How a Canadian company responds to the US tariffs!

I don't eat ice cream, but I buy it.  I was in Fresh Street Market looking to purchase ice cream and a gentlemen beside me helped himself to Breyers.  I said "is that good ice cream".  He said "I love it".  It is a Canadian product and I've bought Breyers ever since.  It is made in Canada with Canadian dairy but I found out their head office is in the US.  After I read how Chapmans are responding to the tariffs from the United States, I will buy Chapman's from now on.  Another Canadian company from Markdale, Ontario.  It was founded in 1973.  They do not export, it's truly Canadian.  

Chapman’s Ice Cream has responded to the U.S. tariffs with a full-scale supply‑chain pivot, a public show of support for Canada’s stance, and a promise to protect consumers from price hikes — even as costs rise.

Here’s the clearest picture of what they’ve done:

1. Replacing U.S. ingredients — more than 70% by mid‑2027

Chapman’s is actively moving away from American suppliers and expects to replace over 70% of its U.S.‑sourced ingredients with Canadian, Australian, Chilean, or other non‑U.S. alternatives.

Examples:

• Almonds → switching entirely to an Australian supplier.

• Cherries → moving to a Chilean supplier that is cheaper and higher quality.

• Wafers & cones → partnering with Ontario’s Original Foods to build Canada’s first fully Canadian industrial sugar‑cone line.

2. No price increases until March 2028

Despite higher costs from shifting suppliers and the tariff shock, Chapman’s has pledged not to raise prices until March 2028.

They’ve been absorbing tariff‑related costs since the first round of U.S. tariffs in 2025.

3. Publicly rejecting the U.S. tariffs

Chapman’s has taken an unusually strong public stance for a consumer brand, calling the tariffs:

• “Unjustified”

• “Insulting to Canadians and Canadian industry”

• A situation where a “hostile American administration can hold us hostage.”

They’ve stated they stand with the Canadian government and all provinces in rejecting the U.S. measures.

4. Strengthening Canadian manufacturing

The company is using the trade war as a catalyst to:

• Reshore production of items never made in Canada before (like industrial sugar cones).

• Support Canadian suppliers and keep jobs in Canada.

• Maintain 100% Canadian dairy in all products.

5. Diversifying globally to reduce future vulnerability

Ashley Chapman has said the tariffs prove Canada must diversify so it’s not dependent on U.S. suppliers who can “hold us hostage.” This has already led them to source ingredients from Australia, Chile, and Canada instead of the U.S.

Chapman's is the only ice cream I will buy now!

Rachel Maddow

On April 1, 1973, Rachel Anne Maddow was born in Castro Valley, California, a small and largely conservative town that her own mother would later describe simply as a place with very traditional values, an environment that stood in sharp contrast to the outspoken political commentator the world would come to know decades later.  Her father, Robert Maddow, was a former Air Force captain who resigned his commission the year before her birth and went on to work as a lawyer, while her mother Elaine worked as a school program administrator, and together they raised Rachel and her older brother David in a household Maddow has since called very Catholic despite her father's Ashkenazi Jewish heritage.  Even as a young girl, those who knew her described someone unusually curious and independent, recalling that she began reading newspapers cover to cover by around age seven, not simply skimming headlines but actually questioning and analyzing what she read long before most children develop that habit.  

She threw herself into competitive sports throughout her childhood, playing volleyball, basketball, and swimming, until a shoulder injury eventually forced her to step back from that more physical chapter of her adolescence.  As a teenager growing up gay in a town she would later bluntly describe as conservative and unwelcoming, Maddow found an early outlet in service rather than silence, volunteering at a local AIDS clinic at a time when the epidemic carried enormous stigma, an experience that quietly shaped her sense of purpose long before journalism entered the picture.  That same instinct to challenge expectations rather than simply meet them surfaced dramatically at her high school graduation, where she initially submitted an approved, conventional speech for review, only to abandon it entirely once she reached the podium and deliver something far more pointed and personal instead, stunning many in the audience who had expected a typical send off.  

