This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois

Blaming the U.S. won’t cut it. Canada’s food inflation crisis is largely a result of Ottawa’s poor policy choices

It was expected, but still jarring. In April, food inflation in Canada surged to 3.8 per cent—a full 2.1 percentage points above the national inflation rate and nearly  double the U.S. rate of two per cent. Once again, food is the primary driver behind headline inflation, amplifying affordability concerns across the country.

But this isn’t just a story of global disruption or seasonal cycles. It’s increasingly clear that Canada’s food inflation is largely homegrown—a direct result
of domestic policy missteps, particularly tariffs and protectionist procurement practices.

Since March, when both Canada and the United States introduced a new round of tariffs, the difference in outcomes has been striking. U.S. food inflation has continued to cool, while Canada’s has nearly tripled over the same period—a divergence that should raise serious red flags in two integrated economies.

Drill into the 3.8 per cent figure and the underlying pressure becomes obvious. Meat prices climbed 5.8 per cent year-over-year, with beef up a staggering 16.5 per cent. Egg prices rose 3.9 per cent, while fresh fruit and vegetable prices increased by five per cent and 3.7 per cent, respectively. These are not one-off anomalies—they reflect sustained cost increases made worse by awed policy.

Canada’s earlier decision to implement counter-tariffs— retaliatory taxes on U.S. imports in response to American trade moves— disrupted long-standing cross-border supply chains. To avoid higher import costs, grocers pivoted away from U.S. suppliers, particularly in fresh produce and frozen foods, and turned to costlier or less efficient alternatives. That shift is now showing up on Canadians’ grocery bills.

Fortunately, there’s been a course correction. According to Oxford Economics, a global forecasting and analysis firm, Prime Minister Mark Carney has quietly rolled back many of the counter-tariffs that had been inflating food costs. The move, while politically sensitive, was economically sound and long overdue. Early signs suggest that pressure on the supply chain is beginning to ease, and over time, this could help stabilize prices.

Still, Canada’s food inflation stands out. Among G7 nations, it now ranks second highest, behind only Japan. Food price increases in France, Germany, Italy, the U.K. and the U.S. remain well below ours.

Why? Because this isn’t just about external shocks. It’s about domestic choices. Tariffs, procurement rules and limited trade flexibility have shaped a uniquely Canadian inflation story. And unlike the U.S., Canada lacks the economic leverage to absorb policy mistakes without consequences.

That’s why Carney’s reversal offers more than short-term relief; it’s an opportunity to rethink our approach entirely. Symbols and slogans are no
substitute for sound policy. Ensuring access to affordable, nutritious food should be a national priority, pursued with pragmatism, not posturing.

Canadians should welcome the shift, but they also deserve honesty. This inflationary spiral didn’t just happen to us. We helped cause it. And it’s not
governments or grocery chains who shoulder the cost—it’s families at the checkout counter.

Moving forward, federal and provincial governments must coordinate more effectively, communicate with greater clarity, and stop masking economic
missteps with patriotic branding.

There’s nothing wrong with buying Canadian. But “maplewashing”—where companies overstate or exaggerate a product’s connection to Canada in order to appear more Canadian—risks distorting markets and eroding public trust. Grocers should not abuse consumer goodwill.

Ottawa’s slogans—“Elbows Up,” “Canada’s Not For Sale”—may have mobilized support during a volatile moment, but rhetoric has its limits. When it blinds policymakers to the real-world effects of their actions, it becomes dangerous.

Canada’s food inflation crisis didn’t have to unfold this way. Now that we have a chance to reset, let’s not waste it.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Apparently, despite a few days of conflicting statements from the government, the Carney government now plans to table a budget in the fall. If the new prime minister wants to reduce Ottawa’s massive debt burden, which Canadians ultimately bear, he must begin to work now to reduce spending.

According to the federal government’s latest projections, from 2014/15 to 2024/25 total federal debt is expected to double from $1.1 trillion to a projected $2.2 trillion. That means $13,699 in new federal debt for every Canadian (after adjusting for inflation). In addition, from 2020 to 2023, the Trudeau government recorded the four highest years of total federal debt per person (inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history.

How did this happen?

From 2018 to 2023, the government recorded the six highest levels of program spending (inflation-adjusted, on a per-person basis) in Canadian history—even after excluding emergency spending during COVID. Consequently, in 2024/25 Ottawa will run its tenth consecutive budget deficit since 2014/15.

Of course, Canadians bear the burden of this free-spending approach. For example, over the last several years federal debt interest payments have more than doubled to an expected $53.7 billion this year. That’s more than the government plans to spend on health-care transfers to the provinces. And it’s money unavailable for programs including social services.

In the longer term, government debt accumulation can limit economic growth by pushing up interest rates. Why? Because governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing, and this competition puts upward pressure on interest rates. Higher interest rates deter private investment in the Canadian economy—a necessary ingredient for economic growth—and hurt Canadian living standards.

Given these costs, the Carney government should take a new approach to fiscal policy and begin reducing Ottawa’s mountain of debt.

According to both history and research, the most effective and least economically harmful way to achieve this is to reduce government spending and balance the budget, as opposed to raising taxes. While this approach requires tough decisions, which may be politically unpopular in some quarters, worthwhile goals are rarely easy and the long-term gain will exceed the short-term pain. Indeed, a recent study by Canadian economist Bev Dahlby found the long-term economic benefits of a 12-percentage point reduction in debt (as a share of GDP) substantially outweighs the short-term costs.

Unfortunately, while Canadians must wait until the fall for a federal budget, the Carney government’s election platform promises to add—not subtract—from Ottawa’s mountain of debt and from 2025/26 to 2028/29 run annual deficits every year of at least $47.8 billion. In total, these planned deficits represent $224.8 billion in new government debt over the next four years, and there’s currently no plan to balance the budget. This represents a continuation of the Trudeau government’s approach to rack up debt and behave irresponsibly with federal finances.

With a new government on Parliament Hill, now is the time for federal policymakers to pursue the long-ignored imperative of reducing government debt. Clearly, if the Carney government wants to prioritize debt reduction, it must rethink its fiscal plan and avoid repeating the same mistakes of its predecessor.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute