Connect with us

Agriculture

Robbing Western Canada’s Farmers to Pay for Eastern Canada’s Car Batteries

Published

17 minute read

From the C2C Journal

By Gwyn Morgan

That the Liberal government would put productive, self-supporting western Canadian canola farmers at risk in order to protect heavily subsidized jobs in Ontario and Quebec is despicable but hardly out of character

If one were to rank contenders in the global trade wars, Canada would likely sit somewhere between pint-sized and pipsqueak. Then why would such a nation’s government choose frontal assault against the world’s biggest and most ruthless economic combatant, one wielding a range of weapons and tactics to organize a counter-attack? Yet this is just what the Justin Trudeau government has done in imposing massive import taxes on electric vehicles from China, writes Gwyn Morgan. And worse, Morgan notes, Trudeau & Co. are sacrificing farmers from western Canada on an altar dedicated to eastern auto workers – while taxing those farmers to help pay for the vast subsidies needed to keep the auto workers employed.

October 1 the federal Liberals’ new “surtax” of 100 percent on the import of Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) kicked in. Announced in late August and echoing a U.S. move three months earlier, the surtax comes on top of an existing 6.1 percent import tariff and doubles the landed price of those considerably less expensive EVs made across the Pacific Ocean. (New tariffs are also being imposed on imported Chinese aluminum and steel products.) China wasted no time in striking back where it would hurt most, launching an anti-dumping “investigation” into exported Canadian canola. Since there’s no evidence Canada’s agriculture sector is engaging in this anti-free-trade practice – which technically involves selling a product in a foreign market at a lower price than domestic buyers pay in the producing country – there’s a very high likelihood China’s investigation is a procedural pretext to halting imports of Canadian canola.

China’s move on the versatile oilseed was predictable given what happened following Canada’s arrest of Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer, Meng Wanzhou, in 2019. Along with arresting two innocent Canadian expatriates and triggering the infamous “two Michaels” imbroglio, the Communist regime  also blocked imports of canola from two major Canadian export handlers. Canola producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba lost an estimated $1.5-$2.4 billion in revenue as a result of that year-long boycott.

Striking back where it hurts most: Following the Justin Trudeau government’s (top left) new “surtax” of 100 percent on the import of Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), China wasted no time in launching an anti-dumping “investigation” into exported Canadian canola, Canada’s second-most important farm crop. Shown at bottom right, Chinese President Xi Jinping. (Sources of photos (clockwise starting top-left): ©Kyodonews via ZUMA Press; Ethan Llamas, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0Paul Kagame, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0Paul Howard Photo, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Canola seeds are Canada’s second-most widely grown agricultural commodity, generating a critical 25 percent of the nation’s farm crop receipts, totalling $13.6 billion last year (agricultural prices fluctuate significantly). China has long been Canada’s biggest foreign canola buyer – importing 4.5 million tonnes worth nearly $4 billion last year – and was expected to purchase 70 percent of this year’s bumper crop.

The Justin Trudeau government’s initial press release described Chinese EVs as an “extraordinary threat” to Canada’s auto workers. (There aren’t any Chinese EV brands for sale in Canada yet.) But the reality is that Canada produces almost no EVs and there are few projects on the table to do so. The genuine long-term threat to Canada’s auto workers is the Trudeau government’s “mandate” that the auto industry phase out the manufacture of internal combustion engine-powered cars and light trucks by 2035.

Much of the global auto industry has been sliding into a state approaching panic over such national mandates, which are now regarded even by some of the industry’s most established and storied brands as an existential threat. Some countries are showing signs of abandoning the 2035 changeover or at least extending the timeline. Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, for example, recently termed the European Union’s phase-out policy “self-destructive”, while her energy minister has urged the EU to lift the impending ban on gasoline/diesel-powered engines.

