Business
The Liberal war on our cost of living lives on
Well, the election is over, and it turns out that I was right to be sceptical of the polls. Polling which showed collapsing support for the Conservative Party, which I said over and over didn’t track with what I was seeing on the ground, was clearly wrong. In fact, the Conservative Party increased their share of the vote by more than 7 points, breaking 40% for the first time since 1988, while picking up 23 seats in parliament.
That kept the Liberals to a minority government — something the pollsters were definitely not predicting — and they only did as well as they did because the Bloc Québécois lost ground and the NDP were absolutely decimated.
For this we have Donald Trump to thank, and his unprecedented intervention in our election. Not to mention Canadian boomers, who as a group ranked Trump as the most important issue in this election, and “Making Canada a better place to live” as their least important issue, just behind “Growing the Economy” and making life more affordable.
They’ve made their money, after all. They’ve built up tremendous equity in their homes. And it just made them feel good to vote in a way that they thought would make Donald Trump mad. (Not that it did.)
We are now seeing a rising generation of younger adults who will be the first to lose ground as compared to their parents since the Great Depression. And why is that? Because the Baby Boomers decided to vote to reward those politicians whose policies have been, and will continue to be, a direct assault on the Canadian cost of living.
Carney’s government will double down on the worst policies of the Trudeau era. He is, after all, the Apostle of Net-Zero.
That means doubling down on carbon taxation, especially in the form of the Industrial Carbon Tax, which will hurt existing businesses and discourage others from getting off the ground. And if he sees an opportunity to go back to charging the Consumer Carbon Tax — remember that it remains on the books — he will do that as well.
It also means continued electric vehicle mandates. Many Canadians remain ignorant of the fact that the Trudeau Liberals banned the sale of new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, beginning in 2035, just ten years from now. It took some prodding, but the Conservatives vowed to scrap that mandate.
Now it will remain in effect, and that means higher priced gas-and-diesel driven cars in the near term, as Canadians start to process the fact that they won’t be able to buy them soon. It will mean eventually being forced to buy even more expensive EVs and, if nothing changes, without government support, as the federal EV subsidy program ran out of money months ago.
Meanwhile, prepare for every story about an auto company bailing on commitments to build electric vehicles in Canada to feel like a crisis. Those agreements were negotiated at a time when decision makers assumed that Donald Trump would lose his second bid for the White House, and Americans would have EVs forced on them as well.
In that climate, it seemed like a great idea to accept the mountains of taxpayer dollars being offered to automakers by Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford. But without the American market, doing so makes much less business sense. Even with Doug Ford bellowing that he’s going to “hold them accountable” and force them to “continue manufacturing automobiles here in Ontario!”
And it further means that the Trudeau government’s war on pipelines will now become the Carney government’s war on pipelines.
Remember, while campaigning just a few weeks ago, how Carney went to Edmonton and proclaimed his intention to:
Make Canada “the world’s leading energy superpower,”
Invest in our “natural strengths and ensure our economic sovereignty,” and
fast-track “projects of national interest,”
while acknowledging that,
“any major energy project that comes from this great province is going to pass the boundaries of other provinces?”
His clear implication was that he intended to change course from his predecessor, to facilitate the building of pipelines, perhaps to revive Energy East, and to do so even over the objections of Quebec.
Suffice it to say, we didn’t believe a word of it. And now we see we were right not to do so, as we’ve just seen two of Carney’s ministers — Steven Guilbeault and Dominic LeBlanc — throw cold water on the idea that the Carney government would support new pipeline projects.
That’s because the activists who continue to run our country would prefer the pat on the head they get from the Davos brigade than to support the backbone of our economy, the natural resource sector, upon which Canadian jobs, energy affordability, and our overall cost of living rests.
All this means, of course, is that our work is not done. Our fight to protect the Canada we all know and love, where regular people can do honest work, buy a house, raise a family and live comfortably, goes on.
As disappointing as the outcome of this election was, it is just a setback. More and more people are hearing our message. We’re already seeing signs of buyer’s remorse among Carney voters. And, to put it bluntly, if something can’t continue on one way forever, it won’t. Which is to say, we’re going to have to change course sometime. The sooner, the better.
So, to borrow a phrase, Elbows Up.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
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
Breaking: Explosive FBI Warning—CCP, Iran, and Mex-Cartels Partnering in Canada to Move Fentanyl and Terrorists Into U.S.
The proof is in. Housing is more unaffordable than ever
Canada’s Missing Intelligence Command: Convoy Review Takes on New Relevance After FBI Warnings
Canada’s electric vehicle industry faces multiple threats
-
espionage19 hours ago
Canada’s Missing Intelligence Command: Convoy Review Takes on New Relevance After FBI Warnings
-
Alberta2 days agoCanmore attempting to tax its way out of housing crisis
-
COVID-191 day agoWill Chris Barber be jailed for peacefully protesting? Court to decide soon
-
Addictions2 days agoNews For Those Who Think Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree
-
Alberta2 days agoBoreal forests could hold the key to achieving Canada’s climate goals
-
Business2 days agoThe Oracle of Omaha Calls it a Career
-
Business2 days agoCarney’s cabinet likely means more of the same on energy and climate
-
International1 day agoWork underway – Trump’s Golden Dome defense shield to be done within four years