Current Issue

February 25, 2026

Current Conditions in Shawville -3.3°C

Some concerns remain before the vote

Some concerns remain before the vote

chris@theequity.ca

Beef farmers: As long as I can remember (I’m 76), beef, among other things like beer, liquor, pork, and even chicken, could not legally be taken across provincial borders unless it was processed and inspected in a federal plant. It has always been a problem for local farmers selling “farmer’s beef” because there has never been a federally-inspected abattoir in our county. It seemed odd that a hunter from any province could bag a deer or moose and either take it across the border whole or butchered in the bush or any abattoir without any inspection, but a beef that was identified, vaccinated, and processed in a provincially-inspected abattoir (with almost identical inspection as a federally-inspected abattoir) couldn’t be sold in another province. Because it costs more to build and staff a federally-inspected meat plant than a provincially-inspected one, very large abattoirs are owned by very large meat-packing companies that spread that extra cost across the thousands of animals they process per day, instead of the smaller provincially-inspected plants that process only a dozen per day. I have attended dozens of annual meetings of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when provincial farmer representatives have brought up this problem yearly. When it came to a vote, a couple western provinces (where the huge abattoirs are) always voted down any motion to equalize the inspection of federal and provincial abattoirs. In many provinces, a beef farmer can see the abattoir across the border in another province but cannot get his animals processed there and bring his meat home to sell. It also must be mentioned that it was the very large abattoirs that had the biggest shut downs because of contaminated meat, not the little ones. Let’s hope that this new movement to increase cross-border movement of farm products can fix this problem.

Dairy farmers: Since supply management was introduced in Canada in the early 1970s (Canada had been buying up surplus dairy and eggs and dumping it in the sea), there has been continuous change and improvement to the system, and the farmers control the steady supply and nothing is dumped in the sea. Provincial milk boards have worked together to move milk and dairy products to wherever there is a need and a little better price. Milk used for “street sales” like bottled milk and cream is sold for a little more than milk used for making butter and powdered skim milk or cheese. Before supply management, there could be five trucks picking up milk from dairy farms on the same road but taking the milk to five different milk plants. The first thing that supply management stopped was all those milk trucks traveling on the same road. Now, one big milk tanker picks up the milk from all the farms close together and delivers it to the milk plant that needs it that day. That was a huge saving in milk transport cost passed on the consumer. The milk bottling plants get priority over the plants that make butter or other manufactured dairy products. The Canadian code of practice is used in every province and ensures that a safe, steady supply of milk and dairy products is available in every corner of Canada. How animals are housed and the care with which they are treated is enforced in every province. One of our local federal candidates asked in one of the farm visits why the president of the U.S.A. would want to replace the Canadian supply management system, which is the envy of the world for marketing dairy products, with an erratic system that is constantly either above or below the needs of his country. When there is a surplus of milk in the U.S.A., the government has to buy the surplus product and either dump it in another country for less than it costs to make, or give it away in their USAID program to a poor country (they want to quit giving relief to poor countries) and then tag the taxpayers with that $1.3 trillion U.S. Farm Bill!

Bill 96: This seems to be a touchy subject that most politicians want to avoid, because of “vote rich” Quebec. It was initially introduced to protect the French language. There have been several very expensive problems that this controversial bill has caused. Because the bill has forced businesses to operate only in French, companies or individuals that do business in other provinces, states, or countries have moved their head offices (with the highest-taxed employees) to other provinces or countries. In many cases, those companies have left lower-paid workers in Quebec to work and manufacture. This is both a drain of tax dollars from the province and a brain-drain of the managers and owners. We have recently noticed a reduction of cash at the Quebec government level, and now Quebec is losing some of the best teachers, nurses, doctors, and professors to other provinces and countries that pay higher wages, and with them goes the higher taxes that they previously paid to the Quebec government. Bill 96 also gave the government control over which school or university the students attend, based on the language in which their parents were educated. Many students wanted to attend the “other” school or university to improve their second language, to prepare themselves to work in every province or country. Some of these students left Quebec to seek a better education. This also drained Quebec of some of the best teachers and professors.

Then there is the problem of getting access to research money, because even federal research dollars are funneled through Quebec, hence any notice of the availability of new research money is advertised only in French, and must be applied for only in French. Some students from other provinces that used to attend English colleges and universities now avoid Quebec universities. Lower enrollment means fewer subjects taught and fewer professors hired, which leads to less tax collected by Quebec. During a recent visit to Quebec, Pope Francis said that no one can declare one culture, religion, or language superior to another.

Immigrants: Canadian universities in every province relied on some foreign students who paid much more to attend than Canadian students. The recent reduction of immigrants allowed into Canada, just trying to get away from poverty and political strife, has caused a huge problem to Canadian universities who relied on the extra dollars that foreign students brought in every year. Some of those very well-educated foreign students remained in Canada to become excellent Canadian citizens!

These are just a few of the serious Canadian problems that many of our “wanna-be” politicians haven’t yet given much attention to. Ask!



Register or subscribe to read this content

Thanks for stopping by! This article is available to readers who have created a free account or who subscribe to The Equity.

When you register for free with your email, you get access to a limited number of stories at no cost. Subscribers enjoy unlimited access to everything we publish—and directly support quality local journalism here in the Pontiac.

Register or Subscribe Today!



Log in to your account

ADVERTISEMENT
Calumet Media

More Local News

Some concerns remain before the vote

chris@theequity.ca

How to Share on Facebook

Unfortunately, Meta (Facebook’s parent company) has blocked the sharing of news content in Canada. Normally, you would not be able to share links from The Equity, but if you copy the link below, Facebook won’t block you!