Ottawa to remove many federal exceptions from Canadian Free Trade Agreement

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
27,984
10,436
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Huh…announced by Anita Anand, while Parliament is Prorogued, and I’m assuming she won’t be involved in any of the above.
1740328481412.jpeg
1740328507540.jpeg
She’s out….once the next election is called, whenever that happens, assuming Carney doesn’t use the Emergencies Act to stall that off in light of Trump tariffs, etc…
 

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
4,577
2,641
113
No dude, that shit didn't start until Pierre Trudeau came along.
Long before papa turdOWE. Remember the Crow rate? There are others like Supply Side Management to protect dairy and egg farmers in OntariOWE and Quebec that have been around forever.
During the 80s,90s, there was(is?) a federal excise tax on marine fuel that only applied to the West Coast. I was spending $50,000 a year + at that time barging equipment around. Logs too, but that was accounted for differently, but the tax still came out of my pocket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dixie Cup

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,261
113
Olympus Mons
Long before papa turdOWE. Remember the Crow rate? There are others like Supply Side Management to protect dairy and egg farmers in OntariOWE and Quebec that have been around forever.
During the 80s,90s, there was(is?) a federal excise tax on marine fuel that only applied to the West Coast. I was spending $50,000 a year + at that time barging equipment around. Logs too, but that was accounted for differently, but the tax still came out of my pocket.
I'll give you the Crow Rate. Supply Management was introduced during the Pierre Trudeau era, 1972 to be exact. Everything else you mentioned just furthers my point.
In the 1st 100 years of Confederation there were only 3 PM's who came from Quebec, including Pierre Trudeau. The rest literally came from all across Canada. Since Pierre Trudeau and in my 58 years of existence Canada has only had two PM's that DIDN'T come from Quebec, Martin and Harper. Turner and Campbell don't count.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,584
9,177
113
Washington DC
I'll give you the Crow Rate. Supply Management was introduced during the Pierre Trudeau era, 1972 to be exact. Everything else you mentioned just furthers my point.
In the 1st 100 years of Confederation there were only 3 PM's who came from Quebec, including Pierre Trudeau. The rest literally came from all across Canada. Since Pierre Trudeau and in my 58 years of existence Canada has only had two PM's that DIDN'T come from Quebec, Martin and Harper. Turner and Campbell don't count.
So. . . got over your anti-Froggy bigotry? Good for you.

Turner and Campbell don't count? Weren't PM? Or don't fit your narrative?
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,261
113
Olympus Mons
Don't fit the narrative likely, because their terms as PM were short as hell.
If you weren't such a pathetic know-nothing moron, that would be neat. I could have also included Joe Clark with his 1 yr term but at least he was an elected representative in the House (unlike Turner) and wasn't given the position as a sacrificial hand-me-down (unlike Campbell).
THAT'S why I don't include those two. They did nothing as PM except to act as place holders.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,261
113
Olympus Mons
Or oh wait, Trump and his insanity.
Or, wait, maybe because too many assholes in Canada still think regionally instead of nationally. Particularly provincial govts. Seriously, what kind of retard country engages in protectionism against their fellow provinces/states/territories etc? And allows it to go on for as long as it has?
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,731
2,686
113
New Brunswick
If you weren't such a pathetic know-nothing moron,

... wow...

And here I've been actually trying to be decent/nice with you Jin, for all the posts lately I've agreed with you on. You know, give you a bit of respect, maybe even give this back and forth bullshit a break?

Guess that's out the window now.

I admit there are some things I do know nothing about, but UNLIKE you, you fucking numbnuts, I do try to educate myself when it comes up. You just soak in that ignorance until you're oozing the stink of it and when you're called out on it, you bitch like a whiny baby that needs a fucking diaper change.

Or, wait, maybe because too many assholes in Canada still think regionally instead of nationally. Particularly provincial govts

And LOOK, I agree with you AGAIN!

Goddamn, even when you're a fucking asshole, it can still happen.

Seriously, what kind of retard country engages in protectionism against their fellow provinces/states/territories etc? And allows it to go on for as long as it has?

Good question and one that needs to not only be answered, but really kicked to the curb for the stupidity of it. It's long past due that this shit stopped.
 

