https://www.facebook.com/1074573029070023/

Desi Vibes AB, Calgary, AB (2026)

07/31/2026

Canada's Three New Religions Are Driving Away Prosperity

Canada should be one of the richest countries on Earth.

Not because of government spending.

Not because of record immigration.

But because this country won the geographic lottery.

The world's third-largest proven oil reserves. Massive natural gas deposits. Critical minerals essential for the AI revolution. Endless forests. Fertile farmland. Fresh water. Stable institutions. A highly educated workforce.

Few countries possess such extraordinary advantages.

Yet Canada has become one of the weakest-performing advanced economies when it comes to productivity growth and business investment.

Why?

Canada has embraced three modern "religions": environmentalism, bureaucratism and multiculturalism.

Each began with worthy intentions.

But together, they have gradually shifted Canada's focus away from wealth creation and toward wealth management.

The result is a country that talks more about regulating prosperity than creating it.

The Great GDP Illusion

Politicians love announcing that Canada's GDP has grown.

What they rarely emphasize is real GDP per person—the inflation-adjusted measure that economists use to judge whether the average citizen is actually becoming more prosperous.

The numbers tell a sobering story.

Between 2000 and 2009, Canada's real GDP per capita grew by roughly 1.8 to 2.0 percent every year.

Between 2010 and 2019, that pace slowed dramatically to approximately 0.8 to 1.0 percent annually.

Since 2019, Canada's inflation-adjusted GDP per person has been essentially flat, averaging roughly 0 to 0.2 percent annual growth, with several years of outright decline before only a modest recovery.

That should concern every Canadian.

The economy has become larger.

The population has become larger.

But the average Canadian has seen little improvement in real economic output per person.

Those are two very different things.

Growing GDP by adding more people is easy.

Growing GDP because every worker produces more value—that is genuine prosperity.

Population Growth Cannot Replace Productivity

A country does not become wealthy because more people rent apartments, buy groceries and consume services.

A country becomes wealthy because more people invent.

Build.

Manufacture.

Engineer.

Mine.

Export.

Commercialize ideas.

Increase productivity.

That is how the United States became an economic superpower.

That is how Germany became Europe's industrial engine.

That is how Japan rebuilt itself.

That is how South Korea transformed itself from poverty into one of the world's leading technology exporters.

Their prosperity was built on production—not population.

Canada once understood this.

Today, governments increasingly celebrate population growth while productivity continues to lag.

Environmentalism Without Perspective

Protecting the environment is essential.

But public policy also requires perspective.

Canada is responsible for only about 1.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

By comparison:

China produces roughly 30 percent of global emissions.

The United States produces approximately 11 to 13 percent.

Together, those two countries account for more than 40 percent of the world's emissions.

Yet Canada has imposed some of the world's most demanding regulatory processes, carbon pricing systems and approval requirements on major industrial projects.

This approach has made Canada one of the hardest democratic countries in which to build pipelines, LNG export terminals, mines, refineries and major manufacturing facilities.

The consequence is not necessarily lower global emissions.

Instead, investment often moves to countries with lower environmental standards.

Canada loses the jobs.

Canada loses the tax revenue.

Canada loses the engineering expertise.

Canada loses the industrial capacity.

Global emissions may change very little if production simply shifts elsewhere.

Canada should absolutely reduce emissions through innovation and cleaner technology.

But with only about 1.5 percent of global emissions, critics argue that Canada's policies have too often imposed disproportionately high economic costs while delivering limited influence on the global climate trajectory.

The objective should be to produce energy, minerals and manufactured goods cleaner than anyone else—not to stop producing them altogether.

Bureaucracy Has Become an Industry

Canada has become remarkably efficient at processing paperwork.

Approvals.

Consultations.

Reviews.

Assessments.

Appeals.

Then more reviews.

In many cases, obtaining permission to build now takes longer than building itself.

Large multinational corporations may survive years of regulatory uncertainty.

