal cell hyperplasia and benign tumours at high doses but, citing no malignant tumours or genotoxicity, concluded the additive is not carcinogenic at recommended inclusion rates.

ACAF echoed that the additive “can be considered safe for consumers.” Yet, their conclusion was seemingly contradicted by the following statement: The additive should be considered corrosive to the eyes, a skin irritant and potentially harmful by inhalation.”

In a separate development, a May 2024 FDA letter addressed to Elanco US, Inc, (which has an agreement with DSM-Firmenich to market Bovaer) stated: “Based on a review of your data and the characteristics of your product, FDA has no questions at this time regarding whether Bovaer® 10 will achieve its intended effect and is expected to pose low risk to humans or animals under the conditions of its intended use.”

Ironically, the FDA letter included an attachment with the following warning:

It should be noted that Bovaer passed the FDA review in under 12 months—much shorter than industry standard.

Kjartan Poulsen, chairman of the National Association of Danish Dairy Producers, has received numerous calls from concerned farmers. “We have so many people who call us and are unhappy about what is happening in their herds,” he shared with TV 2.

He described the recurring issues as unusual and is urging reports of suspected Bovaer-linked miscarriages. Poulsen emphasized that any animal harm undermines the additive’s purpose: “This should give a climate effect – and if cows die from this, or they produce less milk, then the effect is minus.” He is calling for a temporary pause from Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen and for farmers to cease use if welfare issues arise.

Approved by the European Commission in 2022 based on EFSA assessments, Bovaer was deemed safe for cows, consumers, and the environment, with claims of up to 30-45% methane reduction.

However, field experiences differ. Reports from Jyllands-Posten and TV 2 describe lower milk yields tied to miscarriages, plus collapses—some cows recovering with treatment but others needing to be euthanised.

Earlier whispers from Danish farmers included fevers, diarrhoea, mastitis, and even cow deaths attributed to Bovaer. One producer lost six animals in under a month. Critics label it “animal cruelty,” especially under mandatory use for farms with over 50 cows.

The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration acknowledges these reports and has enlisted Aarhus University to analyse real-world data, with initial findings expected after the 2025-26 new year.

The irony is stark: a product meant to “save the planet” for reducing methane is harmful to dairy herds, slashing productivity, and raising fears of contaminating the food chain—despite assurances it “breaks down fully” with no residues.

Yet, the true winners emerge clearly: DSM-Firmenich, cashing in on booming sales fuelled by mandates and climate subsidies, alongside powerhouse investors like BlackRock (holding ~3.3%) and Vanguard, who reap the rewards from this relentless Net-Zero drive.

If you appreciate the hard work that I do as an independent investigative journalist,

please consider supporting me with a paid subscription.

Subscribe to Sonia Elijah Investigates

Buy me a coffee

Share

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Cloned foods are coming to a grocer near you

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Sylvain Charlebois

And you may never find out if Health Canada gets its way

Cloned-animal foods could soon enter Canada’s food supply with no labels identifying them as cloned and no warning to consumers—a move that risks public trust.

According to Health Canada’s own consultation documents, Ottawa intends to remove foods derived from cloned animals from its “novel foods” list, the process that requires a pre-market safety review and public disclosure. Health Canada defines “novel
foods” as products that haven’t been commonly consumed before or that use new production processes requiring extra safety checks.

From a regulatory standpoint, this looks like an efficiency measure. From a consumer-trust standpoint, it’s a miscalculation.

Health Canada argues that cloned animals and their offspring are indistinguishable from conventional ones, so they should be treated the same. The problem isn’t the science—it’s the silence. Canadians are not being told that the rules for a controversial technology are about to change. No press release, no public statement, just a quiet update on a government website most citizens will never read.

Cloning in agriculture means producing an exact genetic copy of an animal, usually for breeding purposes. The clones themselves rarely end up on dinner plates, but their offspring do, showing up in everyday products such as beef, milk or pork. The benefits are indirect: steadier production, fewer losses from disease or more uniform quality.

But consumers see no gain at checkout. Cloning is expensive and brings no visible improvement in taste, nutrition or price.
Shoppers could one day buy steak from the offspring of a cloned cow without any way of knowing, and still pay the same, if not more, for it.

Without labels identifying cloned origin, potential efficiencies stay hidden upstream. When products born from new technologies are mixed with conventional ones, consumers lose their ability to differentiate, reward innovation or make an informed choice. In the end, the industry keeps the savings while shoppers see none.

And it isn’t only shoppers left in the dark. Exporters could soon pay the price too. Canada exports billions in beef and pork annually, including to the EU. If cloned origin products enter the supply chain without labelling, Canadian exporters could face additional scrutiny or restrictions in markets where cloning is not accepted. A regulatory shortcut at home could quickly become a market barrier abroad.

This debate comes at a time when public trust in Canada’s food system is already fragile. A 2023 survey by the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity found that only 36 per cent of Canadians believe the food industry is “heading in the right direction,” and fewer than half trust government regulators to be transparent.

Inserting cloned foods quietly into the supply without disclosure would only deepen that skepticism.

This is exactly how Canada became trapped in the endless genetically modified organism (GMO) debate. Two decades ago, regulators and companies quietly introduced a complex technology without giving consumers the chance to understand it. By denying transparency, they also denied trust. The result was years of confusion, suspicion and polarization that persist today.

Transparency shouldn’t be optional in a democracy that prides itself on science based regulation. Even if the food is safe, and current evidence suggests it is, Canadians deserve to know how what they eat is produced.

The irony is that this change could have been handled responsibly. Small gestures like a brief notice, an explanatory Q&A or a commitment to review labelling once international consensus emerges would have shown respect for the public and preserved confidence in our food system.

Instead, Ottawa risks repeating an old mistake: mistaking regulatory efficiency for good governance. At a time when consumer trust in food pricing, corporate ethics and government oversight is already fragile, the last thing Canada needs is another quiet policy that feels like a secret.

Cloning may not change the look or taste of what’s on your plate, but how it gets there should still matter.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X