One biographer later described that unpredictable, rebellious moment as the first real sign of the debater and provocateur she would grow into, someone shaped less by comfort and more by the friction of standing apart from her surroundings.  Maddow went on to earn her degree in public policy from Stanford in 1994 before becoming the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes Scholarship, continuing her education at Oxford soon after.  Long before television cameras or a national audience, her story was already being written in a conservative suburban town, in newspaper pages read alone as a child, and in a graduation speech that refused to stay safely within the lines it was handed.

What set Maddow apart wasn’t just her politics — it was her approach. She treated viewers like partners in understanding complex issues, offering context instead of sound bites. Over the years, she broke major national stories, moderated debates, and earned multiple Emmy Awards for her work. She even won a Grammy for the audiobook of her book Blowout, a testament to her storytelling beyond television.

Maddow also made history as the first openly lesbian anchor to host a major prime‑time news program in the United States, a milestone that resonated far beyond cable news.

Today, she continues to bring her thoughtful, analytical style to MS Now, where her weekly show remains a trusted space for viewers seeking clarity in a noisy media landscape. Her career is a reminder that journalism, at its best, helps us understand not just the world around us — but the forces shaping it.

Dolly Parton

 

My husband has been ill so we've been watching a lot of TV in the last three weeks.  He's fine now, but I recorded Dolly Parton:  Here I am on PBS.  We watched it last week.  It is a biological documentary that was released in 2019.  It explored the life, career, and creative process of Dolly Parton through Archival concert footage, rare interviews, and personal reflections.  We thoroughly enjoyed it, not knowing she was so ill.

I checked the Surrey Public Library but they don't have a DVD.  I also checked Netflix and it says:  "not available in your country"!  So much for being Canadian.  I looked it up and it says it's available on Apple TV and Prime Video. If you get channel WPIXDT CW channel 155 on Shaw/Rogers it's being rebroadcast today at 5 PM Pacific Time.  

Dolly Parton’s story begins in the Smoky Mountains of Tennessee, where she was born on January 19, 1946, the fourth of twelve children in a one‑room cabin. Her childhood was simple, shaped by Appalachian folklore, church songs, and the musical traditions passed down through her family. She wrote her first song at age six and was performing on local radio and TV by ten — a child already carrying the spark of something extraordinary.

By her teens, Dolly was writing professionally, and at just 13 she stepped onto the Grand Ole Opry stage.   After high school, she headed straight for Nashville, where Porter Wagoner became both mentor and creative partner.  Their collaborations brought her national attention and opened the door to her solo career.

And then came the songs — the ones that would define her place in American culture. “Jolene.” “Coat of Many Colors.” “I Will Always Love You.” “9 to 5.”  She wrote more than 3,000 songs across seven decades, blending country, pop, bluegrass, gospel, and her own unmistakable storytelling voice.  Her music wasn’t just catchy; it was deeply human, often rooted in her own upbringing, her family, and the struggles she saw around her.

Her career expanded far beyond music. She became a film star in 9 to 5, Steel Magnolias, and The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, earning Golden Globe nominations along the way. She built Dollywood, a theme park that became both a celebration of Appalachian culture and a major economic engine for her home region.   And her philanthropy — especially the Imagination Library, which has gifted millions of free books to children — cemented her legacy as one of the entertainment world’s most generous figures.

Dolly Parton died on August 25, 2026, at age 80, leaving behind a legacy that spans music, film, business, and humanitarian work.

Dolly can celebrate all of this — the little girl with a guitar, the songwriter who changed country music, the businesswoman who built an empire, and the philanthropist who believed deeply in lifting others up. Her life was a rhinestone‑bright reminder that talent matters, but heart matters more.  She will be missed.

A Canadian’s Frustration With Donald Trump’s Disrespect

I am absolutely incensed by Donald Trump’s behaviour toward Canada — and especially toward our Prime Minister, Mark Carney. His rhetoric about Canada becoming the “51st state,” his attempts to dictate which countries we may trade with, and his insistence that we weaken or change our French‑language protections are not just disrespectful. They strike at the core of who we are as a country.

Canada is not an accessory to American politics. We are a sovereign nation with our own values, our own priorities, and our own cultural foundations — including the French language, which is not negotiable. When Trump dismisses that, he dismisses the identity of millions of Canadians.