Entrepreneurs and smaller businesses often cannot.

Capital does not wait.

It simply leaves.

When investment leaves, factories leave.

Engineering jobs leave.

Innovation leaves.

Eventually, talented young Canadians leave as well.

Immigration Cannot Substitute for Industrial Growth

Immigration has played an important role in Canada's history.

Millions of immigrants have strengthened this country through entrepreneurship, innovation and hard work.

But immigration alone is not an economic strategy.

If governments rely primarily on rapid population growth to expand headline GDP while industrial investment, manufacturing, infrastructure and productivity fail to keep pace, living standards inevitably come under pressure.

Real prosperity comes from creating more value—not merely adding more consumers.

Canada Needs Builders Again

Canada once built transcontinental railways.

It developed the oil sands.

It built hydroelectric megaprojects.

It became a global leader in engineering and resource development.

That Canada believed that ambitious projects were worth pursuing.

Today's Canada too often celebrates another consultation instead of another construction project.

No country has ever regulated itself into prosperity.

No nation has ever become wealthy by making investment more difficult than innovation.

Canada does not suffer from a shortage of natural resources.

It does not suffer from a shortage of talent.

It does not suffer from a shortage of opportunity.

It suffers from a shortage of ambition.

If Canada wants rising living standards once again, it must return to the fundamentals that create wealth:

Industrialization.

Manufacturing.

Entrepreneurship.

Innovation.

Responsible resource development.

Productivity.

Building.

Population growth may increase the size of the economy.

But only builders increase the prosperity of the people who live in it.

07/25/2026

Ten Questions. One Ballot. Alberta's Future.

There are elections.

And then there are moments.

October 19 is one of those moments.

For one day, politicians step aside, and Albertans become the decision-makers.

No campaign slogan.

No political speeches.

No one speaking for you.

Just you. Your ballot. Your voice.

Whether you're a lifelong Conservative, an NDP supporter, a Liberal voter, or someone who has never voted before, this referendum belongs to every Albertan.

Because these aren't ordinary questions.

They touch nearly every part of our lives.

Immigration

The first question asks whether Alberta should have greater control over immigration.

Why now?

Because Alberta has been growing faster than almost anywhere else in Canada. New neighbours, new businesses and new opportunities have also brought growing pains. Housing has become harder to find. Emergency rooms are busier. Schools are fuller. Roads are more congested.

Supporters believe Alberta should decide how many newcomers it can realistically support and what skills the province needs most.

Others believe immigration remains essential for economic growth and filling labour shortages.

Whichever side you support, one thing is undeniable: immigration affects every Albertan.

Public Services

The next three questions all revolve around one issue.

Who should receive publicly funded services, and when?

Should provincial programs primarily serve Canadian citizens, permanent residents and people with Alberta-approved status?

Should temporary residents wait before qualifying for certain social programs?

Should some temporary residents contribute more toward the cost of healthcare and education?

These questions are rooted in a growing concern that Alberta's population has expanded faster than hospitals, schools and public services can keep pace.

Some Albertans believe taxpayers need greater protection.

Others believe newcomers already contribute through work, taxes and economic growth.

There isn't a simple answer.

That's why your answer matters.

Protecting Elections

Question five asks whether proof of Canadian citizenship should be required before voting in provincial elections.

Supporters say elections are the foundation of democracy and stronger verification increases public confidence.

Critics argue Alberta already has safeguards and worry additional documentation could make voting harder for some eligible citizens.

Whichever view you hold, confidence in elections matters to everyone.

Who Appoints Judges?

Today, Ottawa appoints judges to Alberta's superior courts.

The referendum asks whether Alberta should work toward changing that.

Supporters believe Albertans should have greater influence over judges serving their province.

Others believe the current system helps preserve judicial independence.

It's a debate about accountability, fairness and who should hold the appointment power.

The Senate

Western Canadians have debated Senate reform for generations.

