Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

National

After a decade spinning in a maelstrom, we’re headed straight into a hurricane.

Published

11 minute read

To choose Trudeau’s successor as the Liberal Party’s new helmsperson, you need only be temporarily resident in Canada and 14 years old, and they don’t even check

Après nous, le déluge

It’s over. Well, sort of.

The Trudeau Liberals’ hegemonic hold on Canada’s political, cultural and economic life is now officially and formally winding down. Parliament has been prorogued until March 24, although it isn’t certain that Canada will have a new Parliament with a new prime minister even by June, when Canada is supposed to be hosting the G7, by which time the Liberals are expected to have a new leader too.

Who knows. We’ll get there. Justin Trudeau will be gone, but this is what you should bear in mind as Canada careens and lists and tumbles out of this mess.

The world’s first “postnational state” that Trudeau inaugurated in 2015, with the able assistance of Dominic Barton’s McKinsey & Company and all the resources the Canada-China Business Council threw at the project, was never intended to be some four-year thing to be evaluated by voters in the ordinary course of events.

It was built to be permanent. Its undoing will require one hell of an effort, and in the meantime Donald Trump’s inauguration – a $150 million extravaganza funded by Pfizer, OpenAI, Amazon, Meta and a constellation of cryptocurrency firms – is set for January 20.

That’s just two weeks away, and Trump has pledged to impose what would be a crippling 25 percent tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico “on Day 1” unless measures regarding flows of illegal migrants and drugs are somehow stopped.

We’ll see. The thing is, on Day 1, Canada’s federal government will be locked in the interregnum between the Trudeau epoch and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s new “common sense” order. We’re sitting ducks.

What would a Conservative Great Leap Forward look like?

Poilievre deserves much credit for correctly diagnosing the several possibly fatal wounds the Justin Trudeau decade has inflicted on this country. About that, here’s something I found fascinating over the holiday hiaitus.

It would be worth your time to take in Poilievre’s conversation with Dark Web archdruid Jordan Peterson over the weekend, and then have a listen to the year-end remarks of the lonesome American socialist warlord Bernie Sanders.

Going by my own 90-minute encounter with Peterson a couple of weeks ago I can say that it isn’t easy to keep the conversation going exactly along the lines one might prefer. Not to criticize Peterson’s interviewing style but I can’t fault Poilievre for failing to get into any number of the the existential dysfunctions Canada is enduring.

Even so, Poilievre comes off more like an intelligent and slightly nerdy Canadian version of Bernie Sanders than the doofus Canadian iteration of Donald Trump that the Liberals and New Democrats have so strenously tried and failed to make him out to be.

Fun example: On Saturday, the NDP MP Peter Julian attributed Poilievre’s popularity to a “massive foreign interference strategy. . . the only reason Pierre Poilievre is leader of the Conservative Party right now.” He didn’t say this while drunk in a private conversation among fellow NDPers. Julian said this publicly, on the insufferable Elon Musk’s X, drawing on a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory from last August.

At least the Conservatives are not crazy people

Today, the Feast of the Epiphany, is the anniversary of the Trumpist insurrection of January 6, 2021, an event that remains an open and profoundly embarrassing wound among Americans. I fully realize that there are some yobbish Putin fanciers at the outer fringes of Canada’s Conservative Party, but give me a break.

Can you imagine Canadian Conservatives storming Parliament Hill, smashing windows and breaking down doors and baying for blood? Of course you can’t. And you certainly can’t imagine Poilievre even coming close to countenancing such conduct, so don’t even try.

I don’t carry any water for Poilievre, but I am persuaded that he’s genuinely and sincerely concerned about the wretched state of affairs to which working-class Canadians have been reduced. Besides, Poilievre isn’t just the best alternative we’ve got. He’s the only alternative. Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats are a caricature of the party they inherited, so here we are.

My National Post readers and this newsletter’s subscribers will know that I am not bubbling with optimism that Poilievre’s remedies can possibly heal what Canada has sustained. Without getting into all that, I’ve had my say, and while Poilievre’s overall analysis of the Trudeau era’s calamities is grounded in hard facts and driven by empathy, his “Axe the tax, Build the homes, Fix the budget, Stop the crime” remedies are woefully insufficient to the circumstances of the real world.

For starters, the immediate crisis a Poilievre government will face is the major cause of the economic dislocation we’re facing, and he’s been quiet about it: It’s not just that Canada’s housing and jobs economies have no room for roughly three million people in this country who are here on various kinds of “temporary” status. It’s more like 4.9 million people whose visas are going to expire before the end of this year.