Trade relationships should be built on mutual respect, not coercion. And diplomacy should be grounded in understanding, not belittling. When Trump talks down to Canada or tries to strong‑arm us into reshaping our culture or our global partnerships, he reveals how little he understands about the strength and dignity of this country.

Mark Carney has been clear: Canada will not be pushed around. And Canadians like me stand firmly behind that. We are proud of our independence, proud of our bilingual heritage, and proud of a Prime Minister who refuses to let anyone — including a U.S. president — tell us who we are allowed to be.

The sheer number of lies from President Trump about Canada – growing again today – is remarkable. Just some fact checks from the last 18 months:

- Trump falsely said today that Canada's unemployment rate is "10% and rapidly rising,” though it is 6.4% (under the Canadian method that adds about a percentage point) and has been declining for three months

- Trump falsely said today that Canada does 95% of its business with the US, though 72% of Canadian exports went to the US last year

- Trump falsely said today that high Canadian agricultural tariffs have caused the entire US trade deficit with Canada, though that deficit is overwhelmingly caused by US imports of cheap Canadian crude and though something like 97% of US ag exports to Canada are tariff-free

- Trump has falsely said Canada generally doesn’t “take” US agricultural exports, though Canada is the world’s second-biggest buyer of those exports

- Trump has falsely said the Canadian public likes the idea of becoming the 51st state, which the Canadian public overwhelmingly opposes

- Trump has falsely said Canada is one of the world’s highest-tariff countries, though it is actually low in WTO global rankings

- Trump has falsely said Canada essentially doesn't have a military, though its military has fought with the US in multiple wars and its force size ranks in the upper half of NATO

- Trump has falsely said Canada hiked its dairy tariffs during the Biden administration, though they hadn’t changed since Trump’s first presidency

- Trump has falsely said the US trade deficit with Canada is “$200 billion,” though it is nowhere close

- Trump has falsely said Canada prohibits US banks, though it doesn't and though more than a dozen US banks were operating in Canada at the time he spoke

- Trump has falsely said Canada is “constantly surrounded” by Chinese and Russian ships, though that is fiction

- Trump has falsely said then-outgoing PM Trudeau was using their trade battle to run again for prime minister, though Trudeau obviously wasn’t running

David Frum

I've followed David Frum for years.  If you don't know his roots, here is some information.  David Frum was born in Toronto on June 30, 1960, into a household where public affairs were the family business. His mother, Barbara Frum, was one of Canada’s most respected journalists — a fierce, brilliant interviewer whose work on CBC’s The Journal set the standard for Canadian broadcasting. His father, Murray Frum, began as a dentist but became a successful real‑estate developer, philanthropist, and art collector.

This was not a quiet household. It was a home filled with books, debate, and a sense that public life mattered. Frum has often described how his mother handed him Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago when he was just 14 — a gesture that nudged him away from the political left and toward the anti‑totalitarian worldview that would define his career.

His sister, Linda Frum is an author and Canadian Senator. After going to University of Toronto, Harvard and Yale, David was a speech writer for President George W. Bush. David is a Republican and now works for The Atlantic as a senior editor.

I love reading his articles and thought this was interesting from a Republican and holds duel American and Canada citizenship:

Excellent article by David Frum.

Never be intimidated by an adversary’s apparent superior strength.

The North Vietnamese understood America’s military superiority in traditional warfare and then engaged in a strategy that rendered that superiority meaningless- geurilla warfare.  The North Vietnamese engaged in a war of attrition knowing that like previous invaders the Americans would eventually be worn down and leave.  And that when the Americans left it would be important to let them believe that they « won » the war.

Everyone is rightly concerned about the immediate adverse consequences of Canada’s decision to stand up to American economic agression.  But more is at stake than jobs in particular industries.  It is not engaging in political hyperbole to call the trade war initiated by America a clear attempt to undermine not only our economy but our sovereignty. 

This is a national emergency requiring political action commensurate with that threat.  With courage and confidence we can surmount the short term disruptions.

Have people forgotten how much the pandemic cost our governments? 