Many believe Alberta has never enjoyed fair representation in the Upper House.

Some want reform.

Others believe the Senate has outlived its purpose entirely.

This referendum asks whether Alberta should continue pushing to abolish it.

Whether you agree or disagree, the conversation isn't new.

But your vote adds your voice to it.

Federal Programs

Another question asks whether Alberta should be able to opt out of federal programs while still receiving its share of federal funding.

Supporters argue Alberta often knows its own priorities better than Ottawa.

Critics believe national programs work best when Canadians share common standards from coast to coast.

At its heart, the question is simple.

Who should make more of Alberta's decisions—Edmonton or Ottawa?

Provincial Authority

Perhaps the most significant constitutional question asks whether Alberta should seek changes so provincial laws take precedence over federal laws in areas where both governments share responsibility.

The backdrop is decades of disagreement over energy, natural resources, environmental regulation and provincial jurisdiction.

Supporters see it as protecting Alberta's constitutional rights.

Critics fear it could create uncertainty and conflict between provincial and federal laws.

Whatever your opinion, it could reshape Canada's federal system if ever implemented.

Alberta's Future

The final question has captured the headlines.

But let's be clear.

Albertans are not voting to separate from Canada.

They are voting on whether Alberta should begin the constitutional process that could eventually lead to a future binding referendum on separation.

Supporters say Albertans should have the right to decide their own future if they believe the federation no longer serves the province well.

Opponents believe Alberta is stronger within Canada and worry that even beginning such a process could create political and economic uncertainty.

This question is about opening a door—not walking through it.

Why You Must Vote

You may support every question.

You may reject every question.

You may support some and oppose others.

That's the beauty of this referendum.

You don't have to choose a political party.

You simply choose what you believe.

If you stay home, someone else will answer these questions for you.

If you vote, your voice becomes part of Alberta's future.

The results are advisory, not automatic. They won't instantly rewrite the Constitution or change provincial law overnight.

But they will send a message.

To Edmonton.

To Ottawa.

And to every government that follows.

History doesn't always arrive with fireworks.

Sometimes it arrives with a pencil, a ballot, and a simple question.

On October 19, Alberta will ask ten of them.

Take the time to answer every one.

Because the future of this province should be shaped by the people who show up—not by the silence of those who don't.

07/19/2026

The $13 Billion Promise: What Danielle Smith Didn't Tell Albertans!

There is nothing wrong with celebrating a $13 billion investment.

There is something wrong with celebrating only the parts that sound good.

When Premier Danielle Smith announced Meta's massive artificial intelligence data centre, Albertans were treated to the kind of headline every politician loves: billions of dollars in investment, thousands of construction jobs, hundreds of permanent jobs and Alberta becoming a North American AI powerhouse.

It was a great news conference.

It just wasn't the whole story.

Good governments don't simply sell projects. They explain them.

Albertans were told what they stood to gain. They weren't told much about the costs, the trade-offs or the unanswered questions.

Those questions matter.

The $13 billion headline sounds impressive—but how much stays here?

The government repeatedly referred to Meta's $13 billion investment.

That figure certainly grabs attention.

But here's the question nobody seemed interested in asking:

How much of that $13 billion actually ends up in Alberta?

Industry analyses consistently show that roughly 60 to 70 per cent of the capital cost of an AI data centre is tied up in servers, GPUs, networking equipment and storage systems—the sophisticated hardware that powers artificial intelligence.

Those products are not manufactured in Alberta.

Most are produced through global technology supply chains by companies such as NVIDIA, AMD, Dell, Supermicro and others, with much of the value created outside Canada.

That doesn't mean Alberta won't benefit.

It simply means the government should tell Albertans how much of the announced investment will actually be spent on Alberta workers, Alberta contractors and Alberta suppliers.

To date, it hasn't.

A $13 billion announcement is not the same thing as $13 billion flowing into Alberta's economy.

Those are two very different numbers.

