Business
Carney’s tariff blunder cost you at the checkout
This article supplied by Troy Media.
And rolling them back is his way of admitting it
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s decision to roll back most counter-tariffs on Sept. 1 is more than welcome relief at the checkout. It’s an admission the tariffs never should have been imposed in the first place, and that consumers unfairly paid the price.
The rollback means lower grocery bills, greater choice for grocers and—most importantly—a brake on food inflation. The tariffs acted like the tide lifting all boats: when the price of orange juice, peanut butter or coffee jumped, it indirectly pushed prices elsewhere upward as grocers rebalanced their pricing.
As we enter the critical fall season, when demand for everyday staples like bread and dairy and prepared foods such as canned goods and ready-to-eat meals typically rises, removing artificial cost pressures will help keep food inflation in check.
But this move isn’t just about food prices. More to the point, it quietly acknowledges what many suspected: counter-tariffs were being applied to goods
that were technically exempt under the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), the trade deal that replaced NAFTA. That made them not only harmful to consumers but a likely violation of Canada’s own obligations under the agreement. Few Canadians were aware of it, but they certainly felt it in their wallets. The rollback is not just an economic fix—it is a political and legal admission of error.
Carney did the right thing, and on balance, it was a good day for Canada. His decision reflects an understanding that the countertariffs were never about a direct trade war between Canada and the U.S. Instead, they were a response to a broader geopolitical shift an America First agenda from Washington aimed at reinforcing U.S. leverage globally, not targeting Canada specifically. By resetting the relationship with Washington, Carney is
prioritizing the bigger picture: CUSMA and broader North American integration. The rollback is a gesture of goodwill that acknowledges that reality.
That goodwill matters because Carney’s move also reflects a simple truth: we need to get along with the U.S. More than 70 per cent of our trade flows through the U.S. market. For food, the dependency is even deeper, with supply chains tightly interwoven across the border. Stability in this relationship directly influences the prices Canadians pay for groceries.
That’s what makes the current strain so dangerous. Canada is already facing one of its worst trade crises in a generation. The recent U.S. tariff hikes on Canadian agri-food products aren’t just policy wrinkles—they’re a gut punch. In that context, the rollback isn’t just symbolic—it’s urgent. It offers a timely response to mounting pressures on both farmers and consumers. If Ottawa fails to go further, Canadians will continue to pay the price.
Rolling back counter-tariffs is only a first step. Ottawa still has unfinished business. The costs of moving food across provinces remain unnecessarily high, with different rules on food and alcohol creating internal trade barriers that drive up prices. Removing these would improve efficiency and lower costs for consumers. Canada must also address escalating tensions with other key partners. China is a critical buyer of Canadian canola and pork; India is central to our pulse exports. Both relationships are strained and the food economy is feeling the consequences. A comprehensive strategy that recognizes both geography and geopolitics is needed.
For now, though, eliminating counter-tariffs sends the right signal: Canada is ready to reduce friction, strengthen North American cooperation and give consumers some long-overdue relief at the checkout.
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.
Nancy Pelosi isn’t just walking away from Congress — she’s cashing out of one of the most profitable careers ever built inside it. According to an investigation by the New York Post, the former House Speaker and her husband, venture capitalist Paul Pelosi, turned a modest stock portfolio worth under $800,000 into at least $130 million over her 37 years in office — a staggering 16,900% return that would make even Wall Street’s best blush.
The 85-year-old California Democrat — hailed as the first woman to wield the Speaker’s gavel and infamous for her uncanny market timing — announced this week she will retire when her term ends in January 2027. The Post reported that when Pelosi first entered Congress in 1987, her financial disclosure showed holdings in just a dozen stocks, including Citibank, worth between $610,000 and $785,000. Today, the Pelosis’ net worth is estimated around $280 million — built on trades that have consistently outperformed the Dow, the S&P 500, and even top hedge funds.
The Post found that while the Dow rose roughly 2,300% over those decades, the Pelosis’ reported returns soared nearly seven times higher, averaging 14.5% a year — double the long-term market average. In 2024 alone, their portfolio reportedly gained 54%, more than twice the S&P’s 25% and better than every major hedge fund tracked by Bloomberg.
Pelosi’s latest financial disclosure shows holdings in some two dozen individual stocks, including millions invested in Apple, Nvidia, Salesforce, Netflix, and Palo Alto Networks. Apple remains their single largest position, valued between $25 million and $50 million. The couple also owns a Napa Valley winery worth up to $25 million, a Bay Area restaurant, commercial real estate, and a political data and consulting firm. Their home in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights is valued around $8.7 million, and they maintain a Georgetown townhouse bought in 1999 for $650,000.