Do we not remember that among other costly initiatives the federal government paid millions of Canadians $ 500.00 per week while we endured the medical, psycohological and economic trauma casued by the pandemic?

If the pandemic taught us anything it is that the government can do anything and incur any financial cost when it must act.

This challenge can be similarly met with governmental resolve and Canadians working together.

Canada has the wealth and the will to defeat this threat.

And we will persevere - we are Canadians.

I repeat:  David Frum is an American and belongs to the Republican Party.

If you want to know more about David Frum:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum

Why Mark Carney Walked Away from the U.S. Trade Negotiations

 

When Prime Minister Mark Carney stepped before reporters on August 22, 2026, he didn’t mince words: Canada had been “attacked” by steep U.S. tariffs, and he was not prepared to sign a “bad deal” that compromised Canada’s sovereignty, culture, and long‑term economic stability.

His decision to suspend talks with President Donald Trump — and to retaliate with matching tariffs — marked one of the most dramatic breaks in Canada‑U.S. trade relations in decades. Here’s why Carney walked away.

1. Last‑Minute U.S. Demands Crossed Red Lines

Throughout the final week of negotiations, American officials introduced late, sweeping changes that fundamentally altered the deal. These weren’t minor edits — they were structural demands that touched the core of Canada’s identity and economic autonomy.

Carney revealed that the U.S. attempted to:

• Restrict Canada’s protections for language and culture, including French‑language media and bilingual labeling requirements.

• Limit Canada’s ability to sign future trade deals with other countries.

• Change auto‑sector tariff rules in ways that would make Canadian vehicle production “uneconomic over time.”

These demands were introduced in the final hours, a tactic Carney described as unacceptable and unreliable — a sign that the U.S. was not negotiating in good faith.

2. The U.S. “Asked Too Much and Offered Too Little”

Carney’s negotiators concluded that the Trump administration was not seeking a true economic partnership, but rather a deal that heavily favoured American interests.

The U.S. wanted Canada to dismantle cultural protections, accept unfair auto‑sector treatment, and agree to sovereignty‑limiting clauses — while offering very little in return.

As Carney put it:

“We cannot accept what they’ve offered, and we will not give what they’ve asked.”

3. Concerns About U.S. Reliability

Carney warned that America’s signature on trade deals increasingly appeared to be “written in pencil.”

He noted that the U.S. had been transforming all its commercial relationships, imposing tariffs on allies and using economic integration as leverage. In that environment, any deal signed today could be rewritten tomorrow.

Canada needed a stable, dependable agreement — not one vulnerable to sudden reversals.

4. The Tariff Shock: Canada Was “Attacked”

The U.S. imposed 50% tariffs on nearly $30 billion of Canadian goods. Carney framed this as an economic attack, saying:

“You’re at war when you get attacked. We got attacked.”

Walking away was not just a negotiation tactic — it was a response to a direct economic assault.

Canada immediately announced matching retaliatory tariffs, signalling that it would not be coerced into accepting a flawed agreement.

5. Protecting Key Canadian Industries

Premiers across the country backed Carney’s decision, calling the proposed deal a disaster for:

• Autos

• Steel

• Manufacturing

Ontario Premier Doug Ford said bluntly:

“I’m glad he didn’t sign that deal because it was a bad deal… We never started this fight, but… we’re going to win this fight.”

Carney’s stance aligned with provincial leaders who believed the U.S. demands would cripple major Canadian industries.

6. Sovereignty Was Non‑Negotiable

Perhaps the most important factor: Carney refused to compromise Canada’s sovereignty.

He made clear that cultural protections, bilingualism, and the right to negotiate independent trade agreements are foundational to Canada’s identity. Any deal threatening those pillars was impossible to accept.

7. The Bigger Picture: A Changing America

Carney emphasized that Canada must adapt to a new geopolitical reality:

• The era of predictable U.S. trade policy is over.

• Tariffs are now a standard tool of American negotiation.

• Canada must diversify its trade relationships and strengthen its domestic economy.

Walking away was part of a broader strategy to protect Canada’s long‑term interests.