No amount of tax-axing is going to deal with this, and you’d need something along the lines of a Mao-era Great Leap Forward to “build the homes” to house them all in residential markets that would be even vaguely affordable for most people. And to do that you’d have to tear down Canada’s cities and build a grim Leninplatz on top of each heap of rubble.

Here’s just one other little thing that could stand in the way of any effective legislative agenda that Poilievre might want to embark upon. Almost all the current occupants of the Upper Chamber are senators appointed by Justin Trudeau. So, that’ll be fun: on top of everything else, the prospect of forcing a constitutional crisis just to get anything done.

Not to be dreary, but about the brokenness, but see Notes on the Coming Disturbances, and a earlier assessment: Nearing Nine Years Since Year Zero, So there’s all that.

It’s not just Canada that’s broken. It’s the Liberal Party.

To build the new postnational state in place of what we’ve been badgered to understand as the genocidal old-stock white supremacist settler-state patriarchy that Trudeau so gallantly set out to save from itself, the Liberal Party had to be refashioned to serve as the conduit to Parliamentary power and privilege. See It’s 2025. Welcome to the Thunderdome.

Bear in mind that Justice Marie-Josée Hogue’s Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions is expected to issue its final report before the end of this month. The inquiry’s long-delayed and filibustered timetable had anticipated that Hogue’s proposed structural changes would be in place well before what was presumed to be an October 2025 federal election.

Here’s the thing about that. Never mind that owing to Team Trudeau’s rewriting of the party constitution we still don’t know who elected Trudeau to the leadership of the Liberal Party in the first place, and there’s been no inquiry into the massive infusions of weirdly coordinated Mandarin-bloc donations to Trudeau’s own riding association warchest in the aftermath of his 2015 capture of a Parliamentary majority.

See: Liberals are leaving an ungodly mess for Poilievre’s Conservatives to clean up; New report details just how easily China can mess with Canadian elections. In that piece, and in the Thunderdome newsletter, I refer at length to the findings in this in-depth analysis published by the Canadian International Council: Beyond general elections: How could foreign actors influence the prime ministership?

While all the talking-head punditry and chat-show panelists are preoccupied with speculation about just who might emerge as Justin Trudeau’s successor, here’s just one fact that has gone unnoticed. If you simply happen to be domiciled even temporarily in this country, you only have to be 14 years old to cast your vote for the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

All for now.

Yes, this was a newsletter with no paywall.

To keep this project going, do please take up a paid subscription.

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

Canada’s supply management system is failing consumers

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Sylvain Charlebois

The supply management system is cracking. With imports climbing, strict quotas in place and Bill C202 on the table, we’re struggling to feed ourselves

Canada’s supply management system, once seen as a pillar of food security and agricultural self-sufficiency, is failing at its most basic function:
ensuring a reliable domestic supply.

According to the Canadian Association of Regulated Importers, Canada imported more than 66.9 million kilograms of chicken as of June 14, a 54.6 per cent increase from the same period last year. That’s enough to feed 3.4 million Canadians for a full year based on average poultry consumption—roughly 446 million meals. Under a tightly managed quota system, those meals were supposed to be produced domestically. Instead imports now account for more than 12 per cent of this year’s domestic chicken production, revealing a growing dependence on foreign supply.

Supply management is Canada’s system for regulating dairy, poultry and egg production. It uses quotas and fixed prices to match domestic supply with demand while limiting imports, intended to protect farmers from global price swings and ensure stable supply.

To be fair, the avian influenza outbreak has disrupted poultry production and partially explains the shortfall. But even with that disruption, the numbers are staggering. Imports under trade quotas set by the World Trade Organization, the Canada-United States Mexico Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership are running at or near their allowable monthly share—known as pro-rata
levels—signalling not just opportunity, but urgency. Supplementary import permits, meant to be used only in emergencies, have already surpassed 48 million kilograms, exceeding total annual import volumes in some previous years. This isn’t a seasonal hiccup. It’s a systemic failure.

The system, designed to buffer domestic markets from global volatility, is cracking under internal strain. When emergency imports become routine, we have to ask: what exactly is being managed?

Canada’s most recent regulated chicken production cycle, which ended May 31, saw one of the worst shortfalls in over 50 years. Strict quota limits stopped farmers from producing more to meet demand, leaving consumers with higher grocery bills and more imported food, shaking public confidence in the system.

