Catégorie oBox : OBOXMA

Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled a new national food security strategy on June 11 that will invest $3.2 billion over the next decade to increase domestic food production, strengthen supply chains and make groceries more affordable for Canadians. The plan comes as many households continue struggling with food prices that surged during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. While recent grocery rebates have provided some temporary relief, the federal government says the new strategy aims to address the structural issues driving food costs higher. Carney announced the initiative at the Ontario Food Terminal, one of Canada’s largest food distribution centres, located in Toronto.

The centrepiece of the strategy is a $1 billion Food Link Fund designed to increase competition in Canada’s grocery sector. The money will support wholesale food terminals and smaller food hubs that allow independent grocers to purchase food without relying on supply chains controlled by major retailers. Those facilities also supply produce directly to restaurants, hospitals and consumers. According to the federal government, many small grocers currently buy food from the same large chains they compete against, often paying prices similar to those charged to consumers. Officials believe increasing wholesale competition could help lower costs throughout the food system.

This funding will improve access to fruit and vegetables year round … and reduce price swings caused by global disruptions,

-Canadian Federal official

Carney said Canada’s reliance on foreign food supplies leaves consumers vulnerable to events beyond the country’s control. Canada currently imports 88 per cent of its fresh fruits and nuts and 72 per cent of its vegetables. Half of all food imports come from the United States. The government argues that increasing domestic production will reduce Canada’s exposure to international disruptions while creating a more resilient food supply system.

That reliance on foreign markets means that every global shock — foreign conflict, drought and tariffs — shows up directly at grocery stores across this country,

-Mark Carney

The strategy establishes several concrete targets over the next three years. Ottawa plans to expand the Ontario Food Terminal by the end of this year and open two additional food terminals by the end of 2028. The government also intends to establish or expand 10 smaller food hubs during the same period. Officials say those facilities will help independent retailers access more competitive prices while improving food distribution networks across the country. However, the strategy does not establish a target grocery price or define what constitutes affordable food, according to a senior government official who briefed reporters.

Controlling competition among grocery stores

Competition within the grocery industry forms another major pillar of the plan. Five companies (Loblaw, Metro, Empire, Walmart and Costco) currently control roughly 75 per cent of Canada’s grocery market. Independent grocers, convenience stores and regional chains make up the remainder. Previous federal efforts to attract more competition largely failed to disrupt the dominance of major retailers. Under the new strategy, Ottawa will increase annual funding for the Competition Bureau and Competition Tribunal by $12.9 million. The government hopes stronger oversight and enforcement will improve competition throughout grocery supply chains and food retailing.

Increasing National food production

The strategy also includes measures aimed at increasing Canadian food production. Small- and medium-sized food processors will gain access to support programs that help modernize facilities and improve productivity through initiatives administered by Farm Credit Canada. Ottawa will also invest $700 million over seven years to help greenhouses and indoor food producers adopt new technology while reducing energy and operating costs. Of that amount, $100 million will specifically support projects in rural and northern communities. Officials say the investments will strengthen year-round food production while reducing dependence on imported produce.

The plan has already drawn criticism from opposition parties. New Democrats have argued Ottawa should go further by intervening directly in grocery markets through measures such as public grocery stores and stronger price controls. Conservatives, meanwhile, contend government policies themselves contribute to higher food costs. Conservative Deputy Leader Melissa Lantsman argued that federal taxes and spending increase costs throughout the food supply chain. Despite those disagreements, the government hopes the strategy will address both food affordability and food sovereignty. Whether the investments ultimately lower grocery bills for Canadian families remains to be seen.

The tariff clash between U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron erupted just as leaders gathered in France for the opening of the G7 summit, threatening to overshadow discussions on global security and economic cooperation. At the center of the dispute is Trump’s threat to impose a 100% tariff on French wines and champagne unless Paris abandons its digital services tax on major American technology companies. In an exclusive interview with the New York Post before departing for France, Trump said: «I asked him not to charge American companies, and if they do, I have no choice but to charge a 100% tariff on all champagnes and all wines coming out of France.» He added: «All [Macron] has to do is get rid of the sales tax, and he wouldn’t have that kind of pressure.»

The dispute centers on France’s digital services tax, commonly known as the GAFAM tax, which was introduced in 2019 and imposes a 3% levy on digital revenue generated in France by major multinational technology companies. Because the tax primarily affects American firms such as Google, Amazon, Meta and Apple, the Trump administration has long argued that it unfairly targets U.S. businesses. Trump’s latest threat revives a trade battle that has periodically strained relations between Washington and Paris for years. The French government collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the tax last year, making it both a significant source of revenue and a symbol of European efforts to regulate large technology companies.

«This digital tax, which several European countries have decided on and implemented, is part of our law. It’s not the US that decides European or French law — that’s normal and it won’t be any different, at least as long as I am around.»

-French President, Emmanuel Macron

The economic stakes are substantial for France’s wine and spirits industry. The United States is the largest export market for French wines and alcoholic beverages, accounting for more than $2 billion in annual sales and roughly one-fifth of the sector’s global exports. Industry groups have repeatedly warned that major tariff increases could devastate producers in some of France’s most famous wine regions. Trump has framed the issue as a matter of protecting American companies from what he describes as discriminatory foreign taxation. His administration argues that foreign governments should not be allowed to target U.S. technology firms while simultaneously benefiting from access to the American market.

Macron responded forcefully, rejecting Trump’s demands and insisting that France’s laws would not be dictated by Washington. Speaking before the summit, the French president declared: «This digital tax, which several European countries have decided on and implemented, is part of our law. It’s not the US that decides European or French law — that’s normal and it won’t be any different, at least as long as I am around.» He further emphasized: «It is not up to the United States to decide on the laws of Europeans, nor of the French.» Macron also warned that raising tariffs would undermine economic stability between allies and damage both sides of the Atlantic relationship.

