From EnergyNow.ca

By Jim Warren

Back in March 2019, the average price for a pound of lean ground beef at five major chain grocery outlets in Regina was $4.71. In September 2024 lean ground at the five big chain outlets averaged $7.90 — a 68% increase over the past five years…  these price increases are a far cry from the official statistic for accumulated inflation of 21% over the same period.

Kudos to the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA). They have provided us with some valuable insight into the inflationary effects of Canada’s carbon tax.

This past August, the CTA published a brief to the federal government which among other things called for a moratorium on the carbon tax for diesel fuel.

In commenting on the brief, CTA president Stephen Laskowski said, “The carbon tax on diesel fuel is currently having zero impact on the environment and is only serving to needlessly drive up costs for every good purchased by Canadian families and businesses. The carbon tax needs to be repealed from diesel fuel until viable propulsion alternatives are available for the industry and the Canadian supply chain to choose from.”

The CTA estimates that as of 2024 the carbon tax on diesel adds an extra cost for long-haul truck operators of $15,000 to $20,000 or around 6% of per truck in annual operating costs. The brief to government claims a small trucking business with five trucks, “is seeing between $75,000 and $100,000 in extra costs due to the carbon tax.”

Obviously, truckers striving to remain solvent will be doing their utmost to pass carbon tax costs on to their customers. If the cost of the tax can’t be recouped by some trucking companies, we can bet there will be fewer of them operating over the coming years. As Laskowksi said, the carbon tax increased the cost of virtually every product transported by truck—which means  pretty well every physical good consumers purchase.

In light of the political beating the Liberals have been taking over the carbon tax, the Trudeau government has taken a tiny feeble step toward relieving the pressure on businesses. In October 2024 federal finance minister Chrystia Freeland announced the government’s intention to provide carbon tax rebates to businesses with fewer than 500 employees. That means many of Canada’s trucking companies will be eligible to recoup some of the carbon tax they have been paying since fiscal 2019-2020. Freeland says the cheques will be in the mail this December.

It sounds okay until you look at the fine print.

The payments will not reflect the amount of fuel a business uses or how much carbon tax it has paid over the past five years. The rebates will be based on the number of people a company employs and will be paid only in provinces where the federal fuel charge applies. An accounting business with 10 employees will receive the same carbon tax rebate as a small trucking business with 10 employees. A CBC news report pulled the following example from Freeland’s press release, “A business in Ontario with 10 employees can expect to receive $4,010…”

Freeland boasted, “These are real, significant sums of money. They’re going to make a big difference to Canadian small business.”

Freeland’s statement is patently false when it comes to trucking companies.

Let’s say that the 10 employee business is a long-haul trucking company based in Ontario. After paying the carbon tax on five or more trucks for five years, the business would receive a paltry $4,010 rebate. That light dusting of sugar won’t make the carbon tax any more palatable to the trucking industry. According to the CTA’s estimates, if the 10 employee long-haul trucking firm had just five trucks the carbon tax will have cost it approximately $400,000 in operating costs over the past five years.

Carbon tax costs are not the only inflation related frustration affecting Canadians. The way the federal government and its friends in the media describe inflation presents people with a warped view of what is happening to the cost of living. Media reports on inflation rarely reflect the lived experience of people trying to pay the mortgage, feed their families and drive to work.

Governments, and their media apologists, in both Canada and the US have been taking victory laps over the past year because the rate of inflation has decreased. It’s as though people have nothing to worry about because the cost of living this year isn’t increasing as fast as it was last year. Changes in the inflation rate may be important for statistical purposes but they don’t reflect reality for people who have been coping with increases in inflation over several years. Most people measure the difficulties caused by inflation by comparing how much more things cost today than they did three to five years ago. The figure regular civilians, as opposed to statisticians, use to assess increases in the cost of living is accumulated inflation. However, we still need to be cautious about the accumulated inflation rate that we get when using government data.

If we calculate the rate of accumulated inflation based on official annualized inflation rates from 2019 up to the midpoint of 2024. The accumulated increase over that five year period is around 21%. And, it is true that this number better reflects people’s perception of inflation than a statistical comparison indicating the rate of inflation fell from 3.9 % in 2023 to 2.61% by the mid-point of 2024. The problem is the 21% number still does not accurately reflect increases in the cost of many necessary goods and services that are impacting households. This is why according to political polls voters in Canada and the US aren’t buying government propaganda when it comes to inflation.

