Mark Simon

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@GarnettGenuis Because China funds/supplies/gives weapons to Iran and Russia and yet Canada sells potash to China. The USA buying potash from Belarus means less potash for Russia.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@Polysesouvient @SorayaMartinezF @MTL_Ville @svalenzuela_mtl @gary_srp @liberal_party SKS is a hunting rifle. There are no high capacity mags allowed in Canada. Your mis and disinformation demonstrates your delusional obsession in emotions and not facts.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@jkenney You are the divisive one. As Kim Dobranski said. All he did was repost a photo already posted by the cadet program. This is real. Are you saying it's not real?

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@Polysesouvient @BBCWorld @liberal_party lol less than 3% of gun owners declared. 2.5 million gun owners. 26,000 declared. Complete and utter failure. lol

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@Irek_K Look like you have chinese agents in your cacaus.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@Polysesouvient @OPP_News Legal gun owners represent 0.4% of crime. Of course they don't have resources to decrease crime by less than 1%. it is criminals and smuggled guns that are he problem. Your group is delusional.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@Polysesouvient @gary_srp 51,000 out of a conservative number of 4.5 million banned firearms. LOLOLOL That is a compliance rate of 1.13%. This is a historic fiasco of a failure. Thank God.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@nut_meggy Blatant lie? Misinformation? you are the liar and dis-informer. The New York times wrote an article a month ago on the MAID seasonal depression murder....

https://t.co/D9o1HtMLUR

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@NateForOntario @OYLorg https://t.co/r34rh4QDT6

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

To the carbon tax intellectual mob now mobilized by the Prime Minister’s Office to defend the carbon tax,

You argue the carbon charge on diesel fell by ~21¢/L and suggest my analysis assumes a linear increase to 29¢/L. That’s convenient — but incomplete.

You’re isolating one component of a much broader cost structure and presenting it as the full story. It isn’t.

Food prices are not determined by what a truck pays at the pump alone. They reflect cumulative costs across the entire supply chain: refining, fertilizer, processing, refrigeration, logistics — all of which remain exposed to carbon pricing mechanisms.

And while you focus on a partial rollback in one area, you ignore two inconvenient truths:

1️⃣ Industrial carbon pricing is still very much in effect, and tightening
2️⃣ Energy costs overall are rising, amplifying cost pressures across the system

Cherry-picking a 21¢/L figure does not invalidate broader cost transmission. It simply narrows the lens.

With another carbon price increase coming April 1, Canadians deserve an honest conversation — not selective math.

This isn’t a comprehension error. It’s a refusal to look at the full system.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@DavidMcGuinty https://t.co/r34rh4QDT6

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

To the carbon tax intellectual mob now mobilized by the Prime Minister’s Office to defend the carbon tax,

You argue the carbon charge on diesel fell by ~21¢/L and suggest my analysis assumes a linear increase to 29¢/L. That’s convenient — but incomplete.

You’re isolating one component of a much broader cost structure and presenting it as the full story. It isn’t.

Food prices are not determined by what a truck pays at the pump alone. They reflect cumulative costs across the entire supply chain: refining, fertilizer, processing, refrigeration, logistics — all of which remain exposed to carbon pricing mechanisms.

And while you focus on a partial rollback in one area, you ignore two inconvenient truths:

1️⃣ Industrial carbon pricing is still very much in effect, and tightening
2️⃣ Energy costs overall are rising, amplifying cost pressures across the system

Cherry-picking a 21¢/L figure does not invalidate broader cost transmission. It simply narrows the lens.

With another carbon price increase coming April 1, Canadians deserve an honest conversation — not selective math.

This isn’t a comprehension error. It’s a refusal to look at the full system.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@liberal_party https://t.co/r34rh4QDT6

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

To the carbon tax intellectual mob now mobilized by the Prime Minister’s Office to defend the carbon tax,

You argue the carbon charge on diesel fell by ~21¢/L and suggest my analysis assumes a linear increase to 29¢/L. That’s convenient — but incomplete.

You’re isolating one component of a much broader cost structure and presenting it as the full story. It isn’t.

Food prices are not determined by what a truck pays at the pump alone. They reflect cumulative costs across the entire supply chain: refining, fertilizer, processing, refrigeration, logistics — all of which remain exposed to carbon pricing mechanisms.

And while you focus on a partial rollback in one area, you ignore two inconvenient truths:

1️⃣ Industrial carbon pricing is still very much in effect, and tightening
2️⃣ Energy costs overall are rising, amplifying cost pressures across the system

Cherry-picking a 21¢/L figure does not invalidate broader cost transmission. It simply narrows the lens.

With another carbon price increase coming April 1, Canadians deserve an honest conversation — not selective math.

This isn’t a comprehension error. It’s a refusal to look at the full system.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@CTVToronto https://t.co/r34rh4QDT6

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

To the carbon tax intellectual mob now mobilized by the Prime Minister’s Office to defend the carbon tax,

You argue the carbon charge on diesel fell by ~21¢/L and suggest my analysis assumes a linear increase to 29¢/L. That’s convenient — but incomplete.

You’re isolating one component of a much broader cost structure and presenting it as the full story. It isn’t.

Food prices are not determined by what a truck pays at the pump alone. They reflect cumulative costs across the entire supply chain: refining, fertilizer, processing, refrigeration, logistics — all of which remain exposed to carbon pricing mechanisms.

And while you focus on a partial rollback in one area, you ignore two inconvenient truths:

1️⃣ Industrial carbon pricing is still very much in effect, and tightening
2️⃣ Energy costs overall are rising, amplifying cost pressures across the system

Cherry-picking a 21¢/L figure does not invalidate broader cost transmission. It simply narrows the lens.