The electricity story was only half told

The Premier also highlighted the Greenlight natural gas power plant that will eventually provide electricity for the project.

Again, that's only part of the picture.

Modern combined-cycle gas plants generally require three to five years from development to commercial operation under today's market conditions. Construction itself often takes two to three years, while permitting, engineering, procurement and turbine manufacturing add considerable time. Global shortages of large gas turbines have made those timelines even longer.

Greenlight reflects that reality.

Construction is expected to begin in 2026.

Commercial operation isn't expected until the second half of 2030.

Yet Meta's first 250 megawatts of electricity demand is expected to begin in 2028.

That's roughly a two-year gap.

Albertans deserve to know how future expansion of the data centre will be powered before Greenlight is fully operational.

That question wasn't answered.

Why should anyone care?

Because Alberta operates a competitive electricity market.

More demand without matching new supply can place upward pressure on wholesale electricity prices.

And who buys nearly half of Alberta's electricity?

Industry.

Manufacturers.

Petrochemical plants.

Refineries.

Fertilizer producers.

Food processors.

These businesses are already facing growing pressure from tariffs, uncertain North American trade relations and rising operating costs.

Higher electricity prices won't make them more competitive.

That's not an argument against Meta.

It's an argument for honesty.

A very large new natural gas customer

Greenlight will also become one of Alberta's largest individual natural gas consumers.

A plant of this size is expected to burn roughly 160 million cubic feet of natural gas every day.

A one-gigawatt facility would consume approximately 170 million cubic feet daily, equal to roughly 2.5 per cent of Alberta's current natural gas demand.

For Alberta's gas industry, that's manageable.

For a single industrial customer, it's enormous.

If Alberta eventually attracts several similar AI facilities, those numbers begin to matter for pipelines, electricity generation and long-term energy planning.

Again, Albertans deserve that conversation.

And what about those 300 permanent jobs?

The government proudly announced approximately 300 permanent positions.

Fair enough.

But what kind of jobs?

How many will actually be located in Alberta?

How many highly specialized positions will be recruited internationally?

How many operational functions—cybersecurity, AI infrastructure management, software support and network monitoring—will be handled remotely from offices elsewhere?

Those questions remain unanswered.

Three hundred jobs may be valuable.

But Albertans deserve more than a headline.

They deserve details.

The issue isn't Meta. It's transparency.

This isn't an argument against AI.

Nor is it an argument against attracting global investment.

Alberta should absolutely compete for projects like this.

But governments should compete with transparency, not marketing.

When billions of dollars are involved, citizens deserve more than a carefully managed announcement.

They deserve straightforward answers.

How much of the investment stays in Alberta?

How much leaves the province to purchase imported technology?

What happens to electricity prices if demand rises before dedicated generation is available?

How much of the permanent workforce will actually live and work in Alberta?

These aren't anti-business questions.

They're common-sense questions.

Premier Danielle Smith asked Albertans to celebrate a $13 billion investment.

That's reasonable.

But before asking Albertans to applaud, government should also trust them enough to hear the complete story.

07/14/2026

Another Preventable Tragedy? Child's Death Renews Questions About Storm Pond Safety

The Legacy community in southeast Calgary is grieving after a young child drowned in a neighbourhood storm pond on Sunday afternoon, renewing concerns about the safety of these water bodies that are often located beside homes, parks, and playgrounds.

Emergency crews rushed to the pond after reports that a child had fallen into the water. Family members and bystanders pulled the child from the pond and immediately began CPR before Calgary Fire Department crews and paramedics took over. Despite extensive life-saving efforts, the child was later pronounced dead. STARS Air Ambulance also responded, while firefighters searched the pond to ensure no other victims were involved.

The heartbreaking incident comes only days after a 13-year-old boy drowned in Mahogany Lake, raising renewed questions about water safety across Calgary.

A Community in Mourning

Residents say the tragedy has shaken the entire neighbourhood.

