National
Bureaucrat booze bill cost taxpayers $51,000 a month

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
By Ryan Thorpe
“Working” in government may be a thirsty profession, but a booze tab of $51,000 a month is definitely a problem.
And the problem gets worse when the bill is sent to taxpayers.
Global Affairs Canada bureaucrats spent more than $3.3 million on alcohol between January 2019 and May 2024, according to access-to-information records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
That means the department spent an average of $51,000 on beer, wine and spirits per month.
“The government is wasting our tax dollars faster than we can say bottoms up,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Is any politician going to look a single struggling Canadian in the eye and try to justify the government spending thousands of dollars on wine tastings and cocktail parties?”
The largest single order from Global Affairs Canada came on Feb. 20, 2019, when bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., spent $56,684 on “wine purchases from special store.”
Other large orders include $9,815 worth of wine expensed by bureaucrats in Beijing, China, in March 2021, and $8,912 worth of wine expensed by bureaucrats in New Delhi, India, in May 2022.
Orders flown off to bureaucrats in far flung locales like Oslo, Tokyo, Moscow and London routinely run into the thousands of dollars per shipment.
At times, the records obtained by the CTF indicate the alcohol was purchased for a specific purpose – such as an official event or reception, or in one case, a $1,024 booze-filled “trivia night.”
But in many cases, the records provide no explanation beyond “bulk alcohol purchase” or “replenishment of wine stock.”
“The price of booze went up when Ottawa increased alcohol taxes, but that’s not a good excuse for these runaway bills,” Terrazzano said. “I like to party as much as the next guy, but maybe these bureaucrats could chill it on the cold ones when the government is more than $1 trillion in debt and taxpayers are struggling.”
On March 19, 2019, bureaucrats in San Jose, California, expensed $8,153 worth of booze. Just 12 days later, those bureaucrats spent another $2,196 on booze.
On Jan. 23, 2020, bureaucrats in Reykjavik, Iceland, bought $8,074 worth of booze, only to follow it up with a $2,849 alcohol purchase less than two months later.
Roughly $1.9 million of the spending came under the Canadian Alcoholic Beverages Abroad program, formerly known as the Canadian Wine Initiative.
The Canadian Wine Initiative was launched in 2004 with a mandate of supporting the country’s booze industry by promoting it abroad.
The rest of the spending was miscellaneous alcohol purchases billed to taxpayers. The records obtained by the CTF give no indication any of the $3.3 million spent on alcohol was recouped by taxpayers.
An access-to-information analyst at Global Affairs Canada told the CTF the department doesn’t centrally track its alcohol purchases. As a result, it’s possible Global Affairs Canada spent more than $3.3. million on booze.
The records obtained by the CTF only detail alcohol purchases from Global Affairs Canada. According to the government of Canada’s website, there are more than 200 other federal departments, Crown corporations and agencies.
“These bureaucrats seem like they’re having a good time, but what value are taxpayers getting from this huge booze bill?” Terrazzano said. “Billing taxpayers $51,000 a month for booze is mind boggling, but what’s even crazier is this tab is just for one government department.”
Business
Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.
In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.
According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.
According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.
The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.
Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.
Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.
And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.
Agriculture
Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Without reform, Canada risks losing nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030, according to experts
Few topics in Canadian agriculture generate as much debate as supply management in the dairy sector. The issue gained renewed attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Canada’s protectionist stance during NAFTA renegotiations, underscoring the need to reassess the system’s long-term viability.
While proponents argue that supply management ensures financial stability for farmers and shields them from global market volatility, critics contend that it inflates consumer prices, limits competition, and stifles innovation. A policy assessment titled Supply Management 2.0: A Policy Assessment and a Possible Roadmap for the Canadian Dairy Sector, conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Guelph, sheds light on the system’s inefficiencies and presents a compelling case for reform.
Designed in the 1970s to regulate production and stabilize dairy prices, Canada’s supply management system operates through strict production quotas and high import tariffs. However, as successive trade agreements such as the USMCA, CETA, and CPTPP erode these protections, the system appears increasingly fragile. The federal government’s $3-billion compensation package to dairy farmers for hypothetical trade losses is a clear indication that the current structure is unsustainable.