The report comes as bipartisan calls grow to ban lawmakers and their spouses from trading individual stocks — a move critics say is long overdue. “What I’ll miss most is how she trades,” said Dan Weiskopf, portfolio manager of an ETF that tracks congressional investments known as “NANC.” He described Pelosi’s trading as “high conviction and aggressive,” noting her frequent use of leveraged options trades. “You only do that if you’ve got confidence — or information,” Weiskopf told the Post.
Among her most striking trades was a late-2023 move that allowed the Pelosis to buy 50,000 shares of Nvidia at just $12 each — less than a tenth of the market price. The $2.4 million investment is now worth more than $7 million. “She’s buying deep in the money and putting up a lot of money doing it,” Weiskopf said. “We don’t see a lot of flip-flopping on her trading activity.”
Republicans blasted Pelosi’s record as proof of Washington’s double standard. “Nancy Pelosi’s true legacy is becoming the most successful insider trader in American history,” said RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels. “If anyone else had turned $785,000 into $133 million with better returns than Warren Buffett, they’d be retiring behind bars.”
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
Based on the rhetoric, the Carney government’s first budget was a “transformative” new plan that will meet and overcome the “generational” challenges facing Canada. Of course, in reality this budget is nothing new, and delivers the same approach to fiscal and economic policy that has been tried and failed for the last decade.
First, let’s dispel the idea that the Carney government plans to manage its finances any differently than its predecessor. According to the budget, the Carney government plans to spend more, borrow more, and accumulate more debt than the Trudeau government had planned. Keep in mind, the Trudeau government was known for its recklessly high spending, borrowing and debt accumulation.
While the Carney government has tried to use different rhetoric and a new accounting framework to obscure this continued fiscal mismanagement, it’s also relied on an overused and misleading talking point about Canada’s debt as justification for higher spending and continued deficits. The talking point goes something like, “Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7” and this “strong fiscal position” gives the government the “space” to spend more and run larger deficits.
Technically, the government is correct—Canada’s net debt (total debt minus financial assets) is the lowest among G7 countries (which include France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) when measured as a share of the overall economy (GDP). The latest estimates put Canada’s net debt at 13 per cent of GDP, while net debt in the next lowest country (Germany) is 49 per cent of GDP.
But here’s the problem. This measure assumes Canada can use all of its financial assets to offset debt—which is not the case.
When economists measure Canada’s net debt, they include the assets of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), which were valued at a combined $890 billion as of mid-2025. But obviously Canada cannot use CPP and QPP assets to pay off government debt without compromising the benefits of current and future pensioners. And we’re one of the only industrialized countries where pension assets are accounted in such a way that it reduces net debt. Simply put, by falsely assuming CPP and QPP assets could pay off debt, Canada appears to have a stronger fiscal position than is actually the case.
A more accurate measure of Canada’s indebtedness is to look at the total level of debt.
Based on the latest estimates, Canada’s total debt (as a share of the economy) ranked 5th-highest among G7 countries at 113 per cent of GDP. That’s higher than the total debt burden in the U.K. (103 per cent) and Germany (64 per cent), and close behind France (117 per cent). And over the last decade Canada’s total debt burden has grown faster than any other G7 country, rising by 25 percentage points. Next closest, France, grew by 17 percentage points. Keep in mind, G7 countries are already among the most indebted, and continue to take on some of the most debt, in the industrialized world.
In other words, looking at Canada’s total debt burden reveals a much weaker fiscal position than the government claims, and one that will likely only get worse under the Carney government.
Prior to the budget, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised Canadians he will “always be straight about the challenges we face and the choices that we must make.” If he wants to keep that promise, his government must stop using a misleading measure of Canada’s indebtedness to justify high spending and persistent deficits.
Jake Fuss
Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Grady Munro
Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
U.S. Charges Three More Chinese Scholars in Wuhan Bio-Smuggling Case, Citing Pattern of Foreign Exploitation in American Research Labs
US Eating Canada’s Lunch While Liberals Stall – Trump Admin Announces Record-Shattering Energy Report
Alberta government’s plan will improve access to MRIs and CT scans
-
Business2 days agoCarney’s Deficit Numbers Deserve Scrutiny After Trudeau’s Forecasting Failures
-
Alberta1 day agoTell the Province what you think about 120 km/h speed limit on divided highways
-
International2 days agoKazakhstan joins Abraham Accords, Trump says more nations lining up for peace
-
Automotive2 days agoElon Musk Poised To Become World’s First Trillionaire After Shareholder Vote
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s number of inactive wells trending downward
-
National18 hours agoNew Canadian bill would punish those who deny residential indigenous schools deaths claims
-
Business1 day agoBill Gates Gets Mugged By Reality
-
Energy8 hours agoThawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory