What The Liberals Did To Canada

[Legato]

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Feel free to read for yourself....   

https://economics.td.com/ca-grocery-price-inflation

 

Copy and paste boy who neglects to understand why those grocery costs have risen.... 

Mom, look what the liberals have done! 😂

Sawdust!

[Goddess]

Absolutely astonishing.  Liberal cheerleaders truly believe higher & higher taxes make products and services more affordable for everyday Canadians.

[Legato]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It doesn't have to because the industrial carbon tax isn't applied to every step in the food chain.

Only the largest emitters pay, the the cost is not passed on because the tax is output based. If it does effect farmers on the ground exemptions apply so there's likewise next to nothing for farmers to pass on. The tax is deliberately designed to have as small an impact as possible on food prices to end consumers, not create the Ponzi-like multiplier effect you're claiming it will have.

The tax will add approximately 0.1% to the cost of food this year and 0.08% by 2030.

But it'll be multiples more than the cost the Bottleneck of Hormuz is adding to everything to hear you people put it.

 

Sequential Impact: The cost increases move step-by-step through the chain—production to processing to transport to retail—before appearing on consumer bills.

Delayed Effect: The full impact of energy price hikes on manufactured goods is not immediate, typically experiencing a lag of six to twelve months before appearing on store shelves.

Manufacturing Drivers: Sectors that rely on energy-intensive processes, such as petrochemicals, plastics, packaging, and fertilizer, are among the first to face these cost increases.

Transportation and Logistics: As fuel costs increase, transportation companies pass these higher shipping rates to wholesalers and retailers.

Market Competition: While businesses in competitive markets might try to absorb some costs by shrinking profit margins, sustained high energy costs generally force them to pass the expenses to consumers, often resulting in higher prices for food and essential goods.

Industrial Carbon Pricing: Similarly, industrial carbon taxes applied to heavy emitters (like steel and oil) are rarely absorbed by the companies themselves; they are passed through the system, acting as a "sneaky tax" that influences the cost of consumer staples. 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Prior to Trudeau we were diversifying our trade, the liberals were the ones that put a stop to that.

But regardless, we cannot diversify our trade enough to make any substantial difference. At least not within the next 10 to 20 years. The united states represents such a huge part of our trade that anything else is a drop in the bucket.

Which doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to do diversification just as harper originally intended. But it's not going to get us out of this fix, we need to find a way to deal with the states

 

It may never be the same but we will never solve that problem with external trade anytime in the next 20 years.

We might be able to substantially offset it by improving our own internal trade. We buy a lot of things we could make here, and barriers between provinces make it difficult for us to sell to each other

Carney was all about that during the election but then completely caved on it afterwards and it's done nothing. Solving into provincial trade would require a lot of leadership and strong incentives and he's just not capable of either

The trip he's making around the world are not to replace American Trade, they're to promote his own brand name.

Actually it was Harper that made trade difficult with anyone but China. Prime Minister Stephen Harper pursued a strategic economic partnership with China, culminating in the 2012–2014 ratification of the "Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement" (FIPA) and various natural resource agreements. While emphasizing trade over human rights concerns, Harper aimed to diversify markets for Canadian resources.

Under Trudeau, Canada became the only G7 nation with free trade agreements with all other G7 members. Key deals include the CETA (EU), CPTPP (Pacific countries), and the CUSMA/USMCA (USA/Mexico). Trudeau's government has made significant, ongoing efforts to diversify Canadian trade, driven by the desire to reduce dependency on the U.S. market. Key actions include launching the Indo-Pacific Strategy, signing the CPTPP (Trans-Pacific partnership), and signing the CETA agreement with the EU

Carney eliminated all federally imposed inter-provincial trade barriers. The barriers that exist now are all provincial ones. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has eliminated federal-level interprovincial trade barriers through the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act (effective Jan 1, 2026), but significant provincial-level barriers remain. So, it is between the provinces barriers to eliminate. 

Carney is in now way trying to replace American Trade, he is supplementing , at best, any trade we may lose as a result of American actions and trying to establish new ones. 

 

 

[Moonbox]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It doesn't have to because the industrial carbon tax isn't applied to every step in the food chain.

I haven't really followed this debate but this is something that I keep seeing with all of these donkeys. 

