Loblaw warns Canadians of price hikes
Canadians should brace for more expensive groceries. Loblaw Companies Limited, a major Canadian retailer, warns that prices on everyday essentials will continue to climb. This is largely due to the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs, which are increasing costs for goods imported from the United States.
Loblaw Companies Limited, parent company of major Canadian grocery chains like Loblaws, No Frills, and Real Canadian Superstore, released its May food inflation report on Tuesday, May 27. The report indicates that thousands of everyday items are set to rise in price. While this isn't welcome news for Canadians struggling with grocery bills, the retailer noted that the increases could have been even more severe.
Loblaw has indicated that recent government actions, specifically a six-month reprieve on tariffs for certain U.S. food manufacturing and packaging imports, are helping to prevent a drastic surge in grocery prices. The stabilization of the Canadian dollar is also contributing to mitigating the risk of a sharp or prolonged spike in food inflation.
Loblaw has confirmed that the Canadian government's recent decision to exempt 'indirect tariffs' on certain US imports will help stabilize food prices. This applies to products like chocolate chips or peanuts, which are used as ingredients in goods manufactured in Canada.
Previously, these indirect tariffs were a significant concern for food costs due to the widespread use of imported components in Canadian-made products. With this change, only final products imported from the US will now be subject to tariffs, offering relief across a substantial number of items on supermarket shelves.
Despite some relief, Loblaw states that tariffs continue to apply to thousands of different items, including a wide range of food products imported from the U.S. This impacts categories such as produce, rice, pasta, dairy, and coffee, alongside health and wellness products like soap, shampoo, and cosmetics. Loblaw estimates that consumers can expect tariff-related price increases on approximately 6,000 items in a conventional grocery store, with roughly half of these being food products.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'
Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
Middle East tensions put investors on alert, weighing worst-case scenarios
NEW YORK, June 21 (Reuters) - Investors are mulling a host of different market scenarios should the U.S. deepen its involvement in the Middle East conflict, with the potential for ripple effects if energy prices skyrocket. They have honed in on the evolving situation between Israel and Iran, which have exchanged missile strikes, and are closely monitoring whether the U.S. decides to join Israel in its bombing campaign. Potential scenarios could send inflation higher, dampening consumer confidence and lessening the chance of near-term interest rate cuts. This would likely cause an initial selloff in equities and possible safe-haven bid for the dollar. While U.S. crude prices have climbed some 10% over the past week, the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab has been little changed as of yet, following an initial drop when Israel launched its attacks. However, if attacks were to take out Iranian oil supply, "that's when the market is going to sit up and take notice," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B Riley Wealth. "If you get disruption to supply of oil product on the global marketplace, that is not reflected in today's WTI price and that is where things get negative," Hogan said. The White House said on Thursday President Donald Trump would decide on U.S. involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks. Analysts at Oxford Economics modeled three scenarios, ranging from a de-escalation in the conflict, a complete shutdown in Iranian production, and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, "each with increasingly large impacts on global oil prices," the firm said in a note. In the most severe case, global oil prices jump to around $130 per barrel, driving U.S. inflation near 6% by the end of this year, Oxford said in the note. "Although the price shock inevitably dampens consumer spending because of the hit to real incomes, the scale of the rise in inflation and concerns about the potential for second-round inflation effects likely ruin any chance of rate cuts in the U.S. this year," Oxford said in the note. The biggest market impact from the escalating conflict has been restricted to oil, with oil prices soaring on worries that the Iran-Israel conflict could disrupt supplies. Brent crude futures have risen as much as 18% since June 10, hitting a near 5-month high of $79.04 on Thursday. The accompanying rise in investors' expectations for further near-term volatility in oil prices has outpaced the rise in volatility expectations for other major asset classes, including stocks and bonds. But other asset classes, including stocks, could still feel the knock-on effects of higher oil prices, especially if there is a larger surge in oil prices if the worst market fears of supply disruptions come true, analysts said. "Geopolitical tensions have been mostly ignored by equities, but they are being factored into oil," Citigroup analysts wrote in a note. "To us, the key for equities from here will come from energy commodity pricing," they said. U.S. stocks have so far weathered rising Middle East tensions with little sign of panic. A more direct U.S. involvement in the conflict could, however, spook markets, investors said. Financial markets may be in for an initial selloff if the U.S. military attacks Iran, with economists warning that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by Trump's tariffs. Still, any pullback in equities might be fleeting, history suggests. During past prominent instances of Middle East tensions coming to a boil, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, stocks initially languished but soon recovered to trade higher in the months ahead. On average, the S&P 500 slipped 0.3% in the three weeks following the start of conflict, but was 2.3% higher on average two months following the conflict, according to data from Wedbush Securities and CapIQ Pro. An escalation in the conflict could have mixed implications for the U.S. dollar, which has tumbled this year amid worries over diminished U.S. exceptionalism. In the event of U.S. direct engagement in the Iran-Israel War, the dollar could initially benefit from a safety bid, analysts said. "Traders are likely to worry more about the implicit erosion of the terms of trade for Europe, the UK, and Japan, rather than the economic shock to the US, a major oil producer," Thierry Wizman, Global FX & Rates Strategist at Macquarie Group, said in a note. But longer-term, the prospect of US-directed 'nation-building' would probably weaken the dollar, he said. "We recall that after the attacks of 9/11, and running through the decade-long US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USD weakened," Wizman said.