The economy, and by extension, the high cost of living was a major issue in the recent US federal election campaign. The Democrats did not do themselves any favours claiming Bidenomics had wrestled inflation to the ground simply because it wasn’t increasing as fast as it was a year ago.  A large number of voters in the US embraced former US president Lyndon Johnson’s maxim, “Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”

But wait, it gets worse. The basket of goods and services the Canadian government uses to calculate the cost of living index and the inflation rate fails to identify high increases in the prices for specific household essentials including many grocery staples. Similarly, official calculations for statistically weighted national average consumption of various products used to calculate the Consumer Price Index are skewed in favour of big urban centres. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are over represented. There is no way that the average annual consumption of gasoline for a household in downtown Montreal comes anywhere close to the amount used in most of Canada where public transit is scarce and distances are great. The result is the official accumulated inflation rate fails to show what many people are experiencing in most regions of the country.

Here is a good example of how published statistics don’t reflect the inflation shock that consumers experience at the grocery store.  Back in March 2019, the average price for a pound of lean ground beef at five major chain grocery outlets in Regina was $4.71. In September 2024 lean ground at the five big chain outlets averaged $7.90 — a 68% increase over the past five years. The price of rib eye steak increased by even more. Rib eyes averaged $14.91 per pound at the five stores in Regina in March 2019. This September, the average price for rib eye steak was $29.40 – a 97% increase over five years. Obviously, these price increases are a far cry from the official statistic for accumulated inflation of 21% over the same period. (FYI: the data presented here was derived from  Beef Business magazine published by the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association. Each bimonthly edition of Beef Business features a retail beef price check)

Assuming we can find similar rates of accumulated inflation for other staples like dairy products and fresh vegetables it’s no wonder smart shoppers have been incensed over what’s going on with grocery prices and the cost of living (not to mention price increases for fuel, rents house prices and mortgage interest). Consumers have discovered today’s prices of $6.50 for a four litre jug of milk and $7.00 for a pound of butter aren’t going to be reduced simply because the rate of inflation has decreased form 3.69% to 2.61% over the past year. Using history as our guide, with the exception of rare periods of deflation such as the depression of the 1930s, it is unlikely we’ll see the price increases of the past few years come down other than for sales or loss leader strategies. And, while a 72 cent dollar might boost sales for some of our exports, it will add more than 25% to the cost of imported fruit and vegetables this winter,

Furthermore, the impacts of inflation are being more severely felt by Canadians today than they would have been a decade ago. This is because our per capita national income (using GDP as a proxy for national income) has been shrinking since 2014. That was the year oil prices fell into an eight year depression and the last full year before Justin Trudeau became Prime minister.

According to a 2024 Fraser Institute Bulletin authored by Alex Whelan, Milagros Placios and Lawrence Shembri, “Canadians have been getting poorer relative to residents of other countries in the OECD [a club of mostly rich countries]. From 2002 to 2014, Canadian income growth, as measured by GDP per capita, roughly kept pace with the rest of the OECD. From 2014 to 2022, however, Canada’s position declined sharply, ranking third lowest among 30 countries for average growth over the period.”

Canada’s per capita GDP/national income for 2024 is projected to be $54,866.05. According Whelan, Placios and Shembri, that is lower than per capita national income in the US, UK, New Zealand and Austrailia.

Only one US state, Mississippi, the poorest state in the union, has a per capita GDP/national income less than Canada’s. Mississippi’s total is $53,061. Other states considered poor by US standards such as Alabama and Arkansas have higher per capita GDPs than Canada. On average, Canadians have increasingly less money with which to buy more expensive goods and services.

The challenges Canadians have faced as a result of the high cost of living have coincided with the eight plus years that Justin Trudeau has been prime minister. The decline in per capita national income also occurred under Trudeau’s watch—in conjunction with Liberal policies designed to stifle growth in Canada’s petroleum and natural gas industries. What did the Trudeau Liberals think would happen to growth in per capita national income after they handcuffed our single most important export industry?

In the final analysis it’s a tossup. Do we have an inflation problem or is inflation just a symptom of our Trudeau problem?

It doesn’t bode well for our country that our economic security rests on tariff exceptions to be negotiated by Liberal politicians who have spent the majority of Trump’s public life calling him a “threat to liberal democracy” and his supporters racists and fascists. Their hostility doesn’t lend itself to fruitful diplomacy. In any event, Trump’s EV rollback and aggressive tariffs will spell disaster for the Canadian EV sector.