Instead of fostering resilience, supply management has created an industry that is increasingly dependent on government payouts rather than market-driven efficiencies. If current trends persist, Canada could lose nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030 — regardless of who is in the White House.
Consumer sentiment is also shifting. Younger generations are questioning the sustainability and transparency of the dairy industry, particularly in light of scandals such as ButterGate, where palm oil supplements were used in cow feed to alter butterfat content, making butter harder at room temperature. Additionally, undisclosed milk dumping of anywhere between 600 million to 1 billion litres annually has further eroded public trust. These factors indicate that the industry is failing to align with evolving consumer expectations.
One of the most alarming findings in the policy assessment is the extent of overcapitalization in the dairy sector. Government compensation payments, coupled with rigid production quotas, have encouraged inefficiency rather than fostering innovation. Unlike their counterparts in Australia and the European Union — where deregulation has driven productivity gains — Canadian dairy farmers remain insulated from competitive pressures that could otherwise drive modernization.
The policy assessment also highlights a growing geographic imbalance in dairy production. Over 74% of Canada’s dairy farms are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, despite only 61% of the national population residing in these provinces. This concentration exacerbates supply chain inefficiencies and increases price disparities. As a result, consumers in Atlantic Canada, the North, and Indigenous communities face disproportionately high dairy costs, raising serious food security concerns. Addressing these imbalances requires policies that promote regional diversification in dairy production.
A key element of modernization must involve a gradual reform of production quotas and tariffs. The existing quota system restricts farmers’ ability to respond dynamically to market signals. While quota allocation is managed provincially, harmonizing the system at the federal level would create a more cohesive market. Moving toward a flexible quota model, with expansion mechanisms based on demand, would increase competitiveness and efficiency.
Tariff policies also warrant reassessment. While tariffs provide necessary protection for domestic producers, they currently contribute to artificially inflated consumer prices. A phased reduction in tariffs, complemented by direct incentives for farmers investing in productivity-enhancing innovations and sustainability initiatives, could strike a balance between maintaining food sovereignty and fostering competitiveness.
Despite calls for reform, inertia persists due to entrenched interests within the sector. However, resistance is not a viable long-term strategy. Industrial milk prices in Canada are now the highest in the Western world, making the sector increasingly uncompetitive on a global scale. While supply management also governs poultry and eggs, these industries have adapted more effectively, remaining competitive through efficiency improvements and innovation. In contrast, the dairy sector continues to grapple with structural inefficiencies and a lack of modernization.
That said, abolishing supply management outright is neither desirable nor practical. A sudden removal of protections would expose Canadian dairy farmers to aggressive foreign competition, risking rural economic stability and jeopardizing domestic food security. Instead, a balanced approach is needed — one that preserves the core benefits of supply management while integrating market-driven reforms to ensure the industry remains competitive, innovative and sustainable.
Canada’s supply management system, once a pillar of stability, has become an impediment to progress. As global trade dynamics shift and consumer expectations evolve, policymakers have an opportunity to modernize the system in a way that balances fair pricing with market efficiency. The recommendations from Supply Management 2.0 suggest that regional diversification of dairy production, value-chain-based pricing models that align production with actual market demand, and a stronger emphasis on research and development could help modernize the industry. Performance-based government compensation, rather than blanket payouts that preserve inefficiencies, would also improve long-term sustainability.
The question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the dairy industry and policymakers are prepared to embrace it. A smarter, more flexible supply management framework will be crucial in ensuring that Canadian dairy remains resilient, competitive, and sustainable for future generations.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Misinformed: Hyped heat deaths and ignored cold deaths
-
National1 day ago
Trudeau fills Canadian courts with Liberal-appointed judges before resigning as prime minister
-
International1 day ago
Commerce Secretary on Oval Office debacle: Zelensky flies to Washington to sign deal then scuttles it
-
Business1 day ago
Trump’s trade war and what it means for Canada
-
Alberta1 day ago
Securing the Alberta-U.S. border
-
Business2 days ago
Trump could announce tariff compromise Wednesday
-
Business1 day ago
Next federal government has to unravel mess created by 10 years of Trudeau policies
-
Business13 hours ago
Bitcoin hits $90K as Trump plans U.S. crypto reserve