They have this idea that a carbon tax is a cascading multiplier that gets that gets applied over and over again to magically and exponentially balloon prices.  Economists be damned, internet buffoons know better than them!  

Edited April 1 by Moonbox

[ExFlyer]

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Absolutely astonishing.  Liberal cheerleaders truly believe higher & higher taxes make products and services more affordable for everyday Canadians.

 

5 minutes ago, Legato said:

Sequential Impact: The cost increases move step-by-step through the chain—production to processing to transport to retail—before appearing on consumer bills.

Delayed Effect: The full impact of energy price hikes on manufactured goods is not immediate, typically experiencing a lag of six to twelve months before appearing on store shelves.

Manufacturing Drivers: Sectors that rely on energy-intensive processes, such as petrochemicals, plastics, packaging, and fertilizer, are among the first to face these cost increases.

Transportation and Logistics: As fuel costs increase, transportation companies pass these higher shipping rates to wholesalers and retailers.

Market Competition: While businesses in competitive markets might try to absorb some costs by shrinking profit margins, sustained high energy costs generally force them to pass the expenses to consumers, often resulting in higher prices for food and essential goods.

Industrial Carbon Pricing: Similarly, industrial carbon taxes applied to heavy emitters (like steel and oil) are rarely absorbed by the companies themselves; they are passed through the system, acting as a "sneaky tax" that influences the cost of consumer staples. 

All industrialist carbon taxes are all income tax write offs for the companies.

If those companies choose to increase prices because of it as a business expense..they get to keep the tax refunds for themselves.

Edited April 1 by ExFlyer

[Legato]

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

All industrialist carbon taxes are all income tax write offs for the companies.

If those companies choose to increase prices because of it as a business expense..they get to keep the tax refunds for themselves.

The federal government has largely removed the consumer-facing fuel charge as of April 1, 2025, but the industrial carbon pricing for large emitters remains a critical, ongoing policy.

The OBPS is designed to prevent "carbon leakage," which is the risk that companies move to jurisdictions with lower carbon costs. 

[ExFlyer]

21 minutes ago, Legato said:

The federal government has largely removed the consumer-facing fuel charge as of April 1, 2025, but the industrial carbon pricing for large emitters remains a critical, ongoing policy.

The OBPS is designed to prevent "carbon leakage," which is the risk that companies move to jurisdictions with lower carbon costs. 

So, what about "All industrialist carbon taxes are all income tax write offs for the companies.

If those companies choose to increase prices because of it as a business expense..they get to keep the tax refunds for themselves."  is it that you don't agree with?

[Reg Volk]

 

[Goddess]

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Actually it was Harper that made trade difficult with anyone but China. 

 

 

Pretty bald faced lie kiddo    He did deals and or substantially expanded trade with china, india  european union, a number of african nations, saudi arabia,  AND did the softwood lumber deal with the us which everyone thought would be impossible.  He most certainly did NOT make it "hard to trade with anyone but china" in the slightest

 

Quote

Prime Minister Stephen Harper pursued a strategic economic partnership with China,

He did, and we profited from it tremendously.  We got more than we gave, and that's how trade deals SHOULD go for us, either equal or to our advantage. 

Quote

Under Trudeau, Canada became the only G7 nation with free trade agreements with all other G7 members. Key deals include the CETA (EU), CPTPP (Pacific countries), and the CUSMA/USMCA (USA/Mexico). Trudeau's government has made significant, ongoing efforts to diversify Canadian trade, driven by the desire to reduce dependency on the U.S. market. Key actions include launching the Indo-Pacific Strategy, signing the CPTPP (Trans-Pacific partnership), and signing the CETA agreement with the EU

Nope. Most of those deals were just putting the sigunature on deals harper had done.

Meanwhile trudeau cost us india, got us a worse deal with the us, screwed up the last part of the eu deal and cut trade with saudi arabia substantially.  

Quote

Carney eliminated all federally imposed inter-provincial trade barriers.

which means he did nothing. All sources agree that there weren't any issues with the federal case.  What he ORIGINALLY  promised is that he'd work with the provinces to eliminate PROVINCIAL trade barriers.  Released a report showing that this alone could replace most of the lost us trade.

Then he ran away from that.  Utter failure on his part 

What he SHOULD be doing right now is flying from province to province to solve THAT problem.  It could actually make a difference.  Instead hes spending billions flying to foreign countries to expand his list of contacts and bringing home bad deals. 