Some defenders insist this is an isolated event. It’s not. For the second straight week, Canada has hit pro-rata import levels across all chicken categories. Bone-in and processed poultry, once minor players in emergency import programs, are now essential just to keep shelves stocked.

And the dysfunction doesn’t stop at chicken. Egg imports under the shortage allocation program have already topped 14 million dozen, a 104 per cent jump from last year. Not long ago, Canadians were mocking high U.S. egg prices. Now theirs have fallen. Ours haven’t.

All this in a country with $30 billion in quota value, supposedly designed to protect domestic production and reduce reliance on imports. Instead, we’re importing more and paying more.

Rather than addressing these failures, Ottawa is looking to entrench them. Bill C202, now before the Senate, seeks to shield supply management from future trade talks, making reform even harder. So we must ask: is this really what we’re protecting?

Meanwhile, our trading partners are taking full advantage. Chile, for instance, has increased chicken exports to Canada by more than 63 per cent, now accounting for nearly 96 per cent of CPTPP-origin imports. While Canada doubles down on protectionism, others are gaining long-term footholds in our market.

It’s time to face the facts. Supply management no longer guarantees supply. When a system meant to ensure resilience becomes a source of fragility, it’s no longer an asset—it’s an economic liability.

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

Business

Prairie provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador see largest increases in size of government

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

recent study found that Canada has experienced one of the largest increases in the size of government of any advanced country over the last decade. But within Canada, which provinces have led the way?

The size of government refers to the extent to which resources within the economy are controlled and directed by the government, and has important implications for economic growth, living standards, and economic freedom—the degree to which people are allowed to make their own economic choices.

Too much of anything can be harmful, and this is certainly true regarding the size of government. When government grows too large it begins to take on roles and resources that are better left to the private sector. For example, rather than focusing on core functions like maintaining the rule of law or national defence, a government that has grown too large might begin subsidizing certain businesses and industries over others (i.e. corporate welfare) in order to pick winners and losers in the market. As a result, economic growth slows and living standards are lower than they otherwise would be.

One way to measure the size of government is by calculating total general government spending as a share of the economy (GDP). General government spending refers to spending by governments at all levels (federal, provincial, and municipal), and by measuring this as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) we can compare across jurisdictions of different sizes.

recent study compared the size of government in Canada as a whole with that of 39 other advanced economies worldwide, and found that Canada experienced the second-largest increase in the size of government (as a share of the economy) from 2014 to 2024. In other words, since 2014, governments in Canada have expanded their role within the economy faster than governments in virtually every other advanced country worldwide—including all other countries within the Group of Seven (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Moreover, the study showed that Canada as a whole has exceeded the optimal size of government (estimated to fall between 24 and 32 per cent of GDP) at which a country can maximize their economic growth. Beyond that point, growth slows and is lower than it otherwise would be.

However, Canada is a decentralized country and provinces vary as to the extent to which governments direct overall economic activity. Using data from Statistics Canada, the following charts illustrate which provinces in Canada have the largest size of government and which have seen the largest increases since 2014.

The chart above shows total general government spending as a share of GDP for all ten provinces in 2023 (the latest year of available provincial data). The size of government in the provinces varies considerably, ranging from a high of 61.4 per cent in Nova Scotia to a low of 30.0 per cent in Alberta. There are geographical differences, as three Atlantic provinces (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick) have the largest governments while the three western-most provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia) have the smallest governments. However, as of 2023, all provinces except Alberta exceeded the optimal size of government—which again, is between 24 and 32 per cent of the economy.

To show which provinces have experienced the greatest increase in the size of government in recent years, the second chart shows the percentage point increase in total general government spending as a share of GDP from 2014 to 2023. It should be noted that this is measuring the expansion of the federal government’s role in the economy—which has been substantial nationwide—as well as growth in the respective provincial and municipal governments.

The increases in the size of government since 2014 are largest in four provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador (10.82 percentage points), Alberta (7.94 percentage points), Saskatchewan (7.31 percentage points), and Manitoba (7.17 percentage points). These are all dramatic increases—for perspective, in the study referenced above, Estonia’s 6.66 percentage point increase in its size of government was the largest out of 40 advanced countries.

The remaining six provinces experienced far lower increases in the size of government, ranging from a 2.74 percentage point increase in B.C. to a 0.44 percentage point increase in Quebec. However, since 2014, every province in Canada has seen government expand its role within the economy.

Over the last decade, Canada has experienced a substantial increase in the size of total government. Within the country, Newfoundland and Labrador and the three Prairie provinces have led the way in growing their respective governments.

Continue Reading

Trending

X