Canadians Are Already Over Carney

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Forgot to mention...  don't forget to send the back-up you have for Carney's $1B expense summary from last year.  You can include it along with your summary of how the industrial carbon tax impacts food inflation if easier 👍

Yep.  I too await his sources and clear documentation on that...years later.  😂

[LinkSoul60]

8 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Have people like Carney and Trudeau gotten much wealthier over the last 10 -11 years than the average person?

Those two progressively making the cost of living for Canadians ever higher and higher during their time running the country while occasionally throwing back small scraps here and there indicates they were part of the problem and not the solution. The increasing reliance on food banks and the increasing number of  homeless people in these last ten years is a rather strong indication that Liberal policies are widening the wealth equality gap and making things worse.

For Trudeau, estimates of his dramatic rise in personal wealth from 2015 to the present vary quite a bit. Some sources say he went from $4 million to $15 million, others say he is now worth as much as $96 million.

https://www.businessupturn.com/people/justin-trudeau-net-worth-of-the-prime-minister-of-canada/

https://englishxbio.com/justin-trudeau-net-worth/

Either way, it's certain his personal wealth went up dramatically, well beyond his annual salary. Why was he able to massively outperform the usual paltry investments regular people make? The most reasonable explanation is the Nancy Pelosi example if you get my drift.

Carney is also going to massively increase his personal wealth many times over in the years ahead since he directs public policy that he knows will benefit the companies (mostly American) that he has chosen to invest in.

Take your far too tight conservative hat off for minute....   Their wealth is an example of what I'm saying with wealth inequality.  Think about it....   I don't subscribe to the 'in it for personal financial gains' theory you do though.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Lol... did you get that from your friends on X, or from Poilievre?   Try reading....

So you can't deny that it's true, you're just hoping that perhaps I got it from a source you can discredit?

Typical.

I've actually posted a number of studies and quotes from the food industry groups commenting on what a huge impact it has on food prices. There's a reason why we have the highest food inflation in the world at the moment

But at least you don't deny that. You just think as long as it was written on x you can discredit it and pretend it doesn't exist even though it's true. You spend a lot of time with your head in the sand

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So you can't deny that it's true, you're just hoping that perhaps I got it from a source you can discredit?

Typical.

I've actually posted a number of studies and quotes from the food industry groups commenting on what a huge impact it has on food prices. There's a reason why we have the highest food inflation in the world at the moment

But at least you don't deny that. You just think as long as it was written on x you can discredit it and pretend it doesn't exist even though it's true. You spend a lot of time with your head in the sand

No, I say it's not fact.  Try looking for them....I even made it easier for you by sending it to Goddess who I'm sure is reaching out to all her X and Facebook contacts looking for rebuttals.  

Anyway, now you're aware that you had no idea what you posted yesterday with the World Happiness Survey, where are you with Carney's $1B expense summary?   Thanks in advance....

[Reg Volk]

Carney is just such a massive loser, and such an embarrassment to our country.

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

No, I say it's not fact.  Try looking for them....I even made it easier for you by sending it to Goddess who I'm sure is reaching out to all her X and Facebook contacts looking for rebuttals.  

 

As I said I've already posted stuff that proves that it is. Not to mention the fact you'd have to be 17 different kinds of stupid to think that putting a massive tax on an industry wouldn't affect prices.

Here,  this is newer.  Enjoy

The inconvenient truth about the carbon tax and food prices | Toronto Sun

You never miss a chance to look stupid do you.  "There's no WAY taxing an industry could affect it's prices" -Linksoul.  (sigh.)

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

It's proven to be a lot more accurate than where you get your news, wouldn't you agree?  😂

No, I don't.

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Interested to see how their perspectives differ.

No you're not.

[LinkSoul60]

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As I said I've already posted stuff that proves that it is. Not to mention the fact you'd have to be 17 different kinds of stupid to think that putting a massive tax on an industry wouldn't affect prices.

Here,  this is newer.  Enjoy

The inconvenient truth about the carbon tax and food prices | Toronto Sun

You never miss a chance to look stupid do you.  "There's no WAY taxing an industry could affect it's prices" -Linksoul.  (sigh.)