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

and bringing home bad deals. 

Most of them are not even deals.

"Pinkie promises".

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I haven't really followed this debate but this is something that I keep seeing with all of these donkeys. 

They have this idea that a carbon tax is a cascading multiplier that gets that gets applied over and over again to magically and exponentially balloon prices.  Economists be damned, internet buffoons know better than them!  

It is.  THis has been explained to you in detail.  And just the other day i posted research showing this from dalhousie. 

I know math is your kriptonite but lets go through it. 

Fertalizer man has to pay 5 in carbon tax. He cannot claim it back, so he adds it to his costs. He marks it up because that's how it works. So his stuff costs 45 dollars, plus 5 dollars carbon tax,  He sells to the farmer for 100 after mark up, so 10 of that is carbon tax generated. 

Farmer pays for fertilizer and also pays carbon tax directly. now pays 20 dollars in carbon taxes,  marks that up to 40, plus marks up input costs which included 10 dollars that the fertilizer guy had built in, so now 20 dollars for a total of 60 dollars in carbon tax. 

Supplier pays 10 dollars in carbon tax shipping to store. Marks that up to 20.  Also marks up the 60 that was part of his costs from previous carbon tax.  is now 140. 

consumer doesn't see any of this, pays much more for food. 

140  + 60+20 is what the carbon tax cost, even tho it was charged less and only one time per 'step'

Actual carbon tax charged, 35. Actual impact 220. 

Now i made that math easy for you but you should be able to work it out. 

Carbon taxes wind up getting built in then marked up again and again. 

This is economics 101.  This is simple stuff.  There's nothing controversial about this. 

 

You can't do math but take it from those who can, the carbon tax winds up multiplying again and again. It is a stacking tax. 

Edited April 1 by CdnFox

[Reg Volk]

 

[CdnFox]

46 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

So, what about "All industrialist carbon taxes are all income tax write offs for the companies.

 

I'm not sure you realize how 'write offs' work but that's not a good thing particularly.  They still spend money on it, write offs don't reverse that they just reduce it slightly. 

 

12 minutes ago, Reg Volk said:

 

Quiet!!  (she can HEAR you. Like... from anywhere! )

Edited April 1 by CdnFox

[ironstone]

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, Reg Volk said:

 

This firing (we're pretending he's retiring BTW) just seems off to me given his performance history at the company and the fact that there are far (meaning FAR) more pressing systemic and procedural issues than that in need of fixing.  

Just for fun, I went searching for CEO (or other high level executive) firings based on the lack of english speaking proficiency... there are none that I could find.

The video in question was deliberately close captioned in french on initial release in order to meet AC's bilingual communication requirements. Not sure if that technically meets the standard required by the act but the effort was certainly there nonetheless; especially if you consider (as I do) that a prompt release was appropriate under the circumstances.  

Despite the bilingual communication mandates contained in the AC Public Participation Act (that came into being when AC was privatized), I still think this is a shame... especially given the close captioning effort and perceived importance of a timely release. It almost seems like he got fired for trying to do the right thing in a timely manner.

Lesson learned eh?    

 

Edited April 1 by Venandi

[Reg Volk]

The French people in Quebec are literally a boat anchor on this country.  The US can have them.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

CBC drivel.

Ok, have it your way. CBC designed this drivel so it would add next to nothing to food costs.

Multiple economists have concurred they're correct.

3 hours ago, Legato said:

...they are passed through the system, acting as a "sneaky tax" that influences the cost of consumer staples. 

Who told you that?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I haven't really followed this debate but this is something that I keep seeing with all of these donkeys. 

They have this idea that a carbon tax is a cascading multiplier that gets that gets applied over and over again to magically and exponentially balloon prices.  Economists be damned, internet buffoons know better than them!  

It's catastrophism on a scale not seen since the days of climate alarmism.

[LinkSoul60]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

All industrialist carbon taxes are all income tax write offs for the companies.

If those companies choose to increase prices because of it as a business expense..they get to keep the tax refunds for themselves.

You're debating with people who only read what suits their anti-liberal narrative....as I'm sure you know well.

The fact is that the industrial carbon tax add's little to nothing to the cost of food.  Carney threw a dig on the same subject to Poilievre a couple weeks ago that provided for a good laugh during question period.  It ruins a good story, so can't fault them for trying....

