Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Big grocers rigged bread prices and most walked away free

Published

6 minute read

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By

Canada’s bread price-fixing scandal is one of the most damaging breaches of corporate trust in the history of Canadian food retail. The recent approval
of a $500-million class-action settlement by an Ontario court is a significant—though partial—step toward accountability. But the story isn’t over.

For over a decade, grocery giants secretly rigged the price of the country’s most basic food item, and most Canadians had no idea.

From 2001 to 2015, retailers and suppliers deliberately coordinated to raise the price of packaged bread, a basic household staple. This kind of illegal arrangement, known as price-fixing, occurs when supposed competitors agree to set prices rather than compete, driving up costs for consumers. Companies named in the lawsuit include Loblaw, its parent company George Weston Ltd., Metro, Sobeys, Walmart and Giant Tiger.

The impact on consumers was steep. Estimates suggest Canadians were overcharged by more than $5 billion over 14 years. The added cost was hidden in weekly grocery bills, largely unnoticed, but cumulatively devastating, especially for lower-income households that spend a greater share of their income on food.

The Competition Bureau, Canada’s competition watchdog, launched its investigation in 2015 after Loblaw came forward as a whistleblower under its Immunity and Leniency Program. In exchange for cooperating, Loblaw and George Weston were granted immunity from criminal prosecution. Their disclosure triggered years of scrutiny. In 2017, the companies attempted to contain the public backlash by offering $25 gift cards to 3.8 million Canadians, a gesture that cost $96 million and was widely seen as inadequate.

More recently, in 2023, Canada Bread pleaded guilty and paid a record $50-million fine for its role in the scheme. Although the violations occurred while it was owned by Maple Leaf Foods, it was Grupo Bimbo—which acquired Canada Bread in 2014—that took responsibility and cooperated with regulators. It was a rare show of accountability in a case otherwise marked by corporate silence.

Despite multiple companies being implicated, only Loblaw, George Weston and Canada Bread have admitted wrongdoing. No fines or sanctions have been imposed on the others. Walmart, Metro, Sobeys and Giant Tiger—all named by Loblaw—deny the allegations. Yet the investigation drags on nearly a decade later.

This imbalance in accountability has deepened public frustration. Many Canadians believe only those who stepped forward have faced consequences,
while others remain untouched. Or perhaps Loblaw threw its competitors under the bus in a calculated effort to save its own reputation?

The $500-million settlement—$404 million of it from Loblaw and George Weston —was approved by an Ontario judge earlier this month as “fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members.” The other $96 million reflects the earlier gift card program. What’s left to be paid amounts to about $13 per Canadian adult. After legal fees and administrative costs, 78 per cent of that will go to eligible Canadians outside Quebec, with the remaining 22 per cent reserved for Quebecers, pending a June 16 court hearing.

But for many, the money and the apologies do little to restore trust. If companies can quietly collude on something as essential as bread, it raises questions about what else might be going unnoticed in our grocery bills. The scandal exposed major weaknesses in Canada’s food retail system: toothless competition laws, limited pricing transparency and weak deterrents against collusion. These investigations take too long, and the damage to public confidence lingers long after the cheques are cashed.

Bread is not just a commodity. It symbolizes nourishment, affordability and stability. Manipulating its price isn’t just a legal violation; it’s a betrayal of public trust.

If this case is to be a turning point, it must lead to more than payouts. Canada needs stronger enforcement, faster investigations and real transparency in pricing. Without systemic reform, Canadians will remain vulnerable to the next coordinated “market adjustment,” hiding in plain sight on store shelves.

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

Business

Carney government should apply lessons from 1990s in spending review

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

For the summer leading up to the 2025 fall budget, the Carney government has launched a federal spending review aimed at finding savings that will help pay for recent major policy announcements. While this appears to be a step in the right direction, lessons from the past suggest the government must be more ambitious in its review to overcome the fiscal challenges facing Canada.

In two letters sent to federal cabinet ministers, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne outlined plans for a “Comprehensive Expenditure Review” that will see ministers evaluate spending programs in each of their portfolios based on the following: whether they are “meeting their objectives” are “core to the federal mandate” and “complement vs. duplicate what is offered elsewhere by the federal government or by other levels of government.” Ultimately, as a result of this review, ministers are expected to find savings of 7.5 per cent in 2026/27, rising to 10 per cent the following year, and reaching 15 per cent by 2028/29.

This news comes after the federal government has recently made several major policy announcements that will significantly impact the bottom line. Most notably, the government added an additional $9.3 billion to the defence budget for this fiscal year, and committed to more than double the annual defence budget by 2035. Without any policies to offset the fiscal impact of this higher defence spending (along with other recent changes), this year’s budget deficit (which the Liberal’s election platform initially pegged at $62.3 billion) will likely surpass $70.0 billion, and potentially may reach as high as $92.2 billion.

A spending review is long overdue. Recent research suggests that each year the federal government spends billions towards programs that are inefficient and/or ineffective, and which should be eliminated to find savings. Moreover, past governments (both federal and provincial) have proven that fiscal adjustments based on spending reviews can be very successful—just look at the Chrétien government’s 1995 Program Review.