Conclusion: Walking Away Was a Line in the Sand

Mark Carney didn’t walk away because the deal was imperfect — he walked away because it was unacceptable.

The U.S. introduced last‑minute demands that threatened Canada’s culture, sovereignty, and economic future. It imposed massive tariffs and signalled that any agreement could be rewritten at will. In that environment, Carney chose to defend Canadian workers, industries, and national identity — even at the cost of short‑term economic pain.

His decision drew strong support from premiers and resonated with Canadians who believed it was time to stand firm.

In Carney’s own words:

“Canada has what the world wants. And we will not allow any nation to determine our future.”

 

 

Europe’s Low River Levels: What Travellers Need to Know Before Their River Cruise

Europe’s great rivers — the Rhine, Danube, Main, and others — are experiencing historically low water levels this summer, and the impact on river cruising is being felt from Germany to Romania. After months of hot, dry weather, stretches of these waterways have become too shallow for safe navigation, forcing cruise lines to adjust itineraries, swap ships, and in a few cases, cancel departures.

Where the Problems Are Happening

Several key sections of Europe’s rivers are currently below seasonal norms:

• Danube River (Romania): Water levels have dropped to their lowest point in three decades, affecting sailings between Vienna and Budapest, and between Regensburg and Passau.

• Rhine & Main Rivers (Germany): Shallow stretches near Koblenz, Rüdesheim, and Maxau have become unsuitable for navigation, leaving some ships temporarily parked on dry riverbeds.

• Upper Danube (Austria): Reduced water levels are disrupting itineraries around Dürnstein and Melk.

These conditions have led to a patchwork of adjustments across the industry.

How Cruise Lines Are Responding

River cruise operators are working around the clock to keep guests moving — safely and with as little disruption as possible. Here’s what travellers may experience:

• Ship Swaps: When one vessel cannot pass a shallow section, guests may be transferred to a sister ship on the other side of the low‑water zone. Viking, Scenic, Emerald, and others have already implemented this strategy.

• Modified Embarkation/Disembarkation Points: Some cruises begin or end in alternate ports to bypass problematic stretches.

• Motorcoach Transfers: Guests may travel by coach for part of the journey when a river segment cannot be sailed.

• Hotel Stays: In rare cases, a night or two on land replaces time aboard the ship.

• Itinerary Tweaks: Riviera Travel and AmaWaterways emphasize flexibility — adjusting excursions and destinations rather than cancelling sailings outright.

Notably, AmaWaterways reports that it has not cancelled a single departure this season, thanks in part to its shallow‑draft ships designed for challenging river conditions.

Should Travellers Be Worried?

Low water levels make headlines, but the overall risk of major disruption remains relatively small. Historically, only about 3.5% of European river cruises are affected by high or low water in an average year. Most changes are minor — a different docking point or a short coach transfer.

Still, this summer’s drought is a reminder that river cruising is shaped by nature. Conditions can change daily, and cruise lines must adapt quickly.

Tips for Travellers Considering a River Cruise

If you’re planning a European river cruise — or have one booked — here’s how to stay informed and prepared:

• Check your cruise line’s travel alerts. AmaWaterways, Scenic, Emerald, Uniworld, and Viking all maintain updated water‑level advisories on their homepages.

• Expect flexibility. Itineraries may shift, but operators are committed to preserving the experience.

• Understand ship swaps. They’re common and usually seamless — you simply continue your journey on a nearly identical vessel.

• Don’t rely on today’s water levels to predict your future cruise. Conditions can improve quickly with rainfall or change again with heatwaves.

• Consider booking with lines that have larger fleets. More ships mean more options for swaps and rerouting.

The Bigger Picture

Europe’s rivers have always been dynamic, but climate‑driven extremes — droughts, heatwaves, and occasional flooding — are making water‑level variability more common. Cruise lines are investing in shallower‑draft ships, enhanced monitoring, and stronger contingency plans to keep itineraries running even in difficult seasons.

For travellers, the key is perspective: while disruptions can happen, the vast majority of river cruises still operate successfully, and many guests report that the unexpected detours — the “Magical Mystery Cruise,” as Riviera Travel guests jokingly call it — become memorable parts of the adventure.