Do you look at anything other than right-wing tabloid sites?  Here, try this;

https://climateinstitute.ca/news/fact-sheet-canada-industrial-carbon-pricing-systems/

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Do you look at anything other than right-wing tabloid sites?  Here, try this;

https://climateinstitute.ca/news/fact-sheet-canada-industrial-carbon-pricing-systems/

 

Do the Toronto sun is a legitimate news source. What you posted was an actual propaganda site dedicated to defending the industrial carbon tax and what it says is verifiably false

Any credible source agrees there is a significant impact, some say smaller and some say larger. 

dalhousie carbon tax effect - Google Search

But the thing most miss is the 'cumulative' effect which Dalhousie notes (unless you're going to claim they're a 'tabloid' too and embarrass yourself further.)

So here 's how that works.  The producers of seed and fertilizer etc mark up the carbon tax they have to pay when they sell their products to the farmers. 

The farmers pay that and then add their carbon tax built into their prices to the suppliers

The trucking companies add their carbon tax to transport the stuff. 

The suppliers add carbon tax costs to their costs to the retailers. 

So you get tax on tax on tax and markup on markup on markup 

But... most studies ONLY look at the ONE LAYER! The amount paid by the farmer.  Not the extra costs TO him or the extra costs AFTER him for carbon and fuel tax. 

So while it looks like the carbon tax represents .15 percent of food inflation, the reaility is it's a lot closer to 2  by the time the dust settles and the consumer actually eats it. 

And that's a hell of a lot.  

This isn't theory, this is fact.

Sorry kid, you look like a loser yet again 

DERP!! CHARGING BILLIONS OF TAX HAS NO EFFECT ON PRICING DERP!!!

[herbie]

Why just today, two of my friends (who no one could accuse of being intellectuals) were telling us how gas prices were Carney's fault.

They also told us Doctors only give you pills because Big Pharma pays them to then immediately gave ma a bottle of 'natural dog calming drops' because my mutt freaks out over loud noises. They also mentioned that the govt legalized marijuana so they could pur chemicals in it to 'control' users.

[LinkSoul60]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Do the Toronto sun is a legitimate news source. What you posted was an actual propaganda site dedicated to defending the industrial carbon tax and what it says is verifiably false

Any credible source agrees there is a significant impact, some say smaller and some say larger. 

dalhousie carbon tax effect - Google Search

But the thing most miss is the 'cumulative' effect which Dalhousie notes (unless you're going to claim they're a 'tabloid' too and embarrass yourself further.)

So here 's how that works.  The producers of seed and fertilizer etc mark up the carbon tax they have to pay when they sell their products to the farmers. 

The farmers pay that and then add their carbon tax built into their prices to the suppliers

The trucking companies add their carbon tax to transport the stuff. 

The suppliers add carbon tax costs to their costs to the retailers. 

So you get tax on tax on tax and markup on markup on markup 

But... most studies ONLY look at the ONE LAYER! The amount paid by the farmer.  Not the extra costs TO him or the extra costs AFTER him for carbon and fuel tax. 

So while it looks like the carbon tax represents .15 percent of food inflation, the reaility is it's a lot closer to 2  by the time the dust settles and the consumer actually eats it. 

And that's a hell of a lot.  

This isn't theory, this is fact.

Sorry kid, you look like a loser yet again 

DERP!! CHARGING BILLIONS OF TAX HAS NO EFFECT ON PRICING DERP!!!

Yes, the Sun is reliable if you enjoy right biased news and editorials.  

Your google search doesn't have any back-up, and the only link is the Dalhousie summary that suggests industrial carbon tax add's cost but doesn't quantify the opinion with the cost per tonne breakdown and how that translates to a percentage increase.  

Your search also showed - 'In summary, while the carbon tax does add to the costs of producing and transporting food, it represents a very small portion of the overall increase in food prices, with 0.15%', but congrats to you for adding your uneducated opinion of - 'the reaility is it's a lot closer to 2  by the time the dust settles and the consumer actually eats it.'  That sounds like a pretty qualified opinion. If your current gig doesn't work out maybe look into a career as an economist...?

Please cite those credible sources you mention.  Send it along with Carney's $1B expense summary if it's easier for you. Thanks in advance.

If the Climate Institute wasn't good enough for you, try this from a professor of economics and research fellow at the School of Public Policy at The University of Calgary;

From Farms to Tables: Quantifying the Effect of Emissions Pricing on Canadian Food Prices

Trevor Tombe , Jennifer Winter

Dec 1, 2025

Abstract

We examine the effect of emissions pricing on the cost of Canadian food. We describe emissions pricing policies relevant to the agriculture and food sectors and the differing design details of various provincial systems and the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. To quantify the potential effect of such policies, we use a detailed input-output model of Canada’s economy to estimate both the direct and indirect cost increases across sectors. We also explore how exemptions and policy design can mitigate what would otherwise be larger effects. In particular, imported inputs, generous exemptions for most direct emissions in primary agriculture, and special provisions for large industrial emitters all dampen the effect. Overall, we find that emissions pricing at $80 per tonne could potentially increase the cost of domestically produced food by approximately 0.8 percent on average. Combined with imported food that is not directly affected by emissions pricing, we find an average effect of approximately 0.5 percent. While we abstract from general equilibrium responses, our analysis suggests emissions pricing in Canada has only a modest effect on food costs.

Type

Journal article

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

 

Publication

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (4): 358-384

Date

December, 2025

 

 

[Legato]

11 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes, the Sun is reliable if you enjoy right biased news and editorials.  

Your google search doesn't have any back-up, and the only link is the Dalhousie summary that suggests industrial carbon tax add's cost but doesn't quantify the opinion with the cost per tonne breakdown and how that translates to a percentage increase.  

Your search also showed - 'In summary, while the carbon tax does add to the costs of producing and transporting food, it represents a very small portion of the overall increase in food prices, with 0.15%', but congrats to you for adding your uneducated opinion of - 'the reaility is it's a lot closer to 2  by the time the dust settles and the consumer actually eats it.'  That sounds like a pretty qualified opinion. If your current gig doesn't work out maybe look into a career as an economist...?

Please cite those credible sources you mention.  Send it along with Carney's $1B expense summary if it's easier for you. Thanks in advance.

If the Climate Institute wasn't good enough for you, try this from a professor of economics and research fellow at the School of Public Policy at The University of Calgary;

 

From Farms to Tables: Quantifying the Effect of Emissions Pricing on Canadian Food Prices

Trevor Tombe , Jennifer Winter

Dec 1, 2025

 

Abstract

We examine the effect of emissions pricing on the cost of Canadian food. We describe emissions pricing policies relevant to the agriculture and food sectors and the differing design details of various provincial systems and the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. To quantify the potential effect of such policies, we use a detailed input-output model of Canada’s economy to estimate both the direct and indirect cost increases across sectors. We also explore how exemptions and policy design can mitigate what would otherwise be larger effects. In particular, imported inputs, generous exemptions for most direct emissions in primary agriculture, and special provisions for large industrial emitters all dampen the effect. Overall, we find that emissions pricing at $80 per tonne could potentially increase the cost of domestically produced food by approximately 0.8 percent on average. Combined with imported food that is not directly affected by emissions pricing, we find an average effect of approximately 0.5 percent. While we abstract from general equilibrium responses, our analysis suggests emissions pricing in Canada has only a modest effect on food costs.

Type

Journal article

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

 

Publication

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (4): 358-384

Date

December, 2025

 

 

The industrial carbon price remains in place and another increase is scheduled for April 1, when the price will rise from $95 per tonne to $110 per tonne.

At a time when global energy markets are once again facing geopolitical uncertainty, this increase risks amplifying the pressures already building within Canada’s food supply chain. With tensions rising in the Middle East, and the possibility of disruptions to oil flows, higher fuel costs are likely unless the current conflict de-escalates quickly. Anyone familiar with the region understands that predicting stability there is rarely straightforward.

Middle East conflict could drive up costs across Canada's supply chains: experts

We have seen how quickly energy shocks can ripple through food systems before.

At the start of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Canada’s carbon price stood at $40 per tonne. For a truck hauling food between Toronto and Montreal once a week, the additional carbon-tax burden amounted to roughly $2,000 per year.

OPINION: Playing Russian roulette with food security and brand reputation

On April 1, the carbon price will reach $110 per tonne—more than double what it was when the Ukraine war began. For that same weekly Toronto–Montreal route, the additional carbon-tax cost alone rises to roughly $6,000 per year compared with 2018. That is more than three times the burden carriers faced when the Ukraine war began.

And that calculation excludes the obvious: higher fuel prices themselves, which inevitably accompany geopolitical shocks such as Ukraine in 2022 or the latest tensions involving Iran.

The cumulative effect becomes clearer when looking at the national logistics system. Canada likely sees 800 to 1,200 long-haul food truck trips each day, many covering distances of roughly 1,000 kilometres. At a carbon price of $110 per tonne, the diesel tax component alone represents approximately $34 million to $52 million per year in additional costs across those shipments.

And this estimate is extremely conservative.

It excludes the additional costs associated with clean fuel regulations, refrigeration units, empty backhauls, secondary distribution routes and warehousing operations. When those factors are included, the financial impact across the food supply chain could easily be three or four times higher.