What does Donald Trump’s resounding win in the recent U.S. election mean for Canada? Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to have been much thought about the answer to this question in Ottawa, because the vast majority of our political and pundit class expected his opponent to be victorious. Suddenly they’re all having to process this unwelcome intrusion of reality into their narrow mental picture.

Well, what does it mean?

It is early days, and it will take some time to sift through the various policy commitments of the incoming Trump Administration to unpack the Canadian angle. But one thing we do know is that a Trump presidency will be no friend to the electric vehicle industry.

A Harris administration would have been. But, Trump spent much of his campaign slamming EV subsidies and mandates, pledging at the Republican National Convention in July that he will “end the electric vehicle mandate on day one.”

This line was so effective, especially in must-win Michigan, with its hundreds of thousands of autoworkers, that Kamala Harris was forced to assure everyone who listened that the U.S. has no EV mandate, and that she has no intention of introducing one.

Of course, this wasn’t strictly true.

First, the Biden Administration, of which Harris was a part, issued an Executive Order with the explicit goal of a “50% Electric Vehicle Sales Share” by 2030. The Biden-Harris Administration (to use their own formulation) instructed their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to introduce increasingly stringent tailpipe emission regulations on cars and light trucks with an eye towards pushing automakers to manufacture and sell more electric and hybrid vehicles.

Their EPA also issued a waiver which allows California to enact auto emissions regulations that are tougher than the federal government’s, which functions as a kind of back-door EV mandate nationally. After all, auto companies aren’t going to manufacture one set of vehicles for California, the most populous state, and another for the rest of the country.

And as for intentions, though the Harris camp consistently held that her prior policy positions shouldn’t be held against her, it’s hard to forget that as senator she’d co-sponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, which would have mandated that all new vehicles sold in the U.S. be “zero emission” by 2040. During her failed 2020 presidential campaign, Harris accelerated that proposed timeline, saying that the auto market should be all-electric by 2035.

In other words, she seemed pretty fond of the EV policies which Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault have foisted upon Canada.

For Trump, all of these policies can be filed under “green new scam” climate policies, which stifle American resource development and endanger national prosperity. Now that he’s retaken the White House, it is expected that he will issue his own executive orders to the EPA, rescinding Biden’s tailpipe instructions and scrapping their waiver for California. And though he will be hindered somewhat by Congress, he’s likely to do everything in his power to roll back the EV subsidies contained in the (terribly named) Inflation Reduction Act and lobby for changes limiting which EVs qualify for tax credits, and how much.

All of this will be devastating for the EV industry, which is utterly reliant on the carrots and sticks of subsidies and mandates. And it’s particularly bad news for the Trudeau government (and Doug Ford’s government in Ontario), which have gone all-in on EVs, investing billions of taxpayer dollars to convince automakers to build their EVs and batteries here.

Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,” according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”

Canada’s EV subsidies were pitched as an “investment” in an evolving auto market, but that assumes that those pre-existing lines of trade will remain essentially unchanged. If American EV demand collapses, or significantly contracts without mandates or tax incentives, we’ll be up the river without a paddle.

And that will be true, even if the U.S. EV market proves more resilient than I expect it to. That is because of Trump’s commitment to “Making America Great Again” by boosting American manufacturing and the jobs it provides. He campaigned on a blanket tariff of 10 percent on all foreign imports, with no exceptions mentioned. This would have a massive impact on Canada, since the U.S. is our largest trading partner.

Though Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland have been saying to everyone who will listen how excited they are to work with the Trump Administration again, and “Canada will be fine,” it doesn’t bode well for our country that our economic security rests on tariff exceptions to be negotiated by Liberal politicians who have spent the majority of Trump’s public life calling him a “threat to liberal democracy” and his supporters racists and fascists. Their hostility doesn’t lend itself to fruitful diplomacy.

In any event, Trump’s EV rollback and aggressive tariffs will spell disaster for the Canadian EV sector.

The optimism that existed under the Biden administration that Canada could significantly increase its export capacity to the USA is going down the drain. The hope that “Canada could reestablish its export sector as a key driver of growth by positioning itself as a leader in electric vehicle and battery manufacturing, along with other areas in cleantech,” in the words of an RBC report, is swiftly fading. It seems more likely now that Canada will be left holding the bag on a dying industry in which we’re invested heavily.

The Trudeau Liberals’ aggressive push, driven by ideology and not market forces, to force Electric Vehicles on everyone is already backfiring on the Canadian taxpayer. Pierre Poilievre must take note — EV mandates and subsidies are bad for our country, and as Trump has demonstrated, they’re not a winning policy. He should act accordingly.