Stewart Church, who lives nearby, was walking his dog when he saw emergency vehicles racing toward the pond.

"I saw people gathered near the pond, and someone told me they had pulled the child from the water and were performing CPR," he recalled.

The pond sits beside a playground, a location where children naturally gather to play.

Church believes the current safety measures are not enough.

While warning signs have been installed around the pond, he argues that children often ignore them. Large rocks surrounding the shoreline attract young people who enjoy climbing and throwing stones into the water.

"You can tell children to stay away, but kids don't always listen," he said. "Unfortunately, they don't always understand the danger until it's too late."

One Moment Changes Everything

Community volunteer Zeyn Albel, who previously helped organize searches for missing children, described the drowning as every parent's worst nightmare.

"When I heard what had happened, my heart immediately went out to the family," he said. "As a father, you can't help but imagine your own children. It's devastating."

Albel believes relying solely on warning signs is insufficient.

"Children are naturally curious," he said. "Sometimes all it takes is one second for a child to slip, fall, and disappear into the water."

Experts: Supervision Is the Most Important Protection

According to the Lifesaving Society Alberta and Northwest Territories Branch, every drowning involving children under the age of five in Alberta between 2021 and 2025 resulted from a lack of direct adult supervision.

Experts emphasize that Alberta's lakes, rivers, and storm ponds remain dangerously cold throughout the year. Cold-water shock can cause immediate breathing difficulties, confusion, panic, and an inability to swim, even for experienced swimmers.

"Drowning does not discriminate," water safety experts warn. "Anyone can become a victim within seconds."

Parents are urged to designate one responsible adult to actively supervise children whenever they are near water, rather than assuming someone else is watching.

Should More Be Done?

The latest tragedy has sparked renewed debate over whether Calgary should install additional safety measures around storm ponds located near residential neighbourhoods.

Possible improvements suggested by residents include:

Installing fencing around high-risk storm ponds.

Adding self-closing gates at access points.

Installing rescue equipment such as life rings and reaching poles.

Increasing warning signs with multilingual messaging.

Expanding public education programs for parents and children.

Designing future storm ponds with enhanced safety features where practical.

While no safety measure can replace attentive adult supervision, residents argue that adding physical barriers and rescue equipment could provide precious extra seconds during an emergency.

A Reminder for Every Family

Two young lives have now been lost in Calgary-area waters within days of each other.

These tragedies serve as a painful reminder that water can become deadly in an instant. As summer continues and more families head outdoors, vigilance around ponds, lakes, rivers, and other bodies of water has never been more important.

For the grieving family in Legacy, however, those lessons come at an unimaginable cost. Their loss is one that the entire community now shares, and one many residents hope will lead to meaningful action to prevent another family from experiencing the same heartbreak.

06/21/2026

Bill 11 Isn't the End of Public Healthcare. It Might Be the Only Way to Save It.

Let's be honest.

For years, Albertans have been told to be patient.

Patient for a family doctor.

Patient for an MRI.

Patient for a surgery.

Patient for a specialist.

Patient while governments of every stripe promise reform, announce task forces, and spend billions more.

And yet here we are.

Long waits. Staff shortages. Burnout. Growing frustration.

So when Bill 11 comes along and says, "What if we let people who want to pay privately do so, while preserving public healthcare for everyone else?" the reaction from some corners is immediate outrage.

But maybe we're asking the wrong question.

Maybe the question isn't whether private healthcare is scary.

Maybe the question is: What happens if we keep doing exactly what we've been doing?

Because the current system isn't working as well as Albertans deserve.

If a family wants to pay for a faster MRI, why should they be prevented from doing so?

If a senior wants to pay for a hip replacement instead of waiting months, why is that a problem?

That's not one more patient in line.

That's one less.

Every person who voluntarily uses a private clinic frees up time, resources, and capacity in the public system for someone else.

How is that bad for public healthcare?

In fact, it may be one of the few ways to preserve it.

