Economy
When Potatoes Become a Luxury: Canada’s Grocery Gouging Can’t Continue

By Jeremy Nuttall
I don’t want to live in a country where pensioners have to put back potatoes, a food that supported millions of lives in desperate times
It was a routine wait in the grocery line last year when I personally witnessed the true cost of the grocery price spike. An elderly lady in front of me in the lineup did a double take when the clerk told her the total for her bill.
“What’s $10?” she asked, looking at the cashier’s screen. The clerk told her it was the handful of potatoes she’d grabbed. The woman, easily old enough to be retired, put the potatoes back.
Being middle-aged with a decent full-time job, until that moment, I was fortunate enough that experiencing the rising cost of groceries was not much more than a bit of a drag. But seeing a pensioner putting potatoes back highlighted the problem. The humble tuber has sustained whole civilizations in dire circumstances due to its being inexpensive and nourishing. Now it’s a luxury item?
After two years of complaints about the cost of groceries, the government pretending to fix the issue with the grocery code of conduct (and a lot of big talk), and more Canadians hitting food banks than at any time in recent memory, earlier this month we found out food prices will rise again next year.
The Food Price Report, produced by a joint effort between several Canadian universities, predicted a five per cent increase for meat and vegetables in 2025. That’s more than double the predicted rate of inflation from BMO for the coming 12 months.
Yet again, Canadian government actions have proven worthless.
The message is clear, and “we can’t really help you” is pretty much that message.
Another idea the government had to solve this was to head down to the U.S. to beg some of their chains to open up in Canada. This, rather than breaking up the big Canadian-owned grocery chains dominated by a couple of corporate giants already caught in a major price-fixing scandal, was their best idea.
Anything to get out of doing the work and angering the people with whom they hit the cocktail circuit.
I stopped buying my produce, and most of my meat, at large outlets a couple of years ago. I knew I was saving money, but just how much surprised me recently. I was at a Safeway and wanted to buy a russet potato there to save myself making another stop. I saw the price was $2.69 a pound. The spud I chose was more than a pound—potentially a $3 potato. Disgusted, I left the store without a thing to mash, bake, or julienne.
A few days later, I headed to my usual produce market, the Triple A market on Hastings in Burnaby, a trusty institution with a lot of character. I purchased a big russet potato, a big red onion, two Roma tomatoes, and two Ambrosia apples. (These are random items; please don’t try to make a pie out of this.)
My total was $5.15. This seemed reasonable to me. Right after, I went back to the same Safeway. I purchased the same items, while trying my best to get the weight as close as possible to the first batch I bought.
The result? Even with the Triple A red onion and potato having a couple hundred grams more weight, the Safeway total for the same basket was $8.83. That’s forty per cent more, probably closer to 50 per cent if you factor in the size difference for the onion and potato from Triple A.
A quick look around my nearest Jim Pattison-owned Buy-Low (or Buy Low Sell High, as we call it around my house) revealed prices similar to Safeway, yet the neighbourhood Sungiven, a Vancouver Asian market chain, had prices closer to those of the produce stand.
Now, the argument is often that big grocers have more overhead, advertising budgets, and larger staff. But I think it’s fair to say there’s something suspicious going on here. One thing is clear, though: big grocers are increasingly strictly for suckers.
Out here in B.C., this predicted five per cent increase in grocery prices will have companions by way of increases to property taxes recently passed in Metro Vancouver and a 17 per cent increase to natural gas rates in the province.
We may have a tariff war on the horizon, making all that even worse.
This crushing of Canadians can’t go on. Sadly, it will, due in part to the complete lack of real action from the authorities meant to protect the public interest.
To be clear, I’m not an expert on grocery stores or farming. I’m sure there are flaws in my complaints.
But one thing I know for certain is I don’t want to live in a country where pensioners have to put back potatoes—a food that has saved millions of lives during destitute times—at the checkout after seeing how much they cost.