With another carbon price increase coming April 1, Canadians deserve an honest conversation — not selective math.

This isn’t a comprehension error. It’s a refusal to look at the full system.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@sarobertsonca https://t.co/r34rh4QDT6

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

To the carbon tax intellectual mob now mobilized by the Prime Minister’s Office to defend the carbon tax,

You argue the carbon charge on diesel fell by ~21¢/L and suggest my analysis assumes a linear increase to 29¢/L. That’s convenient — but incomplete.

You’re isolating one component of a much broader cost structure and presenting it as the full story. It isn’t.

Food prices are not determined by what a truck pays at the pump alone. They reflect cumulative costs across the entire supply chain: refining, fertilizer, processing, refrigeration, logistics — all of which remain exposed to carbon pricing mechanisms.

And while you focus on a partial rollback in one area, you ignore two inconvenient truths:

1️⃣ Industrial carbon pricing is still very much in effect, and tightening
2️⃣ Energy costs overall are rising, amplifying cost pressures across the system

Cherry-picking a 21¢/L figure does not invalidate broader cost transmission. It simply narrows the lens.

With another carbon price increase coming April 1, Canadians deserve an honest conversation — not selective math.

This isn’t a comprehension error. It’s a refusal to look at the full system.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@AbGamble1 https://t.co/r34rh4RbIE

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

To the carbon tax intellectual mob now mobilized by the Prime Minister’s Office to defend the carbon tax,

You argue the carbon charge on diesel fell by ~21¢/L and suggest my analysis assumes a linear increase to 29¢/L. That’s convenient — but incomplete.

You’re isolating one component of a much broader cost structure and presenting it as the full story. It isn’t.

Food prices are not determined by what a truck pays at the pump alone. They reflect cumulative costs across the entire supply chain: refining, fertilizer, processing, refrigeration, logistics — all of which remain exposed to carbon pricing mechanisms.

And while you focus on a partial rollback in one area, you ignore two inconvenient truths:

1️⃣ Industrial carbon pricing is still very much in effect, and tightening
2️⃣ Energy costs overall are rising, amplifying cost pressures across the system

Cherry-picking a 21¢/L figure does not invalidate broader cost transmission. It simply narrows the lens.

With another carbon price increase coming April 1, Canadians deserve an honest conversation — not selective math.

This isn’t a comprehension error. It’s a refusal to look at the full system.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@MarkJCarney https://t.co/r34rh4QDT6

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

To the carbon tax intellectual mob now mobilized by the Prime Minister’s Office to defend the carbon tax,

You argue the carbon charge on diesel fell by ~21¢/L and suggest my analysis assumes a linear increase to 29¢/L. That’s convenient — but incomplete.

You’re isolating one component of a much broader cost structure and presenting it as the full story. It isn’t.

Food prices are not determined by what a truck pays at the pump alone. They reflect cumulative costs across the entire supply chain: refining, fertilizer, processing, refrigeration, logistics — all of which remain exposed to carbon pricing mechanisms.

And while you focus on a partial rollback in one area, you ignore two inconvenient truths:

1️⃣ Industrial carbon pricing is still very much in effect, and tightening
2️⃣ Energy costs overall are rising, amplifying cost pressures across the system

Cherry-picking a 21¢/L figure does not invalidate broader cost transmission. It simply narrows the lens.

With another carbon price increase coming April 1, Canadians deserve an honest conversation — not selective math.

This isn’t a comprehension error. It’s a refusal to look at the full system.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@Rob_Oliphant @gregorrobertson @cityoftoronto https://t.co/r34rh4QDT6

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

To the carbon tax intellectual mob now mobilized by the Prime Minister’s Office to defend the carbon tax,

You argue the carbon charge on diesel fell by ~21¢/L and suggest my analysis assumes a linear increase to 29¢/L. That’s convenient — but incomplete.

You’re isolating one component of a much broader cost structure and presenting it as the full story. It isn’t.

Food prices are not determined by what a truck pays at the pump alone. They reflect cumulative costs across the entire supply chain: refining, fertilizer, processing, refrigeration, logistics — all of which remain exposed to carbon pricing mechanisms.

And while you focus on a partial rollback in one area, you ignore two inconvenient truths:

1️⃣ Industrial carbon pricing is still very much in effect, and tightening
2️⃣ Energy costs overall are rising, amplifying cost pressures across the system

Cherry-picking a 21¢/L figure does not invalidate broader cost transmission. It simply narrows the lens.

With another carbon price increase coming April 1, Canadians deserve an honest conversation — not selective math.

This isn’t a comprehension error. It’s a refusal to look at the full system.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@MarkJCarney As with all your announcements I will believe it as soon as I can see some actual work being done.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@YasirNaqviCDN https://t.co/3ldNG7XPHM

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

Feel poorer at the grocery store? Here’s exactly why.

Since 2020:

Food prices ↑ ~30%
Wages ↑ ~20%

That shaded gap? That’s lost purchasing power.

Canadians aren’t imagining it.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@Rob_Oliphant @gary_srp @FP_Champagne @rcmpgrcpolice @TorontoPolice @YRP @FINTRAC_Canada https://t.co/3ldNG7XPHM

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

Feel poorer at the grocery store? Here’s exactly why.

Since 2020:

Food prices ↑ ~30%
Wages ↑ ~20%

That shaded gap? That’s lost purchasing power.

Canadians aren’t imagining it.

[Mark Simon @MarkSim23101871]

@DavidMcGuinty https://t.co/3ldNG7XPHM

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

Feel poorer at the grocery store? Here’s exactly why.

Since 2020:

Food prices ↑ ~30%
Wages ↑ ~20%

That shaded gap? That’s lost purchasing power.

Canadians aren’t imagining it.