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
4,577
2,641
113
So. . . got over your anti-Froggy bigotry? Good for you.

Turner and Campbell don't count? Weren't PM? Or don't fit your narrative?
Neither was elected as PM, or party leader, which would be essentially the same thing for the governing party. Both got the job as sacrificial goats.
 

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
4,577
2,641
113
Or, wait, maybe because too many assholes in Canada still think regionally instead of nationally. Particularly provincial govts. Seriously, what kind of retard country engages in protectionism against their fellow provinces/states/territories etc? And allows it to go on for as long as it has?
Countries that have the vast majority of the population in a relatively small area.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
38,300
3,417
113
Complaints about food mislabelled as products of Canada rising: CFIA
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Tara Deschamps
Published Mar 05, 2025 • Last updated 15 hours ago • 3 minute read

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says it’s seen an increase in complaints about items mislabelled as products of Canada or missing information about their country of origin.


The federal organization enforcing labelling standards on food products told The Canadian Press in an email late Tuesday that the rash of complaints have come in the last few months, when Canadians were increasingly supporting local businesses to fend off threatened tariffs from the U.S.

The CFIA is still reviewing the complaints it has received related to such labels and says it’s “too early” to tell if there has been non-compliance.

The spike was no surprise to Julia Kappler, a Montreal-based partner at law firm Gowling WLG, because she’s seen a product’s Canadian-ness become a selling point in the current political environment.

“People are scrutinizing product origin claims much more closely now than they were previously,” she said in an email.


“The issue has also become more emotive for many Canadians, such that someone who may not have paid much attention to these claims in the past may now feel compelled to complain to the regulator if they feel that an indication of origin is unclear or inaccurate.”

The product of Canada designation can be hard for companies to meet because it comes with both strict and lofty criteria. To call an item a product of Canada, the CFIA says all, or nearly all, of the food, processing and labour used to make the item must be Canadian.

“There will likely be many cases in which a part of the product or some of its ingredients have Canadian roots, but other countries also played a role,” said Kappler.

While product of Canada labels have been a lightning rod for complaints, the CFIA said many of the other terms that crop up on domestic items haven’t generated the same reaction.


It has not received any complaints about manufacturers mislabelling their products as made in Canada or incorrectly claiming they are 100 per cent Canadian.

A made in Canada label can only be applied to items when the last substantial transformation of the product occurred in Canada, like when imported ingredients are transformed into an item in Canada.

A 100 per cent Canadian claim means an item must have entirely Canadian ingredients, processing and labour.

The Competition Bureau enforces the use of these terms on non-food items.

The product of Canada label can only be used on non-food items when at least 98 per cent of the costs of producing or manufacturing the good have been incurred domestically. Products advertised as made in Canada had at least 51 per cent of their production or manufacturing costs come from the country.


Each year, the Competition Bureau receives “numerous” complaints about labelling, senior communications advisor Marianne Blondin said in a late February email, when asked whether the organization had seen a spike recently linked to items with Canadian claims.

“As the Bureau is required by law to conduct its work confidentially, I am unable to provide information regarding complaint volumes or trends related to Made in Canada or Product of Canada claims, specifically,” she said.

If the CFIA finds merit in the complaints it received, Dara Jospe, a Montreal-based partner at the Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP law firm, said the agency can force a company to stop selling the items in question, recall them or even, levy monetary penalties for non-compliance.


In the case of a misleading label which does not impact safety, she suspects the CFIA would allow the manufacturer to sell off existing stock within a reasonable period of time.

But the weight Canadian claims are carrying with consumers these days, may cause the agency to be more dramatic and speedier.

“The CFIA may require immediate recall and cessation of the claims,” Jospe said in an email.

The Food and Drugs Act allows for fines of up to $250,000, and imprisonment for up to three years, said Kappler.

Under the Competition Act, which applies to non-food items, misuse of Canadian labels can result in companies having to pay the greater of $10 million, three times the value of the benefit derived from the conduct, or, if that amount cannot be reasonably determined, three per cent of the corporation’s annual worldwide gross revenue.

“This is very much a situation where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” Kappler said.

“Businesses will be well-served to confirm that these claims are compliant before going to market with them, rather than later trying to deal with the repercussions.”