“Self-destructive”: While the Trudeau government continues to push for the phaseout of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035 in order to force Canadians entirely into EVs, some European leaders are beginning to question similar mandates, including Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni (bottom left). (Sources of photos: (top right) DealerOn; (bottom left) AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski; (bottom right) FaceMePLS, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

But not Canada, at least not under the current government. What is on the table are subsidies – some $52.5 billion as of April, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer – to Honda, Swedish battery maker Northvolt, Ford, Stellantis, Volkswagen and General Motors to build EV battery plants in Ontario and Quebec. The total government support exceeds what the private-sector manufacturers are themselves investing. The labour forces at these facilities will thereby represent some of the costliest jobs ever “created” in Canada, and it is entirely guesswork whether any of these plants will ever recover their prodigious expense.

There are valid reasons for great concern about the importation of Chinese-made EVs. One is the recently voiced allegation that the regime is having EV manufacturers embed technology in the cars’ computers so that China’s military could one day remotely turn them off en masse, causing chaos in the targeted countries. But Canada’s options as a trade warrior are severely limited. A crude response like the one Trudeau has attempted – levying a “surtax” steeper than anything that was ever imposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump, the man Trudeau probably despises more than anyone else in the world – is definitely not one of them. Canada’s canola exports – our country’s number-one item sold to China – offered China an easy target for a punishing tit-for-tat response.

That’s because the American situation is substantially different from Canada’s. While the U.S. does manufacture EVs, the U.S.-China trading relationship is more complex and involves multiple large industries. This means there is no obvious single target for China to strike. And this makes Trudeau’s mimicking of the American tariff profoundly irresponsible. China holds the top cards at this trade table. Late last month, for example, China initiated further steps towards retaliation when its Commerce Ministry announced a three-month-long “anti-discrimination” investigation into Canada’s new tariffs.

Not-so-mighty trade warrior: With canola being Canada’s primary export to China, Trudeau’s crude “surtax” on Chinese EVs, steel and aluminum opened the country to a foreseeable – and foreseeably punishing – tit-for-tat response. (Source of graph: Janice Nelson)

That the Liberal government would put productive, self-supporting western Canadian canola farmers at risk in order to protect heavily subsidized jobs in Ontario and Quebec is despicable but hardly out of character. The Trudeau Liberals have a long record of making decisions or imposing policies that harm the West – and western farmers in particular.

Data from the Agricultural Carbon Alliance show that during just one month in 2023, livestock farmers paid an average of $726 per month each in carbon taxes, field crop farmers $2,024 and greenhouse operators $17,173. A sampling of 50 farms showed total carbon tax payments of $329,644 in just that one month. With the tax rate rising inexorably every year, within a few years those same 50 farms will be paying nearly $900,000 per month – $11 million in 2030 alone. There are 190,000 farms in Canada. The carbon tax has become yet another inter-regional financial transfer that skims wealth generated in the West to be spent on subsidy-dependent industries in Laurentian Canada.

A sampling of just 50 of Canada’s 190,000 farms showed total carbon tax payments of $329,644 in one month, an amount projected to triple by 2030 – while battery manufacturers based in eastern Canada are to receive $52.5 billion in subsidies. Shown at bottom, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau observe an assembly line at an event announcing plans for a Honda electric vehicle battery plant in Alliston, Ontario, April 2024. (Sources: (graph) Agriculture Carbon Alliance; (photo) The Canadian Press/Nathan Denette)

The harmful new 100 percent EV tariff comes at a time when the entire Canadian farming sector’s future is in doubt. A study sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada predicts that by 2033, 40 per cent of Canadian farm operators will retire. A shortfall of 24,000 general farm, nursery and greenhouse workers is expected over that period. “These gaps loom at a time when Canada’s agricultural workforce needs to evolve to include skills like data analytics,” the study states. “To meet our medium and long-term goals, we’ll need to build a new pipeline of domestic operators and workers.” Every new policy move that adds to the agriculture sector’s woes makes such a metaphorical pipeline as unlikely as the physical pipelines that the Trudeau government’s other policies have killed, from Energy East to Northern Gateway. Ruinous policies such as the carbon tax need to go, and new policies that place agriculture at risk must be avoided.