Critics say Bill 11 moves Alberta toward an American-style healthcare system.

To some Albertans, that's meant to end the conversation.

But perhaps it should start one.

The United States unquestionably struggles with affordability and insurance complexity. Those are real problems.

But it is also home to some of the world's most advanced hospitals, shortest waits for specialist care, and fastest adoption of new medical technologies.

The lesson isn't that Alberta should copy America wholesale.

The lesson is that Alberta can learn from systems that encourage innovation, competition, investment, and patient choice while maintaining universal access to essential care.

Why shouldn't Albertans have the best of both worlds?

And Bill 11 isn't only about patients.

It's about attracting talent.

Doctors go where opportunities exist.

Nurses go where they are valued.

Investors go where innovation is welcomed.

If Alberta becomes a place where physicians can practice in both public and private settings, why wouldn't doctors from other provinces take notice?

Why wouldn't specialists from the United States consider Alberta?

Why wouldn't entrepreneurs build surgical centres, diagnostic clinics, rehabilitation facilities, and specialty hospitals?

Healthcare is not just a public service.

It is also a sector driven by talent, ideas, technology, and investment.

Bill 11 could make Alberta a healthcare magnet.

And then there is the issue nobody likes to talk about.

Competition.

The word alone makes some people uncomfortable.

But competition has improved almost every industry it touches.

Why should healthcare be different?

When hospitals and clinics compete for patients, they compete on service.

They compete on wait times.

They compete on technology.

They compete on outcomes.

And yes, surgeons in public hospitals may have to compete with surgeons working in private facilities.

That's not necessarily a threat.

It can be an incentive.

An incentive to innovate.

An incentive to improve patient experiences.

An incentive to raise standards.

Because when patients have choices, providers have to earn their trust.

That pressure can make everyone better.

Of course, not everyone welcomes competition.

Some opponents of Bill 11 worry that private healthcare could draw resources away from the public system or create inequalities in access. Those are important concerns and deserve thoughtful safeguards.

Others, supporters argue, are simply uncomfortable with changing a system they have known for decades.

Reform is disruptive.

Competition is uncomfortable.

And institutions—public or private—rarely embrace change when the status quo has served them well.

But Albertans are not asking for comfort.

They are asking for care.

Timely care.

Accessible care.

High-quality care.

And if Bill 11 can bring more doctors, more clinics, more investment, more innovation, and more choices while preserving universal healthcare, then perhaps Alberta is not risking its healthcare future.

Perhaps it is finally building one.

The debate over Bill 11 will continue.

But after years of waiting, many Albertans are ready to try something different.

And maybe that's not a reason to fear Bill 11.

Maybe that's the strongest argument for it.

06/14/2026

CUSMA at a Crossroads: Farmers Across North America Are Divided Ahead of New Trade Talks

The Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), known as USMCA in the United States and T-MEC in Mexico, was supposed to bring stability to North American trade after years of uncertainty surrounding NAFTA.

Instead, as Canada, the United States, and Mexico prepare for the agreement's mandatory review, CUSMA has become one of the most divisive issues in agriculture.

Some farm organizations see it as a lifeline that preserves access to a market of nearly 500 million consumers. Others believe it has weakened domestic agriculture, strengthened multinational corporations, and forced farmers to sacrifice local control for export growth.

The coming negotiations are shaping up to be a battle not between countries, but between competing visions of agriculture itself.
A Trade Agreement Worth Tens of Billions to Canadian Farmers
The stakes are enormous.

Canadian farmers export roughly C$60–70 billion worth of agricultural products annually to CUSMA partners, accounting for nearly two-thirds of Canada's agri-food exports.
For products such as canola, wheat, beef, pork, processed foods, and pulses, access to the U.S. and Mexican markets is not simply beneficial—it is essential.

This dependence explains why farm organizations are paying close attention to the upcoming review.

The Supporters: Exporters Want Stability

The strongest supporters of CUSMA are organizations representing export-oriented agriculture.