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cjag.12383

The industrial carbon tax (known as the Output-Based Pricing System or clean fuel regulations) has a minimal impact on food prices, estimated to increase overall grocery costs by less than 1%—roughly 

0.1 to 0.3 per cent. While it adds small indirect costs to transportation and processing, it does not apply to most on-farm agricultural emissions. 

Trevor Tombe +3

Key Impacts on Food Prices:

• Minimal Contribution: Economists and research indicate the impact is nearly zero, with one study suggesting it adds only about 30 cents to a $100 grocery bill.
• No Direct Tax on Farmers: The industrial pricing system targets large emitters (e.g., refineries, fertilizer plants), not individual farms.
• Indirect Costs: While it can slightly increase the cost of producing fertilizer or processing food, this impact is considered minimal, as industrial systems are designed to limit costs to industry.
• Other Factors Dominant: Food price inflation is driven more significantly by international factors, supply chain disruptions, energy costs, and climate change, rather than the industrial carbon tax.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You're debating with people who only read what suits their anti-liberal narrative....as I'm sure you know well.

The fact is that the industrial carbon tax add's little to nothing to the cost of food.  Carney threw a dig on the same subject to Poilievre a couple weeks ago that provided for a good laugh during question period.  It ruins a good story, so can't fault them for trying....

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cjag.12383

The industrial carbon tax (known as the Output-Based Pricing System or clean fuel regulations) has a minimal impact on food prices, estimated to increase overall grocery costs by less than 1%—roughly 

0.1 to 0.3 per cent. While it adds small indirect costs to transportation and processing, it does not apply to most on-farm agricultural emissions. 

Trevor Tombe +3

Key Impacts on Food Prices:

• Minimal Contribution: Economists and research indicate the impact is nearly zero, with one study suggesting it adds only about 30 cents to a $100 grocery bill.
• No Direct Tax on Farmers: The industrial pricing system targets large emitters (e.g., refineries, fertilizer plants), not individual farms.
• Indirect Costs: While it can slightly increase the cost of producing fertilizer or processing food, this impact is considered minimal, as industrial systems are designed to limit costs to industry.
• Other Factors Dominant: Food price inflation is driven more significantly by international factors, supply chain disruptions, energy costs, and climate change, rather than the industrial carbon tax.

Kid. This is math so easy that even you can do it. If you add billions and billions and billions of dollars in tax there's no way for that not to affect the price by an equal amount

And previously i showed you how dalhousie demonstrated that most of the other 'studies' grossly underestimate the impact, and i even spelled it out earlier for moonbox in terms so simple even a liberal could get it. 

If it's such a tiny amount of money in your estimation, then why not simply cancel it? Get rid of it for all agricultural production and transport entirely including things like fertilizer and all of the things that support it

I mean if it has such a low impact we would hardly even notice it was gone right? So what's the problem?

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If it's such a tiny amount of money in your estimation, then why not simply cancel it? Get rid of it for all agricultural production and transport entirely including things like fertilizer and all of the things that support it

Is the monstrous amount of money in your estimation even bigger than the bonanza windfall profits oil and gas companies are realizing as a result of the war in Iran?

[LinkSoul60]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Kid. This is math so easy that even you can do it. If you add billions and billions and billions of dollars in tax there's no way for that not to affect the price by an equal amount

And previously i showed you how dalhousie demonstrated that most of the other 'studies' grossly underestimate the impact, and i even spelled it out earlier for moonbox in terms so simple even a liberal could get it. 

If it's such a tiny amount of money in your estimation, then why not simply cancel it? Get rid of it for all agricultural production and transport entirely including things like fertilizer and all of the things that support it

I mean if it has such a low impact we would hardly even notice it was gone right? So what's the problem?

We've had this conversation and you couldn't and can't provide any numbers attached to the opinion of the guy from Dalhousie, because there are no numbers attached to his opinion.  You chose to make up your own, which you do often. 

What is in the link I attached is actual math to back it up....  a novel approach don't you think.  This economist at the UoC, the Bank of Canada and the predominate economic opinion is the same.... it add's little to nothing to the price of our food.

Your so-called math is more than suspect...  is economics one of your many 'qualifications'? 

 

[I am Groot]

Canadian politics today.