The most perverse aspect of this lengthening saga is that the future of those battery plants that the Liberals intend to subsidize with $52.5 billion and counting, raised through carbon taxes and additional debt we cannot afford to incur, is itself in serious jeopardy. That is because the grandiose global plan to transition the world to EVs is looking increasingly like a house of cards, as we have long warned (please see herehere or here). As this has seeped into public consciousness, the once-exponential growth in EV sales has flattened.

As Forbes magazine recently reported, “Fully-electric passenger car demand is softening, fast. Unsold inventories have been clogging dealers’ lots. Manufacturers – from the biggest brands down to the smallest startups – are cutting back on production and investment plans.” Some prospective EV builders – like Apple – are dropping out entirely. Even before the U.S. and Canadian tariffs on Chinese EVs, reports and images came out of China showing fields packed with unsold (and possibly abandoned) EVs, a problem that lately is being “exported” as tens of thousands of Chinese EVs clog ports and shipping hubs in destination markets.

How does the future of Canadian EV manufacturing relate to the future of farming? The answer is that the first cannot exist at all without gigantic taxpayer-funded subsidies, while Canada’s farming sector – despite being an innately risky undertaking at the mercy of fickle Mother Nature and unpredictable market swings – is generally self-supporting and on balance profitable, at times highly so. What it needs above all is to be relieved of debilitating policies – first and foremost the carbon tax. We should not be robbing Canadian farmers to pay subsidies to battery-makers.

Global house of cards: With consumers awakening to the profound shortcomings of EVs, tens of thousands of unsold battery-powered cars have been clogging Chinese ports and shipping hubs (top right) – a problem now being “exported” to destination markets including Canada’s auto dealerships (bottom right). (Source of bottom right photo: Golden Shrimp/Shutterstock)

Instead, we need to encourage young people to enter the farming industry and provide them with the skills needed to “build that new pipeline” of agricultural workers. A country that can’t fuel and feed itself is a vulnerable country even in good times, and a starving, freezing one in bad. We Canadians are fortunate to have the natural resources needed to both fuel and feed ourselves plus create wealth by exporting the products that we derive from those resources. Canada’s oil, natural gas, coal, forests, fisheries and soils represent natural advantages that Canadians long ago became adept at leveraging into livelihoods and prosperity.

We have every reason to be outraged at a government that spends tens of billions of dollars subsidizing an entirely artificial industry in which our country has no innate economic advantage, while imposing heavy taxes on an industry that is absolutely vital to thousands of rural communities and to the food security of us all.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Source of main image: bill barber, licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.

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

Bovaer Backlash Update: Danish Farmers Get Green Light to Opt Out as UK Arla Trial Abruptly Ends!

Published on

Sonia Elijah investigates Sonia Elijah

In a pivotal shift, Denmark’s Veterinary and Food Administration has issued new guidance: Farmers can immediately suspend Bovaer administration if they “suspect” it poses risks to herd health. On the heels of the Danish announcement—the major UK trial of Bovaer on 30 Arla Foods farms has abruptly ended amid health fears.

The Mandate Cracks: Farmers Given the Green Light to Opt Out

On November 5, 2025, Denmark’s Fødevarestyrelsen (Danish Veterinary and Food Administration) issued a press release and accompanying guidance clarified that farmers (specifically the herd manager, or besætningsansvarlige) could immediately exempt individual cows or entire herds from the mandatory Bovaer use if they suspected it was causing or exacerbating health issues, prioritizing animal welfare under existing regulations.

Sonia Elijah investigates is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This was in response to surging reports of cow illnesses since October 1, where farms with over 50 cows have been mandated to use the synthetic additive, Bovaer (containing 3-nitrooxypropanol), developed by DSM-Firmenich. If the farms do not comply, they face heavy fines.