Geography also matters. In a country as large as Canada, regions located far from major population centres—such as the Prairies or Atlantic Canada—bear a disproportionate share of transportation costs. Distance alone makes food logistics expensive; layering additional policy costs on top of that reality compounds the challenge.

It is also worth remembering that carbon costs accumulate across the entire supply chain. By the time food reaches a distribution centre, its price already reflects higher input costs at earlier stages—from farming to processing to transportation. And margins do vary in food distribution. Each additional cost is applied to an already higher base price.

Ultimately, consumers pay the difference at the grocery store.

Some industry observers have described carbon pricing in food logistics as a “silent killer” of competitiveness, and the description is not entirely misplaced. Canada is already a challenging market for food distribution due to its vast geography and relatively small population. Adding further cost pressures to logistics does little to attract investment in grocery retail and food distribution infrastructure.

https://canadiangrocer.com/inconvenient-truth-about-carbon-tax-and-food-prices

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, Legato said:

Middle East conflict could drive up costs across Canada's supply chains: experts

Chump change compared to the skewering we feel from the way carbon taxes multiply.

Besides, the ME conflict will drive oil company profits higher, yeilding more millionaires and billionaires meaning things will remain just as right as rain as ever.

[Reg Volk]

Carney is hot garbage.  You have to be dumber than a rock to be supporting the Liberals right now.

[Legato]

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Chump change compared to the skewering we feel from the way carbon taxes multiply.

Besides, the ME conflict will drive oil company profits higher, yeilding more millionaires and billionaires meaning things will remain just as right as rain as ever.

Yup

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

The industrial carbon price remains in place and another increase is scheduled for April 1, when the price will rise from $95 per tonne to $110 per tonne.

At a time when global energy markets are once again facing geopolitical uncertainty, this increase risks amplifying the pressures already building within Canada’s food supply chain. With tensions rising in the Middle East, and the possibility of disruptions to oil flows, higher fuel costs are likely unless the current conflict de-escalates quickly. Anyone familiar with the region understands that predicting stability there is rarely straightforward.

Middle East conflict could drive up costs across Canada's supply chains: experts

We have seen how quickly energy shocks can ripple through food systems before.

At the start of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Canada’s carbon price stood at $40 per tonne. For a truck hauling food between Toronto and Montreal once a week, the additional carbon-tax burden amounted to roughly $2,000 per year.

OPINION: Playing Russian roulette with food security and brand reputation

On April 1, the carbon price will reach $110 per tonne—more than double what it was when the Ukraine war began. For that same weekly Toronto–Montreal route, the additional carbon-tax cost alone rises to roughly $6,000 per year compared with 2018. That is more than three times the burden carriers faced when the Ukraine war began.

And that calculation excludes the obvious: higher fuel prices themselves, which inevitably accompany geopolitical shocks such as Ukraine in 2022 or the latest tensions involving Iran.

The cumulative effect becomes clearer when looking at the national logistics system. Canada likely sees 800 to 1,200 long-haul food truck trips each day, many covering distances of roughly 1,000 kilometres. At a carbon price of $110 per tonne, the diesel tax component alone represents approximately $34 million to $52 million per year in additional costs across those shipments.

And this estimate is extremely conservative.

It excludes the additional costs associated with clean fuel regulations, refrigeration units, empty backhauls, secondary distribution routes and warehousing operations. When those factors are included, the financial impact across the food supply chain could easily be three or four times higher.

Geography also matters. In a country as large as Canada, regions located far from major population centres—such as the Prairies or Atlantic Canada—bear a disproportionate share of transportation costs. Distance alone makes food logistics expensive; layering additional policy costs on top of that reality compounds the challenge.

It is also worth remembering that carbon costs accumulate across the entire supply chain. By the time food reaches a distribution centre, its price already reflects higher input costs at earlier stages—from farming to processing to transportation. And margins do vary in food distribution. Each additional cost is applied to an already higher base price.

Ultimately, consumers pay the difference at the grocery store.

Some industry observers have described carbon pricing in food logistics as a “silent killer” of competitiveness, and the description is not entirely misplaced. Canada is already a challenging market for food distribution due to its vast geography and relatively small population. Adding further cost pressures to logistics does little to attract investment in grocery retail and food distribution infrastructure.

https://canadiangrocer.com/inconvenient-truth-about-carbon-tax-and-food-prices

Same author and opinion as the last piece.  Okay it's inconvenient.... tell us the truth. how much does it add?  Are you going to take a guess like fxx did?  Any percentage increases you find in searches will be less than 1%.

