This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois

Canadians are feeling the pinch as Ottawa’s trade blunders and a weak dollar drive grocery bills higher

Almost a year ago, Canada’s Food Price Report projected that food inflation in 2025 would range between three and five per cent. We now stand squarely at four.

For consumers, it’s been a bruising year. After months of relative calm, grocery prices have surged again since spring, driven by tariffs, weather disruptions and a weakening Canadian dollar.

Between March and September, food inflation jumped sharply across several everyday staples. Coffee and tea prices rose by nearly 15 percentage points, sugar and confectionery climbed by more than three, while beef and condiments each increased by about one.

These aren’t luxury goods—they’re breakfast-table essentials. Canadians are paying more for their morning coffee, family barbecues and pantry staples than they were just six months ago.

When compared with other G7 countries, Canada’s performance stands out—and not in a good way. Japan currently faces the highest food inflation rate at 7.2 per cent, followed by the United Kingdom at 5.1 per cent. Canada sits third at 3.8 per cent, the only G7 country to post three consecutive monthly increases. Italy follows closely at 3.7 per cent, while the United States, Germany and France are all below Canada at 3.2, 2.9 and 1.7 per cent, respectively. For an advanced, food-producing nation, this is not a comfortable position.

Much of the renewed pressure can be traced back to trade policy. The counter tariffs introduced in March, combined with new U.S. measures, have quietly inflated costs across the entire food chain. Tariffs are by nature inflationary: they disrupt market efficiencies, raise input prices and trigger retaliatory actions that make goods more expensive on both sides of the border. What begins as a political statement quickly becomes an economic burden, felt most acutely in grocery aisles.

The loonie’s recent weakness has only made matters worse. Since January, the Canadian dollar has fallen significantly against the U.S. dollar, amplifying the cost of imported products such as coffee, cocoa and processed foods. For a country that imports roughly $70 billion in food annually, currency depreciation functions like a silent tax on every grocery bill.

As we move into the winter months, these forces show few signs of easing. Transportation costs remain high, retailers are passing along supplier increases and consumers are already adapting by trading down or buying less. While overall inflation is moderating elsewhere in the world, Canada’s food sector is moving in the opposite direction.

Prime Minister Mark Carney recently remarked that his government will be judged by the prices Canadians pay at the grocery store. On that score, Canadians are indeed paying attention. Tariffs, trade friction and a soft currency have all converged to make food more expensive. Voters are noticing.

In a world where food inflation is once again a global problem, Canada’s return to the top of the G7 pack is an unenviable distinction.

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.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

The energy sector has long been a lightning rod for policy battles, but few moments crystallize the tension between environmental activism and economic reality quite like David Bookbinder’s recent admission. A veteran litigator who’s spent years spearheading lawsuits against major oil companies on behalf of Colorado municipalities — including Boulder — Bookbinder let the cat out of the bag during a recent Federalist Society panel.

In an all-too-rare acknowledgement of the lawfare campaign’s real goal, Bookbinder admitted that he views the lawsuits mainly as a proxy for a carbon tax. In other words, the winning or losing of any of the cases is irrelevant; in Bookbinder’s view, the process becomes the punishment as companies and ultimately consumers pay the price for using oil and gas and the industry’s refined products.

“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products. … [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

The cynicism is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

On one hand, the fact that winning is irrelevant to the plaintiff firms who bring the cases has become obvious over the last two years as case after case has been dismissed by judges in at least ten separate jurisdictions. The fact that almost every case has been dismissed on the same legal grounds only serves to illustrate that reality.

Bookbinder’s frank admission lands with particular force at a pivotal juncture. In late September, the Department of Justice, along with 26 state attorneys general and more than 100 members of Congress, urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in one of the few remaining active cases in this lawfare effort, in Boulder, Colorado.

Their briefs contend that allowing these suits to proceed unchecked would “upend the constitutional balance” between federal and state authority, potentially “bankrupt[ing] the U.S. energy sector” by empowering local courts to override national energy policy.

For the companies named in the suits, these cases represent not just a tiresome form of legal Kabuki Theater, but a financial and time sink that cuts profits and inhibits capital investments in more productive enterprises. You know, like producing oil and gas to meet America’s ravenous energy needs in an age of explosive artificial intelligence growth.

“I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those, and I don’t think anyone on this panel would [dis]agree Congress is likely to take on climate change anytime soon—so this is a rather convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax,” Bookbinder elaborated in his panel discussion.

John Yoo, the eminent UC Berkeley law professor and former Bush-era official, didn’t hold back in his analysis for National Review. He described the lawfare campaign as a “backdoor” assault on the energy industry, circumventing the federal government’s established role in environmental regulation.

“There are a variety of cities and states that don’t agree with the federal government, and they would like to see the energy companies taxed,” Yoo explained. “Some of them probably like to see them go out of business. Since they can’t persuade through the normal political process of elections and legislation like the rest of the country, they’re using this back door,” he added.

What we see in action here is the fact that, although the climate alarm industry that is largely funded by an array of dark money NGOs and billionaire foundations finds itself on the defensive amid the aggressive policy actions of the Trump 47 administration, it is far from dead. Like the Democrat party in which they play an integral role, the alarmists are fighting the battle in their last bastion of power: The courts.

As long as there are city and county officials willing to play the role of plaintiffs in this long running Kabuki dance, and a Supreme Court unwilling to intercede, no one should doubt that this stealth carbon tax lawfare effort will keep marching right along.