Bovaer Backlash: Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive

·
Nov 3
Bovaer Backlash: Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
Article updated: November 4
Read full story

The guidance emphasized that exemptions apply to cases of feed-related metabolic disorders (e.g., fatty liver, milk fever, or rumen issues) and require documentation via a “tro- og loveerklæring” (declaration of good faith) on LandbrugsInfo, with veterinary consultation recommended for severe cases. No fines would apply for such welfare-based pauses, though farmers must still meet methane reduction goals via alternatives like increased feed fat. This effectively gave the “green light” for opting out on welfare grounds.

Reports surged of Danish dairy farmers unilaterally halting Bovaer administration, accusing the government of “poisoning” livestock to meet climate targets.

A November 3, 2025, article in LandbrugsAvisen (Denmark’s leading agricultural newspaper), quoted veterinarian Torben Bennedsgaard from BoviCura (a specialized cattle health advisory service closely tied to Danish dairy producers). He stated: “Every other farmer has problems with Bovaer.”

“Bovaer is a proven, effective and safe solution”

A spokesperson for DSM-Firmenich, the company that developed Bovaer, told Agriland, that “animal welfare is our highest priority”. They went on to state: “We are actively engaging with the relevant organisations to ensure that all these concerns are fully investigated and properly addressed..In previously reported cases, Bovaer was not identified as a contributing factor to the health concerns raised…Bovaer is a proven, effective and safe solution that has been successfully used for over three years by thousands of farmers in over 25 countries.”

UK Ripple Effects: Arla Trial Abruptly Halted

 

On 7 November, the BBC reported that the major UK trial of Bovaer on 30 Arla Foods farms concluded earlier than planned amid “farmer health concerns” for cows, echoing Danish reports. It stated: ‘Bovaer is now the focus of an investigation in Denmark after farmers raised fresh concerns but manufacturer DSM-Firmenich said the additive was “proven, effective and safe.”’

Arla, which supplies major retailers like Tesco and Aldi, is now reviewing data before deciding on wider rollout. The trial aimed to cut methane by 30% but faced criticism for lacking transparency on animal impact.

Jannik Elmegaard, of the Danish Food and Veterinary Administration, told the BBC: “They very aware that some herd owners have reported animals showing signs of illness after being fed with Bovaer” but it was “unclear how many cows were affected”.

Last year, I reported on the UK’s Arla trial—whilst digging through various safety assessment reports on Bovaer, I came across several troubling findings and anomalies.

BREAKING: Methane-Reducing Feed Additive Trialled in Arla Dairy Farms

·
November 28, 2024
BREAKING: Methane-Reducing Feed Additive Trialled in Arla Dairy Farms
On November 26th, Arla Foods Ltd. announced via social media their collaboration with major UK supermarkets like Tesco, Aldi, and Morrisons to trial Bovaer, a feed additive, aiming to reduce methane …
Read full story

In a public rebuttal, Frank Mitloehner, Professor of Animal Science at UC Davis and Director of the Clarify Center for Enteric Fermentation Research, posted on X ”Hogwash!”—dismissing viral claims of Bovaer-related cow health issues in Denmark by highlighting his lab’s ongoing research and widespread U.S. usage data.

The green light in Denmark is not a mere victory—it’s a damning admission that the emperor’s new feed has holes big enough for a whole herd to escape through.

As Arla licks its wounds and DSM-Firmenich doubles down on “proven safe,” the real trial begins: can climate crusaders stomach the science when it bites back?

If you appreciate the hard work that I do as an independent investigative journalist,

please consider supporting me with a paid subscription.

Subscribe to Sonia Elijah Investigates

Buy me a coffee

Share

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Farmers Take The Hit While Biofuel Companies Cash In

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Fournier

Canada’s emissions policy rewards biofuels but punishes the people who grow our food

In the global rush to decarbonize, agriculture faces a contradictory narrative: livestock emissions are condemned as climate threats, while the same crops turned into biofuels are praised as green solutions argues senior fellow Dr. Joseph Fournier. This double standard ignores the natural carbon cycle and the fossil-fuel foundations of modern farming, penalizing food producers while rewarding biofuel makers through skewed carbon accounting and misguided policy incentives.

