TML

Canada’s dairy system is not simply a tariff wall designed to keep American milk out. It is a supply-management system designed to keep production roughly aligned with demand, stabilize farm income and preserve a viable network of family-owned farms. Imports are allowed in significant negotiated quantities at low or zero tariffs; the very high tariffs people hear about generally apply only after those agreed import quotas have been filled. The United States protects its farmers too, often much more extensively, but it uses different mechanisms. American taxpayers support agriculture through crop insurance subsidies, income and price-support programs, disaster payments, commodity programs and direct government payments. Dairy farmers have access to federally supported margin-protection and insurance programs. The U.S. also restricts imports in sensitive sectors. Sugar is an especially obvious example: the United States uses tariff-rate quotas that limit how much foreign sugar can enter at low tariffs, precisely to protect domestic producers and prices. USDA explicitly describes this system. So there is a real hypocrisy in attacking Canada as a protectionist outlier. Canada essentially says to its dairy farmers: we will control production and imports so you can earn a reasonably predictable income from the market. The United States more often says to its farmers: we will expose you more directly to the market, but protect your income through subsidies, federally supported insurance, price and commodity programs, and, where politically important, import restrictions. In 2026 alone, USDA forecasts federal Dairy Margin Coverage payments, while its broader farm programs continue to provide income, commodity and insurance support. Both countries protect agriculture. They just write the cheque differently. And that matters to the family farm. Canada’s system was designed in part to prevent the boom-and-bust cycle in which oversupply collapses milk prices, smaller farmers fail, and increasingly large operations buy them out. Supply management gives a farmer greater certainty that producing milk efficiently can provide a viable living without having to become an enormous industrial-scale operation merely to survive the next price collapse. That does not make Canada’s system perfect. Quota is expensive and can make it difficult for new farmers to enter. But portraying Canadian dairy protection as some extraordinary trade offence while the United States protects its own farmers with quotas, tariffs, subsidies, insurance and government support is fundamentally misleading. Canada protects a relatively small number of agricultural sectors openly through supply management. The United States protects agriculture through an enormous, less visible architecture of federal programs and selective trade barriers. Calling one “protectionism” while pretending the other is “free trade” is the hypocrisy.

@cwxy6qpb7g We need to tariff US alcohol by 50 percent. That will stop them from Purchasing it

Notice how both Alberta and Saskatchewan are unwilling to do anything to stand up for Canada!! They both have kept American booze on the shelves and won't even consider leveraging oil and potash to put pressure on the US. Says alot about their commitment to Canada!

@dowbboy Convoy clown supporter 😂

"The friendliest people in the world". Unless you honk a horn in their neighbourhood. Then they'll take away your financial and constitutional rights and toss you in jail.

@thomjeff Wrong

It’s time to drop dairy quotas and I also believe it’s time to drop the booze ban. Let consumers make their own decisions on what dairy and booze they will buy and end the taxpayer and consumer funded protectionist schemes. #cdnpoli

@Maryx_650 39

Move one stick. Create a number smaller than 59. Clock is ticking.

@Olderaccountant What a fool you are

Imagine cutting yourself off from the most dynamic country on earth. Forever.

@Crazy_Canuck1 You are fucking idiot

You Stupid Fucks, have no clue what’s coming our way.

Canada doesn’t want to go to the table to Negotiate…. Trump has increased Tariffs as a result. He gives Carney 30 days, to Come to the table. .. What if at the end of 30 days, Trump says ok. Shut down the border… No Trade Period.

@Crazy_Canuck1 Lol cut off his nose to spite his ugly face

@DanHilt70032640 @hitaskunk The best deal that his boss signed 7 years ago.

@hitaskunk @hitaskunk What Greer means when he says “the U.S gave Canada the best treatment available in the world” over tariffs. He meant a guy punches every one in a room 10 times and then that guy only punches a dude named Canada 9 times thereby giving Canada the best treatment…

“We’ve given them the best treatment available in the world for the past year or so..” I’m sorry, what?

@farman4x 81

Only the sharpest minds get this right. 🧠 What's X²=?

