🏆2⃣0⃣2⃣6⃣ @SGI_CANADA PROVINCIAL PLAYOFFS
DIVISION ➡️ UNDER-15 C
CHAMPION ➡️ TURTLEFORD TIGERS
Congratulations to the Turtleford Tigers on capturing their sixth provincial championship in the division, defeating the Southeast Storm Devils in the fourth round of playoffs, as both teams showcased their dedication and effort throughout the season.
@buperac Makes sense now why the crush plant in Lloyd hasn’t released unload times to the public for the last week. They are emptying the elevators for their fill
@ChristiFriesen @Kotyjo You can’t even select canola as an option to price on pioneer app anymore, Viterra dropped all their bids to $550 a ton this morning effectively giving no bid
Canada Keeps Losing at Geopolitics—And Our Farmers Pay the Price
"Canada keeps picking fights it can’t win—now our farmers are paying the price for Ottawa’s reckless trade policies."
Canada has walked itself into an unnecessary trade war with the United States’ biggest geopolitical rival, China. The consequences are now clear: new retaliatory tariffs from China are directly targeting our farmers, affecting over $3 billion in agrifood commodities and products. These measures are a direct response to Canada’s decision to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) back in October—a move designed to align with U.S. trade policy and shield the North American auto sector from low-cost competition. But now, the landscape has shifted: Joe Biden is no longer in office, Donald Trump is signaling hostility toward Canada, and China is retaliating against Canadian farmers.
Canada has been in this position before. During the Huawei affair in 2018, China employed similar tactics. When Meng Wanzhou, a top Huawei executive, was arrested in Vancouver, China swiftly imposed restrictions on Canadian canola, pork, and other agricultural exports. China’s geopolitical strategy is calculated and effective, targeting industries that will generate maximum pressure on the Canadian government. By contrast, Canada’s trade policy is often reactionary, driven by optics rather than strategic long-term planning.
Now, China is once again sending a clear message by targeting Canadian farmers in retaliation for an EV tariff—even though Canada has yet to import a single Chinese-made electric vehicle. This comes on the same weekend that Canada installs a new prime minister to replace Justin Trudeau, the leader who originally imposed the tariffs. China waited months to do this. The symbolism is undeniable, yet it remains unclear whether Ottawa grasps the significance.
At the heart of this issue is Canada’s flawed strategy on EVs—a policy that mirrors the protectionist nature of supply management in the dairy sector. The federal government has poured over $50 billion into the EV and battery industries, supporting domestic manufacturing, critical minerals, and supply chain development. Beneficiaries include Volkswagen, Stellantis-LG Energy Solution, Northvolt, and Honda, among others. To protect these investments, Ottawa followed the U.S. lead in imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs, effectively limiting market competition and driving up domestic EV prices over time.
This raises an important question: if the Canadian government is serious about climate action, shouldn’t it prioritize making EVs more affordable rather than blocking cheaper imports? Instead, Ottawa has chosen to prioritize jobs in the auto sector over environmental concerns. The inconsistency is staggering.
Meanwhile, the EV and battery industries Canada is trying to protect remain in their infancy. We are not importing Chinese EVs, yet our agricultural sector is bearing the cost of this policy misstep.
To put the misallocation of funds into perspective, let’s consider what else could have been achieved with the $50 billion funneled into EVs and batteries. The beef sector, a vital component of Canada’s food security, offers a compelling case study.
With $50 billion, the meatpacking industry could be revolutionized. A mid-sized meatpacking plant costs roughly $200 million to build, meaning these funds could support the construction of approximately 250 plants, each capable of processing between 500 and 2,000 cattle per day. Alternatively, large-scale industrial plants, like those operated by Cargill and JBS, typically cost $800 million each, meaning this investment could fund around 62 massive facilities, each capable of handling 4,000 to 7,000 cattle daily. For context, Cargill’s High River plant processes 4,000 cattle per day, while JBS’s Greeley facility in the U.S. handles about 5,000. This level of investment would decentralize the North American meat supply chain, increase competition, and improve food security by reducing reliance on a handful of dominant processors.
The lack of foresight in Ottawa’s trade and industrial policies is astonishing. If a country controls its food supply, it holds far greater economic and strategic leverage. China understands this well. The question now is whether Canada’s next government will learn the lesson before more damage is done to our farming sector.
@JerLussier Both have gone on ours, and the shaft that connects the 2 has snapped off on one.
There is a breather on the top one on the back side that fills with dust and plugs off then pressures up. We pull it a couple times a season and blow air through to free it up
@RadioClayton Pretty funny to see kids timing our Zamboni diver at games now. Come up to Turtleford next season we have a sub 6 minute flood to showcase 😂