In the rush to decarbonize our world, agriculture finds itself caught in a bizarre contradiction.

Policymakers and environmental advocates decry methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock digestion, respiration and manure decay, labelling them urgent climate threats. Yet they celebrate the same corn and canola crops when diverted to ethanol and biodiesel as heroic offsets against fossil fuels.

Biofuels are good, but food is bad.

This double standard isn’t just inconsistent—it backfires. It ignores the full life cycle of the agricultural sector’s methane and carbon dioxide emissions and the historical reality that modern farming’s productivity owes its existence to hydrocarbons. It’s time to confront these hypocrisies head-on, or we risk chasing illusory credits while penalizing the very system that feeds us.

Let’s take Canada as an example.

It’s estimated that our agriculture sector emits 69 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually, or 10 per cent of national totals. Around 35 Mt comes from livestock digestion and respiration, including methane produced during digestion and carbon dioxide released through breathing. Manure composting adds another 12 Mt through methane and nitrous oxide.

Even crop residue decomposition is counted in emissions estimates.

Animal digestion and respiration, including burping and flatulence, and the composting of their waste are treated as industrial-scale pollutants.

These aren’t fossil emissions—they’re part of the natural carbon cycle, where last year’s stover or straw returns to the atmosphere after feeding soil life. Yet under United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines adopted by Canada, they’re lumped into “agricultural sources,” making farmers look like climate offenders for doing their job.

Ironically, only 21 per cent—about 14 Mt—of the sector’s emissions come from actual fossil fuel use on the farm.

This inconsistency becomes even more apparent in the case of biofuels.

Feed the corn to cows, and its digestive gases count as a planetary liability. Turn it into ethanol, and suddenly it’s an offset.

Canada’s Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR) mandate a 15 per cent CO2e intensity drop by 2030 using biofuels. In this program, biofuel producers earn offset credits per litre, which become a major part of their revenue, alongside fuel sales.

Critics argue the CFR is essentially a second carbon tax, expected to add up to 17 cents per litre at the pump by 2030, with no consumer rebate this time.

But here’s the rub: crop residue emits carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide whether the grain goes to fuel or food.

Diverting crops to biofuels doesn’t erase these emissions: it just shifts the accounting, rewarding biofuel producers with credits while farmers and ranchers take the emissions hit.

These aren’t theoretical concerns: they’re baked into policy.

If ethanol and biodiesel truly offset emissions, why penalize the same crops when used to feed livestock?

And why penalize farmers for crop residue decomposition while ignoring the emissions from rotting leaves, trees and grass in nature?

This contradiction stems from flawed assumptions and bad math.

Fossil fuels are often blamed, while the agricultural sector’s natural carbon loop is treated like a threat. Policy seems more interested in pinning blame than in understanding how food systems actually work.

This disconnect isn’t new—it’s embedded in the history of agriculture.

Since the Industrial Revolution, mechanization and hydrocarbons have driven abundance. The seed drill and reaper slashed labour needs. Tractors replaced horses, boosting output and reducing the workforce.

Yields exploded with synthetic fertilizers produced from methane and other hydrocarbons.

For every farm worker replaced, a barrel of oil stepped in.

A single modern tractor holds the energy equivalent of 50 to 100 barrels of oil, powering ploughing, planting and harvesting that once relied on sweat and oxen.

We’ve traded human labour for hydrocarbons, feeding billions in the process.

Biofuel offsets claim to reduce this dependence. But by subsidizing crop diversion, they deepen it; more corn for ethanol means more diesel for tractors.

It’s a policy trap: vilify farmers to fund green incentives, all while ignoring the fact that oil props up the table we eat from.

Policymakers must scrap the double standards, adopt full-cycle biogenic accounting, and invest in truly regenerative technologies or lift the emissions burden off farmers entirely.

Dr. Joseph Fournier is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. An accomplished scientist and former energy executive, he holds graduate training in chemical physics and has written more than 100 articles on energy, environment and climate science.

Continue Reading

Trending

X