@MAAWLAW @LeslieBrow58567 What are the off ramps

@LeslieBrow58567 I don't know about Conservatives but this trade lawyer & economist can see offramps, but they all involve leadership. Carney's approach only makes sense to me in that he 1) lacks political experience 2) is using it for electoral advantage 3) is acting on longstanding beliefs.

Trade with the US has always been easier to opppse than to defend in Canada. Thats what made Mulroney's historic embrace of free trade so significant. It took leadership to defend it across the country. And he won. So far, Carney has expended zero political capital to get a deal.

@MAAWLAW How would you know Mark? Are you in the negotiating team? The advisory team?

@Filamagnum @Gray_Mackenzie @davidfrum The depreciation expense for sure. That will 100 Million a year. There will Be no Money to split unless tolls Are Taking well in excess of 100 Million per year Of

@Gray_Mackenzie @davidfrum Note that Depreciation / Capital Cost Allowance, loan interest and bank charges are legitimate operating expenses and are deducted before calculating net profit.

The text of the Gordie Howe Bridge deal has been released, and it backs up our reporting from last week. #cdnpoli Canada will give the US 50% of the revenues, after expenses to operate the bridge for 15 years. That money will go into “a United Sates-Canada Economic Development Fund, established and solely controlled by the Government of the United States.” That calculation does not include Canadian debt payments on the bridge, despite Canada paying $6.4B to build the bridge and the US/Michigan putting up $0 - “Canada and the United States will reasonably agree on the objects of the United States-Canada Economic Development Fund, which will be for the benefit of the United States and trade between Canada and the United States.” - The US government needs to give consent if tolls increase by more than 10% in one year or tolls increase or decrease below “comparable regional crossings” This is the clause that would theoretically benefit the owners of the ambassador bridge, who are noted Trump donors #cdnpoli gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/proposed-agree…

@Gray_Mackenzie You do realize that depreciation expense of the bridge is an operating expense. So we are talking about 100 million a year in depreciation expense for a 6 billion dollar bridge depreciated over 50 Years. That’s included There will be little or no on money to split

Dear @StephenMoore When President Trump was elected to a second term, roughly 99% of U.S. goods entered Canada tariff-free. Both countries, however, protect sensitive sectors, especially agriculture, where subsidies, supply management, market access and farm incomes have long been handled carefully by governments on both sides of the border. So, Let's talk cows as an example Canada’s dairy system is not simply a tariff wall designed to keep American milk out. It is a supply-management system designed to keep production roughly aligned with demand, stabilize farm income and preserve a viable network of family-owned farms. Imports are allowed in significant negotiated quantities at low or zero tariffs; the very high tariffs people hear about generally apply only after those agreed import quotas have been filled. The United States protects its farmers too, often much more extensively, but it uses different mechanisms. American taxpayers support agriculture through crop insurance subsidies, income and price-support programs, disaster payments, commodity programs and direct government payments. Dairy farmers have access to federally supported margin-protection and insurance programs. The U.S. also restricts imports in sensitive sectors. Sugar is an especially obvious example: the United States uses tariff-rate quotas that limit how much foreign sugar can enter at low tariffs, precisely to protect domestic producers and prices. USDA explicitly describes this system. So there is a real hypocrisy in attacking Canada as a protectionist outlier. Canada essentially says to its dairy farmers: we will control production and imports so you can earn a reasonably predictable income from the market. The United States more often says to its farmers: we will expose you more directly to the market, but protect your income through subsidies, federally supported insurance, price and commodity programs, and, where politically important, import restrictions. In 2026 alone, USDA forecasts federal Dairy Margin Coverage payments, while its broader farm programs continue to provide income, commodity and insurance support. Both countries protect agriculture. They just write the cheque differently. And that matters to the family farm. Canada’s system was designed in part to prevent the boom-and-bust cycle in which oversupply collapses milk prices, smaller farmers fail, and increasingly large operations buy them out. Supply management gives a farmer greater certainty that producing milk efficiently can provide a viable living without having to become an enormous industrial-scale operation merely to survive the next price collapse. That does not make Canada’s system perfect. Quota is expensive and can make it difficult for new farmers to enter. But portraying Canadian dairy protection as some extraordinary trade offence while the United States protects its own farmers with quotas, tariffs, subsidies, insurance and government support is fundamentally misleading. Canada protects a relatively small number of agricultural sectors openly through supply management. The United States protects agriculture through an enormous, less visible architecture of federal programs and selective trade barriers. Calling one “protectionism” while pretending the other is “free trade” is the hypocrisy. Hope next time you will fact check yourself. Sincerely Glen