In the United States, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has been one of the agreement's biggest champions. Upon ratification, AFBF President Zippy Duvall called USMCA "A major win for American agriculture."

The organization argues that the agreement provides certainty and preserves access to Canada's and Mexico's markets for American corn, soybeans, beef, pork, and dairy products.

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), representing U.S. dairy producers, is also firmly behind the agreement. The organization described USMCA as "A landmark trade deal that secures meaningful dairy market access in Canada."

The NMPF continues to push Washington to aggressively enforce the agreement's dairy provisions and ensure Canada complies with its commitments.

Mexico's largest agricultural business association, the Consejo Nacional Agropecuario (CNA), also supports CUSMA. The organization has argued that "North American integration has been fundamental to the growth of Mexican agriculture."

For Mexican exporters, access to the U.S. market remains essential.
In Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) broadly supports the agreement, although with reservations. The CFA has repeatedly emphasized that "The United States and Mexico are Canada's largest agricultural trading partners."

For grain growers, beef producers, pork exporters, and food processors, preserving predictable, rules-based trade is viewed as critical.

The Critics: Dairy and Family Farmers Push Back
The sharpest criticism comes from dairy organizations and family-farm advocates.

Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) remains one of the agreement's most vocal opponents. DFC President Pierre Lampron has argued "Canadian dairy farmers have already paid more than their fair share through recent trade agreements."

The organization fears that further negotiations could weaken Canada's supply-management system even more and insists "Supply management must not be further weakened."

The National Farmers Union of Canada takes a broader critique. The NFU argues that CUSMA shifts power toward multinational corporations and away from governments and local communities.
The organization has stated "CUSMA expands corporate rights while constraining democratic decision-making."

The NFU believes trade agreements should support farmers and citizens rather than primarily serving large corporations.
Mexico also has its critics.

The farmer advocacy group El Barzón argues that North American free trade has "Favoured large agribusinesses while leaving small producers increasingly vulnerable."

The organization believes Mexico has become too dependent on the U.S. market and that smaller farmers have struggled to compete.

Even in the United States, support is not universal.
The National Farmers Union of the United States supported ratification but warned "Trade agreements alone cannot solve the economic challenges facing family farmers."

The organization has repeatedly argued that "Farmers need fair markets, not just bigger markets."

The Main Divide: Big Exporters vs. Protected Sectors

The debate over CUSMA increasingly comes down to one question:
Who benefits most from free trade?

Export-oriented sectors—corn, soybeans, grains, beef, pork, and large-scale agribusinesses—generally want the agreement preserved and strengthened.

Supply-managed sectors, smaller family farms, and organizations concerned about corporate concentration are more skeptical. They worry that trade liberalization benefits large corporations while forcing smaller producers to compete in increasingly difficult markets.

This divide exists in all three countries.

American dairy farmers want greater access to Canadian markets.
Canadian dairy farmers want stronger protections.
Mexican agribusinesses want continued integration.
Mexican small-farm advocates want safeguards against market disruptions.

A Defining Moment for North American Agriculture
CUSMA has undoubtedly increased trade and strengthened economic ties among Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
Yet the agreement has also exposed tensions between large and small farms, exporters and protected sectors, and those who see globalization as an opportunity versus those who view it as a threat.
For the American Farm Bureau Federation, CUSMA is a success story that should be strengthened.

For Dairy Farmers of Canada, it is a reminder that market-access concessions come with real costs.

For the National Farmers Unions in Canada and the United States, the question is whether trade agreements can be designed to benefit family farms rather than simply the largest players.
And for Mexican farmers, the debate revolves around balancing integration with economic independence.

The negotiations ahead are about much more than tariffs and quotas.

They are about who wins, who loses, and what kind of agricultural system North America wants for the next generation.

Desi Vibes AB

07/31/2026

07/25/2026

07/19/2026

07/14/2026

06/21/2026

06/14/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request