If the state (a public body) exerts control over a market, you cannot call it a capitalist act, you can not blame capitalism for it.

There is no such thing as a "capitalist act".

Capitalism is the total societal system by which production and distribution are organized.

The observation that the government is providing direction for such activities is not one that confers any value to the objection.

You have to actually tell me why...

The government is supporting the capitalist system, and operating within it, not separate from it, or antagonistic to it.

My point is coherent, and well sourced, yet you have never actually pointed to anything that can falsify what I'm saying.

Your claim is unfalsifiable.

You impose an assumption of some distinction of acts that are capitalist versus not capitalist, but such a distinction has no conceptual coherence.

All acts follow from the systems in which they occur.

Capitalism is the system of organization in which acts are occurring under current consideration. Within a different system, the acts occurring naturally would be different. None may be separated, as not part of the system in which they occur.

Private producers are within the system of capitalism. Consumers are within the system of capitalism. Governments and states are within the system of capitalism.

A social body outside of capitalism would be one occurring in a society that has transformed beyond capitalism, or in which capitalism had not yet emerged.

Capitalism is the private ownership and control of the means of production.

Check.

However, based on your other remarks, it would be well to affirm the more precise framing, that capitalism is the system of production and distribution characterized by private ownership of production.

Means of production includes the markets that distribute milk.

Markets are not means of production in themselves, but rather are a system of exchange utilized by the private owners, and imposed on workers and consumers, with support from the state.

If the state controls distribution, then the distribution cannot be called capitalist.

The state is not controlling distribution.

Markets are identified as a convergence of free choices among private entities against rules and systems affirmed and enforced by the state, and often also affirmed, to some degree, as legitimate, by many of the private participants.

The state also participates in markets, and some choices may be determined as shaping them for specific objectives that are independent of the private benefit of any single entity.

Canada owns the means of distribution.

Means of production under government control have character both of public and private ownership. However, in Canada, agriculture is controlled by agribusiness, and participation also may include some farmers of small plots who work their own land, and purchase supplies and equipment from agribusiness firms. Many such farmers may employ additional hands to help them work the land they own, making them small business owners who control means of production.

I am not aware of farms under government control in Canada. I feel doubtful that any are operated as such, but even so, agriculture is generally private, in the truest sense, of being owned by businesses and families.

Even if every farm were owned by the government in Canada, the industry would remain as integrated into the broader economy, and the national economy as integrated with the global.

If you disagree that Canada's distribution method is not capitalist,

Canada is a capitalist society. Enterprise, industry, productive lands, and other productive assets are controlled by private owners. There is no dispute.

Canada - the state, not the private - is the one who decided milk should be dumped.

The government protects private interests. Nominally the state protects the public, but in practice, the state protects business more than workers.

A public body exerted control over the market, leading to a specific decision to destroy market product.

Markets are upheld and enforced by the state, but not controlled. Some markets may be considered as having characteristics of free markets, and others more so by regulation or intervention.

The distinction affects or describes policy and practice. Markets themselves have no inherent essential characteristic of being free versus regulated.

Most would consider the act you describe as representing intervention or regulation. Markets are not controlled by any single body, essentially by definition. Private entities and government entities participate in the market, and the state enforces the rules, and imposes regulations or interventions.

The defining feature of markets is that participants make free choices of exchange, following rules that make no explicit distinction among the various participants.

Capitalism is characterized by free markets.

Markets are the primary system of commodity exchange in capitalist society.

No market is truly free, though some policy or practices may be considered as supportive of free markets and antagonist to regulation or intervention.

Markets may occur in systems that are not capitalist.

If you want to convince me this was capitalist, you would have to convince me that the market was made freer than it was before by the act.

Capitalism is not an ideal that markets should be free, but rather the total activity occurring within capitalist society.

We are criticizing actual harm derived from current systems, not writing stories of fairy tales.

Your ideal of free markets is meaningless.

The meaningful discussion is describing how markets are occurring in practice, and their effects, in conjunction with other effects of the overall system.

Considering product was barred from market by the state, I would say this is a pretty difficult conclusion to come to.

Capitalism depends on the state to uphold it. The state affirms, defends, and protects capitalism. The state is not antagonistic to capitalism or separate from it. The state in capitalist society is part of the societal system of capitalist society.

Did you miss the part where the producers did not benefit at all?

Was the objective not to protect the prices of goods from deflation or instability?

Farmers are the producers of milk, farmers are upset by this. Farmers make less money because of this.

If prices are inflated due to induced shortage, then the effect may offset lower volume of sale, with respect to income of producers from all sales.

The people that benefit most are the Canadian Dairy Commission

I doubt it, unless you are suspecting cronyism. I am not rejecting the possibility, but I doubt you intend as much in your characterization.

How would the beneficiary be those within the Commission?

I am assuming the body is a bureaucracy in the government that employs workers to impose and to enforce regulations. Please clarify if I am mistaken in the matter.

but our current monopoly capitalist dystopia is starkly different

I want you to deeply consider the context you're saying this because it direct exposes an abundant level of ignorance

Monopolization is a concept representing the degree of consolidation of an industry under a small number of large producers. It is a graduated characteristic of an industry. An industry many be highly monopolized even if having more than one producer. Pure monopolies are uncommon, but monopolization as a broader effect is problematic for essentially the same reasons.

The entire economy is highly consolidated under a relatively small number of massive producers. Agriculture occurs within the total system, and so the criticism would be valid even if agriculture somehow remained as a relatively competitive industry. Agriculture, however, is also highly consolidated through agribusiness. The few small farmers who remain are encumbered by the pressures of the system in which overall production is immensely consolidated, and also are dependent on agribusiness for equipment and supplies.

The number of small producers compared to large is a poor measure of consolidation versus competiveness, because each large producer carries the capacity of many small.