@SunshineS58469 @RapidResponse47 @RealPNavarro Move

As a Minnesotan, I want my eyes to quit burning and to be able to breathe. Every single summer for the past five years has been destroyed because of hippies in Canada, refusing to do any fire mitigation. In Minnesota, we have eight months of winter, it would be really nice if we could enjoy a summer once in a while.

.@RealPNavarro: Canada wants free trade — only on its terms nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-…

Dear @ScottJenningsKY Let's talk cows. Canada’s dairy system is not simply a tariff wall designed to keep American milk out. It is a supply-management system designed to keep production roughly aligned with demand, stabilize farm income and preserve a viable network of family-owned farms. Imports are allowed in significant negotiated quantities at low or zero tariffs; the very high tariffs people hear about generally apply only after those agreed import quotas have been filled. The United States protects its farmers too, often much more extensively, but it uses different mechanisms. American taxpayers support agriculture through crop insurance subsidies, income and price-support programs, disaster payments, commodity programs and direct government payments. Dairy farmers have access to federally supported margin-protection and insurance programs. The U.S. also restricts imports in sensitive sectors. Sugar is an especially obvious example: the United States uses tariff-rate quotas that limit how much foreign sugar can enter at low tariffs, precisely to protect domestic producers and prices. USDA explicitly describes this system. So there is a real hypocrisy in attacking Canada as a protectionist outlier. Canada essentially says to its dairy farmers: we will control production and imports so you can earn a reasonably predictable income from the market. The United States more often says to its farmers: we will expose you more directly to the market, but protect your income through subsidies, federally supported insurance, price and commodity programs, and, where politically important, import restrictions. In 2026 alone, USDA forecasts federal Dairy Margin Coverage payments, while its broader farm programs continue to provide income, commodity and insurance support. Both countries protect agriculture. They just write the cheque differently. And that matters to the family farm. Canada’s system was designed in part to prevent the boom-and-bust cycle in which oversupply collapses milk prices, smaller farmers fail, and increasingly large operations buy them out. Supply management gives a farmer greater certainty that producing milk efficiently can provide a viable living without having to become an enormous industrial-scale operation merely to survive the next price collapse. That does not make Canada’s system perfect. Quota is expensive and can make it difficult for new farmers to enter. But portraying Canadian dairy protection as some extraordinary trade offence while the United States protects its own farmers with quotas, tariffs, subsidies, insurance and government support is fundamentally misleading. Canada protects a relatively small number of agricultural sectors openly through supply management. The United States protects agriculture through an enormous, less visible architecture of federal programs and selective trade barriers. Calling one “protectionism” while pretending the other is “free trade” is the hypocrisy. Hope next time you will fact check yourself. Sincerely Glen

@KatlynHarrison Kate if it would really make a difference. Why show up when they are giving it to us up the ass. We would be the 51st state with Pierre. Pathetic

Real leadership would be taking the opportunity to gather with senior US officials, at this critical moment, to make better the relationship that the bridge both literally serves and symbolically represents. #cdnpoli

@KatlynHarrison How do you know Kate how many discussions have been going on by phone and zoom ? Just cuz the government doesn’t tell us every time we talk to them.

I might suggest our government prioritizing "optics for their voter base" over difficult conversations is part of why we are here in the first place. We've been barely showing up to real talks. How has that approach worked out thus far? #cdnpoli

@mogrant61 Says mo

Canada is the only G7 country without a national wildfire response team. Instead, Carney convenes his sycophants for another word salad press release that will do absolutely nothing to solve the forest management issues in Canada. Carney is a fraud