In its 1995 budget, the federal Chrétien government launched a comprehensive review of all federal spending that—along with several minor tax increases—ultimately balanced the federal budget in two years and helped Canada avert a fiscal crisis. Two aspects of this review were critical to its success: it reviewed all federal spending initiatives with no exceptions, and it was based on clear criteria that not only tested whether spending was efficient, but which also reassessed the federal government’s role in delivering programs and services to Canadians. Unfortunately, the Carney government’s review is missing these two critical aspects.

The Carney government already plans to exclude large swathes of the budget from its spending review. While it might be reasonable for the government to exclude defence spending given our recent commitments (though that doesn’t appear to be the plan), the Carney government has instead chosen to exclude all transfers to individuals (such as seniors’ benefits) and provinces (such as health-care spending) from any spending cuts. Based on the last official spending estimates for this year, these two areas alone represent a combined $254.6 billion—or more than half of total spending after excluding debt charges—that won’t be reviewed.

This is a major weakness in the government’s plan. Not only does this limit the dollar value of savings available, it also means a significant portion of the government’s budget is missing out on a reassessment that could lead to more effective delivery of services for Canadians.

For example, as part of the 1995 program review, the Chrétien government overhauled how it delivered welfare transfers to provincial governments. Specifically, the federal government replaced two previous programs with a new Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) that addressed some major flaws with how the government delivered welfare assistance. While the transition to the CHST did include a $4.6 billion reduction in spending on government transfers, the new structure gave the federal government better control over spending growth in the future and allowed provincial governments more flexibility to tailor social assistance programs to local needs and preferences.

In addition to considering all areas of spending, the Carney government’s spending review also needs to be more ambitious in its criteria. While the current criteria are an important start—for example, it’s critical the government identifies and eliminates spending programs that aren’t achieving their stated objectives or which are simply duplicating another program—the Carney government should take it one step further and explicitly reflect on the role of the federal government itself.

Among other criteria that focused on efficiency and affordability of programs, the 1995 program review also evaluated every spending program based on whether government intervention was even necessary, and whether or not the federal government specifically should be involved. As such, not only did the program review eliminate costly inefficiencies, it also included the privatization of government-owned entities such as Petro-Canada and Canadian National Railway—which generated considerable economic benefits for Canadians.

Today, the federal government devotes considerable amounts of spending each year towards areas that are outside of its jurisdiction and/or which government shouldn’t be involved in the first place—national pharmacare, national dental care, and national daycare all being prime examples. Ignoring the fact that many of these areas (including the three examples) are already excluded from the Carney government’s spending review, the government’s criteria makes no explicit effort to test whether a program is targeting an area that’s outside of the federal purview.

For instance, while the government will test whether or not a spending program fits within the federal mandate, that mandate will not actually ensure the government stays within its own jurisdictional lane. Instead, the mandate simply lays out the key priorities the Carney government intends to focus on—including vague goals including, “Bringing down costs for Canadians and helping them to get ahead” which could be used to justify considerable federal overreach. Similarly, the government’s other criterion to not duplicate programs offered by other levels of government provides little meaningful restriction on government spending that is outside of its jurisdiction so long as that spending can be viewed as “complementing” provincial efforts. In other words, this spending review is unlikely to meaningfully check the costly growth in the size of government that Canada has experienced over the last decade.

Simply put, the Carney government’s spending review, while a step in the right direction, is missing key elements that will limit its effectiveness. Applying key lessons from the Chrétien government’s spending review is crucial for success today.

 

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Trump to impose 30% tariff on EU, Mexico

Published on

From The Center Square

President Donald Trump on Saturday said he will impose 30% tariffs on imported goods from the European Union and Mexico in his latest move to balance trade between the U.S. and other countries.

The tariffs are set to go into effect Aug. 1.

Saturday’s announcement comes a day after the U.S. Department of Treasury released a report Friday showing that tariff revenue helped revenue in the month of June exceed expenses by $27 billion.

“We have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with The European Union, and we have concluded we must move away from these long-term, large, and persistent, Trade Deficits, engendered by your Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies, and Trade Barriers,” Trump wrote in the letter to the EU and posted on his Truth Social account. “Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from Reciprocal.”

The 30% tariff on EU goods is higher than expected. EU trade ministers are scheduled to meet Monday and could agree to increase tariffs on U.S. goods as retaliation.

In his letter to Mexico, Trump said the U.S. neighbor to the south has helped stem the flow of illegal narcotics and people from entering the country but added that it needed to do more to prevent North America from being a “Narco-Trafficking Playground.”

Earlier in the week, Trump announced new tariffs on several other countries, including 20% tariffs on imports  from the Philippines; 25% on Brunei and Moldova; 30% on Algeria, Iraq and Libya; and 50% on Brazil.

All of the new tariffs announced this week are scheduled to go into effect Aug. 1.

• The Center Square reporters Therese Boudreaux and Andrew Rice contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending

X