Let me try to explain through the strongest illustration I know because I believe these people generally mean well.
Even those who interpret the government as the people rather than those who pull its strings do so from good if misguided intentions. Or those who pretend publicly traded companies are a public trust and hide behind the same old oligarchic arguments when it fails; spouting off about public buy in and how it's all our fault for not buying stock. Socialists are the only thieves that specialize in taking your stuff while laying blame at your feet for all to see.
Can you think of anything more anti-social than leveraging the many to serve the few for anything other than a national emergency. No matter the ultimate form of special interest the process is always give or take the same. Going after the exchange and then when that fails the prior production is inevitable. The socialist runs to communism like a fire runs down the log.
I don't want to own my neighbour's farm, I want my neighbour to own her own farm and I want her to keep her damn hands off mine!
The original social theft in Canada is the despicable erosion of farm control from real people and families to feed a global system of so called "Social Justice". It's a hungry world, and somehow its Canada's duty to feed it. The problem with Social Justice is that it tends to hide behind its only redeeming quality of focusing on under-served markets while expanding its insidious mandate to all related venues like a Trojan Horse.
It moralizes rather than measures. Too often obscuring the details to expand the circle of consideration where the numbers support an argument of taking from "those who have" to give to "those who do not". This is presented as a lesser of two evils in the best interest of all. Its a mathematically provable fallacy, however, as it eventually runs out of product to steal.
If Toronto has a median income, then the circle of political consideration can always be expanded to include as many small towns and communities as necessary to create the appearance of inequality. After all, being paid less for the same work means less equal, right? Wrong. To accept this one has to ignore the local relativism of market based economics, and deliberately paint a false impression of lower wages in a vacuum. Its far too easy to make rural conditions appear out of step with the "mainstream" as defined by the cities. In just this way the urban voting blocks continue to take everything the rural communities have and then some.
Its traditional in this approach to ignore the harm done to real Canadians who actually produced the value in those local areas through hard work and sacrifice over many years. Living and dying within a 10 mile radius for centuries so we could build this country. Its far more politically expedient to leverage urban populations against the rural businesses and farms through jacked up price controls and labour standards based on soft, city people and their inability to control wasteful spending. Noble goals often get lost in a sickly climate of unmeasured group think.
Sadly, if ones family of free labour isn't big enough to compete or you're in Alberta and the NDP makes it illegal to leverage your own children, this has the effect of driving a producer to hire cheaper labour from elsewhere or face total loss. What choice is there? For example, illegal immigrants become attractive, which are only cost effective because they are illegal. They work cheap and collect no benefits. Since one can not outsource farming to another country (hence its natural position as the source of all production) there are no other realistic options. (Though in a way Canada has become the outsourced farm for everyone else thanks to nationally subsidized distribution which of course damages other local markets as well)
Eventually a minimum volume of sales is needed just to "break even". Predatory taxes designed to force farmers to farm whether its profitable or not long ago rubbed away any favourable margins. Again the lesser of too evils, right? People gotta eat, they don't have to be free. They don't have to enjoy the simple dignity of ownership. And there are so many new people year after year. So say the Socially minded.
But what is the point of living if one has no liberty or dignity? Why grind in those thankless seasons. On the surface this would appear to be very defeating, and farmers have certainly been defeated. Rural life is now a homestead experience for tourists picking off the carcass left behind by the industrial farms. What happened to all that great technology that was gonna make a big farm manageable by the traditional farmer? Guess that under served market wasn't worth the effort.
Farmers soon discover the land area they own isn't enough to make a profit even at 100% efficiency. What has been stable for hundreds of years can no longer sustain even one family. Either they consolidate other farms into a large state dependant business or become one of the many others who sell out before moving to the city like everyone else. This is what leads to dependence on international trade and dilutes our influence as citizens. We cannibalize our closest source of accessible wealth, sacrifice our collective history to the national partners, and wonder why we're broke, why we can't compete.
But hey at least our politically connected foreign corporate masters get their cut. Too bad they keep most of their money in Panama.