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Whitehall isn't working – here's how the PM can fix it
It never rains but it pours for Keir Starmer. He is fighting to stop the Iran crisis wrecking his one success as prime minister – a solid performance on foreign affairs in which he somehow maintains a productive relationship with Donald Trump. Insiders tell me Starmer's efforts are aimed at persuading Iran to enter meaningful talks on its nuclear programme and then convincing a highly sceptical US president that Iran is serious about negotiations. But if Trump goes ahead with his threat to bomb Iran, Starmer's special relationship with him could conceivably be stretched to breaking point. The prime minister can't escape his woes on domestic matters. His intense diplomacy was interrupted on Thursday by the unwelcome news that Vicky Foxcroft had resigned as a whip in protest at the government's cuts to disability benefits. She might not be the last to quit a government post before the crunch vote on £5bn of welfare cuts on 1 July, when Starmer faces the biggest Labour revolt of his premiership. Some parliamentary aides to ministers are on resignation watch. The government's robotic response to Foxcroft's departure, which failed to acknowledge her respected work as shadow disabilities minister before last year's election, angered some Labour MPs. Many will rebel with a heavy heart. They accept the need to reduce the ballooning welfare budget, but think the panicky cuts ahead of Rachel Reeves's spring statement symbolise how the government repeatedly reacts to events – in this case, living from hand to mouth to stick within the chancellor's fiscal rules – instead of having a long-term reform strategy. For some Whitehall-watchers, Starmer will not improve matters unless he reforms the centre of government. Critics think the relationship between No 10 and the Cabinet Office isn't working, leaving the other side of the triangle, the Treasury, to call the shots. The result: the winter fuel allowance catastrophe and now the welfare rebellion. Even some in Downing Street admit privately a shake-up is needed. Sam Freedman, a former special adviser and author of an excellent book, Failed State, suggests loosening the Treasury's grip by forming an Office of Budget Management, run jointly by the Treasury and Downing Street, which would oversee future spending reviews to ensure they reflect the PM's priorities. Freedman believes Starmer should consider a change Tony Blair introduced in his second term, which improved public service delivery. To prevent the whole operation being sucked into reacting to events, three units focused on different timescales: a policy unit on day-to-day oversight of Whitehall departments; a delivery unit on a small number of the PM's priorities (in Starmer's case, that would be his five missions); and a strategy unit on difficult long-term challenges. This ensured a more strategic state. One problem today is that the 'missions delivery unit' is based in the Cabinet Office rather than No 10. The Institute for Government (IFG) think tank has made a sensible proposal to abolish the Cabinet Office and set up an expanded 'Office of the Prime Minister', which would then take charge of the missions. Do such structures really matter? Yes. They are even more important when a PM makes a virtue out of his pragmatism and lack of ideology, as Starmer does. Like many predecessors, Starmer complains the Whitehall machine is slow to crank into life when he demands action. Often fair – but civil servants also have a point when they grumble that this government does not give them clear enough marching orders. For example, the government's own commitment to Starmer's missions – later relaunched as six milestones in his 'plan for change' – is now being questioned in Whitehall. Ministers promised the missions would be the 'guiding star' of the government-wide spending review unveiled by Reeves last week, and that cabinet ministers would collaborate on cross-departmental working and budgets. Only one problem: there was little money to go round. So the review again became a trial of strength between the Treasury and individual ministers trying to protect their departments. Starmer's 'mission-driven government' was caught in the crossfire and some Whitehall officials think the idea suffered serious damage. The IFG calculates that two of the missions – on economic growth and clean energy – did well out of the spending review, but the other three – on health, safer streets and opportunity – look difficult to achieve. Another reason why the missions matter is that this government doesn't have the option of pumping in extra cash to secure the improvements to public services voters want, as Blair and Gordon Brown enjoyed. Although Reeves won headlines for her big boost to building projects, her squeeze on day-to-day budgets is viewed in Whitehall as a 'standstill settlement'. So reform and efficiency savings will be needed to secure tangible improvements – not least in the NHS. The missions can play a part in prioritising these goals. With many public services still struggling in the voters' eyes, standing still will not win Labour a second term.