The industrial carbon tax isn't the problem. We have higher production costs from fuel, fertilizer and labor, higher operational costs, high transportation costs, retail fees grocers charge suppliers, and import ~30% of our food at an average dollar last of 0.7157USD/1.398CAD. Throw in the weather/climate factors that add costs and it's expensive to eat

[Legato]

25 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Same author and opinion as the last piece.  Okay it's inconvenient.... tell us the truth. how much does it add?  Are you going to take a guess like fxx did?  Any percentage increases you find in searches will be less than 1%.

The industrial carbon tax isn't the problem. We have higher production costs from fuel, fertilizer and labor, higher operational costs, high transportation costs, retail fees grocers charge suppliers, and import ~30% of our food at an average dollar last of 0.7157USD/1.398CAD. Throw in the weather/climate factors that add costs and it's expensive to eat

So how do you transport the fuel, fertilizer?

Transportation costs?

All adds up. 

The Carney net zero costs us all.

[LinkSoul60]

12 minutes ago, Legato said:

So how do you transport the fuel, fertilizer?

Transportation costs?

All adds up. 

The Carney net zero costs us all.

The transportation costs are in the summary I cited. Carbon tax adds less than 1% to the cost of food.

Your logic, math and dislike for liberals has your thinking off.  

Edited March 21 by LinkSoul60

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes, the Sun is reliable if you enjoy right biased news and editorials.  

 

Or legitimate news, which that was. It wasn't an editorial. 

Again you have to lie to make your point.  And you post an actual propaganda site on your own. Pathetic. 

And you just posted proof i'm right. 

From your own source -

Overall, we find that emissions pricing at $80 per tonne could potentially increase the cost of domestically produced food by approximately 0.8 percent on average.

 

So, .8 percent inflation directly to the food industry. That's actually higher than i said 

But that's JUST at the production level. 

And we're about to hit 95 dollars a tonne. 

So when you add up ALL the levels the actual COMBINED CUMULATIVE cost is over 2 percent, more like 3 percent if these numbers are correct 

SO YOU JUST PROVED THAT MOST OF OUR EXCESS FOOD INFLATION IS FROM CARBON AND ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES. 

Boom - thanks for proving my point kid   been a while but you lefies always eventually post proof i'm right for some reason LOLOLOL 

Edited March 21 by CdnFox

[Legato]

12 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

The transportation costs are in the summary I cited. Carbon tax adds less than 1% to the cost of food.

Your logic, math and dislike for liberals has your thinking off.  

t excludes the additional costs associated with clean fuel regulations, refrigeration units, empty backhauls, secondary distribution routes and warehousing operations. When those factors are included, the financial impact across the food supply chain could easily be three or four times higher.

 

[ExFlyer]

18 hours ago, Reg Volk said:

Carney is just such a massive loser, and such an embarrassment to our country.

[Reg Volk]

Carney is just such a massive loser, the hole in the doughnut, that only a true fool would support.  Go Pierre!! 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Reg Volk said:

Carney is just such a massive loser, the hole in the doughnut, that only a true fool would support.  Go Pierre!! 

People made a snap decision at the time to support Carney because they got caught up in the moment. It will take a little bit of time for them to emotionally divest themselves come to the realization that they screwed up. We're going to double down on their stupid decision as long as they possibly can.

But when that breaks and they're forced to realize that they've been had the backlash will be massive just as it was with Trudeau

But this time I think it's going to happen a lot faster. I think by the end of this year he will have failed again with Cusma, people will be out of work, won't be able to afford food and housing, will be watching the deficits climb higher federally and provincially due to a horrible economy, won't have any substantial new trade, and it will finally start to hit home.  

Now by then carney will almost certainly have a bare majority gov't so it's going to be hard to bring him down, but i think he'll start to sink in the polls and the other parties will be looking for a chance, and such chances can definitely come up in a bare majority gov't.  Someone's sick or quits for personal reasons etc etc. 

 

[eyeball]

AI says...

Canada: Climate change, combined with geopolitical factors, is a primary driver behind a projected food price increase of 4% to 6% for 2026 in Canada.

While there is no single percentage for total food inflation attributed solely to climate change, researchers warn it could increase food prices by up to 3.2% every year globally.

By contrast, the carbon tax has been found to have "essentially no impact" (near 0%) on food prices, as farmers are largely exempt from direct costs that would be passed to consumers.