And any government agency or elected official who thinks it can half-ass the response to something like that while collecting a paycheque is gouging Canadians in their own way.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
Carbon tariff proposal carries risks and consequences for Canada

A carbon tariff—a policy that would impose fees on imported goods based on their carbon emissions—is built on the idea that Canada should penalize foreign producers for not adhering to stringent climate policies. While this may sound like a strong stance on climate action, the reality is that such a policy carries major risks for Canada’s economy. As a resource-rich nation that exports carbon-intensive products like oil, natural gas, and minerals, Canada stands to lose more than it gains from this approach.
Mark Carney, who is competing for the federal Liberal leadership, has made the introduction of a carbon tariff the number two promise in his 16-point industrial competitiveness strategy.
Key problems with a carbon tariff in Canada
1. Retaliation from other countries
A carbon tariff (also known as a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM) would not go unchallenged by Canada’s trading partners. Major exporters to Canada, such as the United States and China, are unlikely to accept this policy without a response. They could retaliate by imposing tariffs on Canadian goods, making it significantly harder for Canadian businesses to compete in international markets. This could be particularly damaging for key industries like oil and gas, mining, and manufacturing, which rely heavily on exports. A trade war over carbon tariffs could weaken the Canadian economy and lead to job losses across multiple sectors.
2. Canada is an exporting nation
Canada exports far more carbon-intensive goods than it imports. By introducing a carbon tariff on foreign products, Canada is effectively inviting other countries to do the same, targeting Canadian exports with similar carbon-based tariffs. This would make Canadian goods more expensive on the global market, reducing demand for them and harming the very industries that drive Canada’s economy. The result? A weaker economy, job losses, and higher costs for businesses that depend on trade.
3. Big business paying for consumers’ emissions
The Carney plan also proposes to make large businesses bear the cost of helping individual households lower their carbon emissions. While this may sound like a fair approach, in practice, these costs will be passed down to consumers. Businesses will need to offset these additional expenses, leading to higher prices on everyday goods and services. In the end, it is Canadian families who will bear the financial burden, facing increased living costs, higher taxes, and fewer job opportunities as businesses struggle to absorb the additional costs.
CBAM in context: implications for Canada
Has this been tried elsewhere?
The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is currently in effect. It entered its transitional phase on October 1, 2023, during which importers of certain carbon-intensive goods are required to report the embedded emissions of their imports without incurring financial liabilities. This phase is set to last until the end of 2025. The definitive regime, where importers will need to purchase CBAM certificates corresponding to the carbon emissions of their imported goods, is scheduled to begin in 2026.
However, Europe is not Canada’s largest trading partner—that is the United States. With Donald Trump back in the presidency, there is no chance that the U.S. will implement a CBAM of its own. If Canada were to move forward with a unilateral carbon tariff, if anyone prepared to argue that it would not face significant economic punishment from the Trump White House?
Moreover, with 91 percent of the world having no carbon tariff, other countries would impose countermeasures, leaving Canadian businesses struggling to remain competitive.
This raises the question: is the push for a carbon tariff in Canada more about political positioning than economic pragmatism? Given the unlikelihood of U.S. participation, a Canadian CBAM would amount to a unilateral economic sacrifice. While this may appeal to certain voter bases, the reality is that such a policy would carry immense risks without global coordination. Policymakers should carefully consider whether pursuing this path makes sense in a world where Canada’s largest trading partner is unlikely to follow suit.
Where do others stand?
Chrystia Freeland, the former finance minister and current Liberal leadership candidate, has not explicitly detailed her stance on carbon tariffs. However, she has emphasized the importance of defending Canadian interests against U.S. economic nationalism, particularly in response to potential tariffs from the U.S.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is a vocal critic of carbon pricing mechanisms, including carbon taxes, and has pledged to repeal such measures if elected.
Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, has consistently advocated for strong environmental policies, including carbon pricing, but has not specifically addressed carbon tariffs in recent statements.
What it means to consumers
Here are some relatable examples of carbon-intensive exports and imports for the average Canadian:
Carbon-Intensive Exports from Canada
Oil & Gas – Canada is a major exporter of crude oil, natural gas, and refined petroleum products, particularly to the U.S. If a carbon tariff were applied to these products, it could make them more expensive and less competitive in global markets, affecting jobs in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland.
