This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois

Canadian beef prices have surged due to a shrinking cattle herd, high transportation costs, and potential market collusion

With summer weather settling in, Canadians are returning to a familiar ritual—ring up the barbecue. But as they approach the meat counter, many are faced with shockingly high prices. This year, the meat aisle has become a case study in supply-side economics and market dysfunction, leaving
consumers to wonder how this all came to be.

Since January, according to Statistics Canada, beef prices have surged dramatically. Striploin is up 34.2 per cent, top sirloin 33.7 per cent, and rib cuts nearly 12 per cent. Pork rib cuts and chicken breasts have each risen 5.9 per cent, while even meatless burger patties are 6.8 per cent more
expensive. Beef has led the way in these increases, and its dominance in the price hikes is striking. What’s particularly concerning is that it’s not just one cut of beef—virtually every option has seen a dramatic jump, putting pressure on Canadian consumers who were already grappling with rising food costs.

The cause behind these increases lies in Canada’s shrinking beef cow inventory, now at just 3.38 million head—the lowest since 1989. This represents a 1.2 per cent drop from last year, but it signals much more than a cyclical decline. Many cattle producers, facing an increasingly volatile market, are choosing to exit the industry while prices are favourable. Others are opting to reinvest in less risky sectors or even shift entirely to crop production, leaving the beef industry in a precarious state. In short, Canada’s beef industry is retreating, and with that retreat comes rising prices, fewer available cattle, and growing uncertainty.

South of the border, the U.S. is seeing a similar trend, but far less severe. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the
American beef cow herd declined by just 0.5 per cent to 27.9 million head. This relatively modest drop, coupled with less disruption in their production practices, has resulted in more stable prices.

Over the past year, U.S. boneless sirloin steak rose 5.7 per cent, compared to a staggering 22 per cent in Canada. Ground beef saw a 10.8 per cent increase in the U.S., but 23 per cent in Canada. The price difference between the two countries is stark, and Canadians are feeling the inflationary pressure much more acutely.

There are several factors contributing to the price hikes: Canada’s vast geography, high transportation costs, a limited number of federally licensed beef processors, carbon pricing, and higher labour costs. Carbon pricing, in particular, has added a burden to sectors like beef production, where transportation costs are high. Regulations and logistical inefficiencies add to the costs, driving up prices for retailers and, ultimately, consumers.

This combination of factors is having a compounding effect on the price of beef, making it increasingly out of reach for many.

But there’s another possibility we can’t ignore: potential collusion within the industry. In Canada, a small number of large processors control much of the beef supply, which gives them significant influence over prices. The U.S. government has taken strong action against price-fixing among major meat packers like JBS, Tyson Foods, Cargill, and National Beef, leading to multimillion-dollar settlements. In Canada, however, the Competition Bureau has remained largely silent on similar concerns, allowing the possibility of price-fixing to persist unchecked. Perhaps it’s time for Canada to follow the U.S. lead and ensure the beef industry is held accountable for its actions.

The consequences of these rising costs are already evident. According to IBISWorld, Canadian per capita beef consumption fell by 7.1 per cent in 2023 and is expected to drop another 2.1 per cent in 2024. This isn’t merely a shift in dietary preferences—this is a structural change in consumer behaviour. Beef is becoming increasingly viewed as a luxury item, with many budget-conscious households turning to ground beef as a more affordable option. For many Canadians, beef is no longer a staple food but rather an occasional indulgence, reserved for special occasions or holiday meals.

This shift is unfortunate. Beef remains one of the most natural, sustainable sources of protein available to Canadians. Ranchers and processors have made significant strides in improving environmental stewardship, animal welfare, and food safety, often without recognition. Beef is not only nutritionally dense but also supports rural economies and provides a level of traceability few other protein sources can offer.

For many Canadian families, a summer steak on the grill is becoming more of a splurge than a staple. While Canadians will continue to enjoy beef, the frequency and volume of consumption will likely diminish.

Barbecue season hasn’t disappeared, but for many, it’s starting to look a little different: more sausages, more chicken, and fewer striploins. A shame, really, for a product that offers so much more than just taste.

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 Tom Flanagan

When Justin Trudeau came to power in 2015, he memorably said that the welfare of Indigenous Canadians was his highest priority. He certainly has delivered on his promise, at least in terms of shovelling out money.

During his 10 years in office, budgeted Indigenous spending has approximately tripled, from about $11 billion to almost $33 billion. Prime Minister Trudeau’s instruction to the Department of Justice to negotiate rather than litigate class actions has resulted in paying tens of billions of dollars to Indigenous claimants over alleged wrongs in education and other social services. And his government has settled specific claims—alleged violations of treaty terms or of the Indian Act—at four times the previous rate, resulting in the award of at least an additional $10 billion to First Nations government.

But has this avalanche of money really helped First Nations people living on reserves, who are the poorest segment of Canadian society?

One indicator suggests the answer is yes. The gap between reserves and other communities—as measured by the Community Well-Being Index (CWB), a composite of income, employment, housing and education—fell from 19 to 16 points from 2016 to 2021. But closer analysis shows that the reduction in the gap, although real, cannot be due to the additional spending described above.

The gain in First Nations CWB is due mainly to an increase in the income component of the CWB. But almost all of the federal spending on First Nations, class-action settlements and specific claims do not provide taxable income to First Nations people. Rather, the increase in income documented by the CWB comes from the greatly increased payments legislated by the Liberals in the form of the Canada Child Benefit (CCB). First Nations people have a higher birth rate than other Canadians, so they have more children and receive more (on average) from the Canada Child Benefit. Also, they have lower income on average than other Canadians, so the value of the CCB is higher than comparable non-Indigenous families. The result? A gain in income relative to other Canadians, and thus a narrowing of the CWB gap between First Nations and other communities.

There’s an important lesson here. Tens of billions in additional budgetary spending and legal settlements did not move the needle. What did lead to a measurable improvement was legislation creating financial benefits for all eligible Canadian families with children regardless of race. Racially inspired policies are terrible for many reasons, especially because they rarely achieve their goals in practise. If we want to improve life for First Nations people, we should increase opportunities for Canadians of all racial backgrounds and not enact racially targeted policies.

Moreover, racial policies are also fraught with unintended consequences. In this case, the flood of federal money has made First Nations more dependent rather than less dependent on government. In fact, from 2018 to 2022, “Own Source Revenue” (business earnings plus property taxes and fees) among First Nations bands increased—but not as much as transfers from government. The result? Greater dependency on government transfers.

This finding is not just a statistical oddity. Previous research has shown that First Nations who are relatively less dependent on government transfers tend to achieve higher living standards (again, as measured by the CWB index). Thus, the increase in dependency presided over by the Trudeau government does not augur well for the future.

One qualification: this finding is not as robust as I would like because the number of band governments filing reports on their finances has drastically declined. Of 630 First Nation governments, only 260 filed audited statements for fiscal 2022. All First Nations are theoretically obliged by the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, 2013, to publish such statements, but the Trudeau government announced there would be no penalties for non-compliance, leading to a precipitous decline in reporting.

This is a shame, because First Nations, as they often insist, are governments, not private organizations. And like other governments, they should make their affairs visible to the public. Also, most of their income comes from Canadian taxpayers. Both band members and other Canadians have a right to know how much money they receive, how it’s being spent and whether it’s achieving its intended goals.

Author:

Tom Flanagan

Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Distinguished Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary