Business
Carney’s cabinet likely means more of the same on energy and climate

From the Fraser Institute
Prime Minister Carney recently unveiled his new cabinet, and he made some changes in some key policy areas including Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Climate Change, and Transport and Internal Trade. What do these cabinet picks tell us about the potential policy focus of Carney’s government moving forward?
At the helm of the Energy and Natural Resource portfolio, Carney appointed Timothy Hodgson, a former banker and chair of Ontario’s massive Hydro One electricity utility. A quick search of Hodgson’s previous experience and opinions on matters of energy and natural resource policy comes up rather dry—he is something of a cypher. Acquaintances are quoted in several articles suggesting he has a pragmatic, pro-business orientation, but that is about all we can glean.
Still, what we do know is that Hodgson is replacing Jonathan Wilkinson, previously a supporter of highly aggressive greenhouse gas emission reductions, and aggressive regulation in the energy and natural resource policy spaces when part of Trudeau’s cabinet. So, with a mostly blank slate to stand on, and an ostensibly pragmatic “banker” mentality, we can expect (hope?) that Minister Hodgson blazes a less extreme path forward on energy and natural resource issues, balancing in a more even-handed fashion protection of the environment and natural resources with Canada’s need for economic productivity.
Hodgson’s partner on the energy, natural resource environmental policy front will be Julie Dabrusin, new Minister of Environment and Climate Change, replacing Uber-environmentalist Steven Guilbeault. Dabrusin was previously Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources in the Trudeau government. The most logical expectation would be to expect she will continue to champion Trudeau-esque policies, tempering any hopes we might have for the potentially more moderate Minister Hodgson as bellwether of Canada’s energy, natural resource and environmental policies.
Finally, Carney appointed Chrystia Freeland as Minister of Transport and Internal Trade. Freeland is a strong believer in the climate crisis, an intense regulator thereof, and seems to believe that transportation must be electrified, pedalized and mass-transificated (okay, I made that last term up) to save the planet. So, anyone hoping for a move away from the green-transportation agenda, away from an all electric-car, mass-transit oriented future, and back to something favouring (or at least not-demonizing) an automobile-centric lifestyle might want to rein in their expectations.
Unfortunately, in Carney’s cavalcade of cabinet officials, he did not create a new Minister of Regulatory Reform and Right-Sizing (again, my term). One of Canada’s biggest public policy illnesses is its plague of regulations. Canada is drowning under a mountain of regulatory red-tape and badly needs a minister with scissors. Canada wants no part of a U.S.-style Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), but a Minister of Regulatory Reform and Right-Sizing, akin to what British Columbia had briefly in 2001, would be a policy tonic Canada needs badly.
Little is known about exactly where the bulk of Prime Minister Carney’s new cabinet will take us, but the safe betting—in areas of environment, natural resources, climate change and transportation—is that we’re likely to see a continuance of Trudeau-era policies, though promulgated by somewhat more bland less-obviously-zealous eco-warriors. Time will tell.
Business
High grocery bills? Blame Ottawa, not Washington

This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Sylvain Charlebois
Blaming the U.S. won’t cut it. Canada’s food inflation crisis is largely a result of Ottawa’s poor policy choices
It was expected, but still jarring. In April, food inflation in Canada surged to 3.8 per cent—a full 2.1 percentage points above the national inflation rate and nearly double the U.S. rate of two per cent. Once again, food is the primary driver behind headline inflation, amplifying affordability concerns across the country.
But this isn’t just a story of global disruption or seasonal cycles. It’s increasingly clear that Canada’s food inflation is largely homegrown—a direct result
of domestic policy missteps, particularly tariffs and protectionist procurement practices.
Since March, when both Canada and the United States introduced a new round of tariffs, the difference in outcomes has been striking. U.S. food inflation has continued to cool, while Canada’s has nearly tripled over the same period—a divergence that should raise serious red flags in two integrated economies.
Drill into the 3.8 per cent figure and the underlying pressure becomes obvious. Meat prices climbed 5.8 per cent year-over-year, with beef up a staggering 16.5 per cent. Egg prices rose 3.9 per cent, while fresh fruit and vegetable prices increased by five per cent and 3.7 per cent, respectively. These are not one-off anomalies—they reflect sustained cost increases made worse by awed policy.
Canada’s earlier decision to implement counter-tariffs— retaliatory taxes on U.S. imports in response to American trade moves— disrupted long-standing cross-border supply chains. To avoid higher import costs, grocers pivoted away from U.S. suppliers, particularly in fresh produce and frozen foods, and turned to costlier or less efficient alternatives. That shift is now showing up on Canadians’ grocery bills.
Fortunately, there’s been a course correction. According to Oxford Economics, a global forecasting and analysis firm, Prime Minister Mark Carney has quietly rolled back many of the counter-tariffs that had been inflating food costs. The move, while politically sensitive, was economically sound and long overdue. Early signs suggest that pressure on the supply chain is beginning to ease, and over time, this could help stabilize prices.
Still, Canada’s food inflation stands out. Among G7 nations, it now ranks second highest, behind only Japan. Food price increases in France, Germany, Italy, the U.K. and the U.S. remain well below ours.
Why? Because this isn’t just about external shocks. It’s about domestic choices. Tariffs, procurement rules and limited trade flexibility have shaped a uniquely Canadian inflation story. And unlike the U.S., Canada lacks the economic leverage to absorb policy mistakes without consequences.
That’s why Carney’s reversal offers more than short-term relief; it’s an opportunity to rethink our approach entirely. Symbols and slogans are no
substitute for sound policy. Ensuring access to affordable, nutritious food should be a national priority, pursued with pragmatism, not posturing.
Canadians should welcome the shift, but they also deserve honesty. This inflationary spiral didn’t just happen to us. We helped cause it. And it’s not
governments or grocery chains who shoulder the cost—it’s families at the checkout counter.
Moving forward, federal and provincial governments must coordinate more effectively, communicate with greater clarity, and stop masking economic
missteps with patriotic branding.
There’s nothing wrong with buying Canadian. But “maplewashing”—where companies overstate or exaggerate a product’s connection to Canada in order to appear more Canadian—risks distorting markets and eroding public trust. Grocers should not abuse consumer goodwill.
Ottawa’s slogans—“Elbows Up,” “Canada’s Not For Sale”—may have mobilized support during a volatile moment, but rhetoric has its limits. When it blinds policymakers to the real-world effects of their actions, it becomes dangerous.
Canada’s food inflation crisis didn’t have to unfold this way. Now that we have a chance to reset, let’s not waste it.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Business
Pension and Severance Estimate for 110 MP’s Who Resigned or Were Defeated in 2025 Federal Election

By Franco Terrazzano
Taxpayers Federation releases pension and severance figures for 2025 federal election
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released its calculations of estimated pension and severance payments paid to the 110 members of Parliament who were either defeated in the federal election or did not seek re-election.
“Taxpayers shouldn’t feel too bad for the politicians who lost the election because they’ll be cashing big severance or pension cheques,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Thanks to past pension reforms, taxpayers will not have to shoulder as much of the burden as they used to. But there’s more work to do to make politician pay affordable for taxpayers.”
Defeated or retiring MPs will collect about $5 million in annual pension payments, reaching a cumulative total of about $187 million by age 90. In addition, about $6.6 million in severance cheques will be issued to some former MPs.
Former prime minister Justin Trudeau will collect two taxpayer-funded pensions in retirement. Combined, those pensions total $8.4 million, according to CTF estimates. Trudeau is also taking a $104,900 severance payout because he did not run again as an MP.
The payouts for Trudeau’s MP pension will begin at $141,000 per year when he turns 55 years old. It will total an estimated $6.5 million should he live to the age of 90. The payouts for Trudeau’s prime minister pension will begin at $73,000 per year when he turns 67 years old. It will total an estimated $1.9 million should he live to the age of 90.
“Taxpayers need to see leadership at the top and that means reforming pensions and ending the pay raises MPs take every year,” Terrazzano said. “A prime minister already takes millions through their first pension, they shouldn’t be billing taxpayers more for their second pension.
“The government must end the second pension for all future prime ministers.”
There are 13 former MPs that will collect more than $100,000-plus a year in pension income. The pension and severance calculations for each defeated or retired MP can be found here.
Some notable severance / pensions
Name Party Years as MP Severance Annual Starting Pension Pension to Age 90
Bergeron, Stéphane BQ 17.6 $ 99,000.00 $ 4,440,000.00
Boissonnault, Randy LPC 7.6 $ 44,200.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 2,775,000.00
Dreeshen, Earl CPC 16.6 $ $ 95,000.00 $ 1,938,000.00
Mendicino, Marco * LPC 9.4 $ 66,000.00 $ 3,586,000.00
O’Regan, Seamus LPC 9.5 $ 104,900.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 3,927,000.00
Poilievre, Pierre ** CPC 20.8 $ 136,000.00 $ 7,087,000.00
Singh, Jagmeet NDP 6.2 $ 140,300.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 2,694,000.00
Trudeau, Justin *** LPC 16.6 $ 104,900.00 $ 141,000.00 $ 8,400,000.00
* Marco Mendicino resigned as an MP on March 14th, 2025
** Pierre Poilievre announced that he would not take a severance
*** The Pension to Age 90 includes Trudeau’s MP pension and his secondary Prime Minister’s pension
-
espionage15 hours ago
Canada’s Missing Intelligence Command: Convoy Review Takes on New Relevance After FBI Warnings
-
Alberta2 days ago
Canmore attempting to tax its way out of housing crisis
-
Addictions1 day ago
News For Those Who Think Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree
-
COVID-191 day ago
Will Chris Barber be jailed for peacefully protesting? Court to decide soon
-
Alberta2 days ago
Boreal forests could hold the key to achieving Canada’s climate goals
-
Business2 days ago
The Oracle of Omaha Calls it a Career
-
International1 day ago
Work underway – Trump’s Golden Dome defense shield to be done within four years
-
Banks1 day ago
Legal group releases report warning Canadians about central bank digital currencies