Lumber & Pulp – Canada is a leading exporter of forestry products, including lumber, paper, and pulp, which require significant energy and emissions to produce. If tariffs are imposed on Canadian wood products, the forestry sector could suffer.
Agricultural Products – Fertilizers, beef, and grain production all have significant carbon footprints. If trading partners retaliate with tariffs, Canadian farmers may struggle to compete in global markets.
Carbon-Intensive Imports into Canada
Steel & Aluminum – Canada imports a large amount of steel, primarily from China and the U.S., which is essential for industries like construction, manufacturing, and automotive production. A carbon tariff would drive up costs for these industries.
Consumer Goods from China – Many everyday products (electronics, clothing, appliances) are imported from countries with high-carbon electricity grids. A carbon tariff could increase the price of these goods for Canadian consumers.
Food Products – Imported produce, meats, and packaged foods from countries like the U.S. and Mexico often have high transportation-related emissions. A carbon tariff could increase grocery bills.
Business
Trump announces “fair and reciprocal” tariffs, warning days of trade abuse are “over”

Quick Hit:
President Donald Trump on Thursday signed a memorandum directing his administration to implement a “fair and reciprocal” trade policy, ensuring that foreign nations imposing high tariffs on American goods will face identical treatment. In a statement on Truth Social, Trump declared that the days of the U.S. being economically exploited are over, vowing to retaliate against trade policies that unfairly disadvantage American businesses.
Key Details:
-
Trump wrote on Truth Social, “For purposes of fairness, I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them—No more, no less!”
-
The policy will consider Value-Added Tax (VAT) systems—widely used in Europe—as trade barriers equivalent to tariffs, with Trump arguing they are “far more punitive” and used to harm American exports.
-
The administration will crack down on trade loopholes, including countries shipping goods through third-party nations to evade tariffs. “Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted,” Trump warned.
Diving Deeper:
Trump’s reciprocal tariff plan is designed to end decades of one-sided trade deals that he says have crippled American industries and workers. By enforcing equal tariffs on foreign nations, Trump is making it clear: If a country charges the U.S. high tariffs, they will face the same in return.
Trump specifically called out countries that manipulate Value-Added Tax (VAT) systems, arguing that these taxes function as hidden trade barriers designed to punish U.S. exports while protecting foreign industries. He declared, “For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff.”
Beyond traditional tariffs, Trump’s administration is also cracking down on non-monetary trade barriers, such as regulations designed to block American businesses from competing fairly overseas. He emphasized, “Provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate.”
Additionally, Trump warned against countries attempting to game the system by shipping goods through third-party nations to avoid tariffs. “Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted,” he stated.
Critics, including some business groups and investors, argue that tariffs could increase costs for U.S. consumers, but Trump’s supporters say securing fair trade is worth any short-term disruption. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon defended the approach, stating, “If it’s a little inflationary but it’s good for national security, so be it. I mean, get over it.”
Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell sidestepped questions about the policy but acknowledged that trade barriers could influence economic conditions, saying, “It’s not the Fed’s job to make or comment on tariff policy. That’s for elected people.”
-
Business2 days ago
FEMA paid for hotels housing Tren de Aragua, Laken Riley killer, Noem says
-
Business21 hours ago
Carbon tariff proposal carries risks and consequences for Canada
-
Community8 hours ago
New Documentary “Cooking with Hot Stones” Explores History of Fort Assiniboine, Alberta
-
COVID-192 days ago
Canadian medical regulator drops misconduct allegations against COVID jab critic Dr. Charles Hoffe
-
Business20 hours ago
Trump Admin reports 75K federal workers have accepted buyout offer
-
Health1 day ago
RFK Jr. to focus on chronic disease, healthcare costs as HHS head
-
Crime1 day ago
Why is Trump threatening Canada? The situation is far worse than you think!
-
Business23 hours ago
Trump announces “fair and reciprocal” tariffs, warning days of trade abuse are “over”