The current dispute follows another confrontation earlier this year involving Trump’s proposed international « Board of Peace » initiative. After France signaled that it would not participate, Trump threatened even harsher economic retaliation, suggesting he could impose 200% tariffs on French wine and champagne. Asked about Macron’s refusal to join the initiative, Trump said: «Did he say that? Well, nobody wants him because he will be out of office very soon.» He then added: «I’ll put a 200% tariff on his wines and champagnes, and he’ll join. But he doesn’t have to join.» French officials condemned those threats as an unacceptable attempt to influence French foreign policy through economic pressure.

«I asked him not to charge American companies, and if they do, I have no choice but to charge a 100% tariff on all champagnes and all wines coming out of France.»

-French President, Emmanuel Macron

The timing of the latest escalation has drawn particular attention because it unfolded just hours before Trump arrived in Évian-les-Bains for the G7 summit. While leaders had hoped to focus on issues ranging from Middle East stability to economic growth and global security, the renewed trade dispute immediately shifted attention toward tensions within the Western alliance. Macron signaled that he would not back down during discussions with Trump, stating: «We will have a respectful but firm discussion. Tariffs don’t do anyone any good, especially tariffs between G7 countries.» Asked whether France would yield to American pressure, Macron answered simply: «No, because that is not how it works.» As the summit opened, the clash highlighted growing disagreements between Washington and several European allies over trade, technology regulation and the future direction of transatlantic relations.

A woman posted a video that led to a heated debate in her comment section on TikTok. The reason why? The TikToker described another person’s 17-year age-gap relationship that wasn’t “official” after a year of dating.

TikToker Tabitha Brownstone (@tabitha_BS) shared a video with over 189,000 views. In it, she described a relationship dilemma between a 25-year-old woman and a 42-year-old man. According to her, the pair had been dating casually for about a year. Over time the younger woman developed stronger feelings. The older man was funny, attentive and regularly did thoughtful things that made her feel special. But Brownstone told her audience that the woman wasn’t able to officially start dating the man.

Were there red flags?

Brownstone described some elements of the relationship in depth. For one, she said that the man would “completely disappear” for two weeks at any given time. The woman still convinced herself that what they had could be “true love,” but the man wouldn’t respond to texts regularly.

Despite this, Brownstone said the 25-year-old wanted to progress the relationship.

“So… the twenty-five-year-old looks at the forty-two-year-old, and she’s like, ‘Hey, I just really… you know, I wanna be honest with you. I’m really developing feelings for you, and I would like to make this more official,’” Brownstone said.

She then gave her interpretation of what the 42-year-old man in the situation replied with.

“He said he’s just not ready for anything serious right now,” Brownstone recalled.

What were the most common reactions?

Many viewers guessed that the 42-year-old man may have been married.

“He’s married,” said one person.

“If you put that into GPT it translates to ‘I haven’t told my wife about us yet,’” said another individual.

Commenters pointed to the unexplained disappearances and reluctance to define the relationship as supposed evidence.

Others comforted the woman at the center of the story. Some framed it as an unfortunate but valuable lesson about accepting less than what you want from a relationship. Others reminded her that she was beautiful, worthy of commitment and deserved someone who was excited to claim her publicly. They encouraged her to move on.

“Don’t get hung up, move on,” said another person.

“You are worthy of real, steady, safe love,” said another with a heart emoji.

But not everyone was sympathetic. A handful of commenters criticized the woman instead. They questioned why she stayed in an undefined relationship for so long. They also questioned why she accepted periods of complete silence from someone she hoped would become a serious partner.

“Together for a year and didn’t ask what each other’s overall goals were with the relationship? Communication=no surprises,” said one person.

“True love doesn’t disappear for two weeks,” another person said.

Did viewers see an issue with the age gap?

The couple’s 17-year age gap became a point of contention for commenters. A few individuals argued that people who are 25 and 42 are in entirely different stages of life, with different priorities, expectations and levels of emotional maturity. Several people questioned what two people that are nearly two decades apart in age could realistically have in common.

“As a 40 year old, I have no idea what I could possibly have in common with a 25 year old…” said one person.

“She wants to start her life with him. He’s already thinking about retirement,” added another viewer.

Others pushed back against that idea and shared stories of their own successful age-gap relationships. 

“I’m 50 and she’s 30. We met when she was 21…it’s been 9 years. My kids love her, my ex loves her, I love her,” one person said.

@tabitha_bs

♬ original sound – Tabitha_BS

What does research say about age-gap relationships?

A 2024 Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data found that the average age gap between married opposite-sex couples in the United States was just 2.2 years in 2022. That makes larger age gaps, such as the one Brownstone described, relatively uncommon.

There are some studies and evidence that support larger age-gap relationships, although most blogs and publications take a case-by-case perspective when describing them.

A peer-reviewed study published in Psychology of Women Quarterly in 2024, for instance, found that women involved with older male partners reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction. They also experienced more commitment than women dating similarly aged or younger men.

Despite this, research published in 2024 in The New School Psychology Bulletin found that people in age-gap relationships often report facing stigma and stereotyping from others. Outsiders made assumptions about their intentions and the health of their relationships before knowing the full story.

Did viewers get an update?

In the end, TikTok never got an update about whether the woman walked away or continued hoping the man would eventually be ready for commitment.

Whether viewers saw a cautionary tale about ignoring red flags, an example of mismatched expectations, or simply two adults wanting different things, they all seemed to agree on one point. If someone disappears for weeks at a time and still isn’t sure about a relationship after a year, the conversation probably isn’t about labels anymore. It’s about deciding whether the relationship is actually worth pursuing.

Buzz News reached out to Brownstone via email for comment.