Food
The Trudeau government’s latest assault on transparency is buried in Bill C-69
From the Macdonald Laurier Institute
By Aaron Wudrick for Inside Policy
The new powers granted to the minister of health under Bill C-69 are considerable. For example, they allow the minister to unilaterally make decisions regarding drug approvals and food safety regulations, effectively pulling products off the shelves of stores without the typical procedural safeguards. This concentration of power in the hands of the minister circumvents much-needed scrutiny and risks politicizing health decisions.
As the Trudeau government scrambles to pass its spring 2024 budget measures through Parliament before the summer recess, most of the media’s focus has centred on the budget’s headline measure, the increase in the capital gains inclusion rate. Unusually, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland chose not to include that change in its main budget bill, saying she would instead soon introduce those measures in a separate bill.
Meanwhile, the remainder of the budget measures are contained in Bill C-69, an omnibus bill that has attracted little media attention. That is a shame, as it contains provisions that warrant closer scrutiny, particularly the proposed changes to the Food and Drug Act. These amendments grant the minister of health sweeping powers, exacerbating the Trudeau government’s longstanding habit of undermining proper procedural channels when it finds them to be inconvenient.
The new powers granted to the minister of health under Bill C-69 are considerable. For example, they allow the minister to unilaterally make decisions regarding drug approvals and food safety regulations, effectively pulling products off the shelves of stores without the typical procedural safeguards. This concentration of power in the hands of the minister circumvents much-needed scrutiny and risks politicizing health decisions. It is not hard to see how such authority could easily lead to arbitrary or politically motivated actions, further diminishing public trust in a health system battered by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Health Minister Mark Holland defends these new powers by arguing that they are necessary for protecting public health swiftly and effectively and suggests that only a “dishonest” minister would misuse such powers. He fails to mention that governance should not rely solely on the personal integrity of individual ministers but on robust, transparent processes that ensure accountability. It is concerning that Holland advocates bypassing established departmental procedures, which raises questions about the motivations behind these proposed changes.
A more appropriate regulatory approach would trust independent agencies, including Health Canada, to oversee the safety of health products. Establishing clear guidelines and procedures for evaluating and removing unsafe products would ensure consistency, fairness, and transparency in decision-making processes.
Unfortunately, this approach contrasts sharply with the Trudeau government’s preference for consolidating power and limiting oversight.
For instance, the Trudeau government has been criticized for its use of secret orders-in-council, which bypass public scrutiny and reduce transparency. These orders often contain sensitive decisions that the government simply prefers to keep out of the public eye.
The government has also allowed the federal access to information system to atrophy, with frequent delays and heavily redacted documents further undermining the principle of open government.
In 2017, the Trudeau government introduced changes that critics argued would limit the independence and effectiveness of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO). These amendments allowed the government to control the PBO’s work plan and staffing, potentially reducing its ability to hold the government accountable. More recently, the government cut the budget of the Information Commissioner’s office, undermining the capacity of an already overwhelmed independent officer of Parliament to hold the government to account, with the commissioner herself noting that “this reduction in my budget will spell long delays for complainants who are seeking information from government institutions.”
Further examples of this troubling trend include the government’s proposal in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic that sought to grant the government extraordinary powers to tax and spend unilaterally – without parliamentary approval – for almost two years. Later in the pandemic, the government faced significant criticism from Auditor General Karen Hogan for the lack of transparency and accountability regarding the allocation and spending of tens of billions in relief funds: “I am concerned about the lack of rigour on post-payment verifications and collection activities,” Hogan said in 2022.
Taken together, a clear pattern emerges of a government that regularly seeks to undermine transparency, limit oversight, and concentrate power within the executive branch, and Bill C-69 is just the latest attempt.
The government should back off and drop these proposed new unilateral ministerial powers. Strong regulatory oversight, coupled with transparency and accountability, won’t impair the government’s ability to regulate health products – all while safeguarding democratic principles and public trust.
Aaron Wudrick is the Director of the Domestic Policy Program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
Business
The painful return of food inflation exposes Canada’s trade failures
This article supplied by Troy Media.
Canadians are feeling the pinch as Ottawa’s trade blunders and a weak dollar drive grocery bills higher
Almost a year ago, Canada’s Food Price Report projected that food inflation in 2025 would range between three and five per cent. We now stand squarely at four.
For consumers, it’s been a bruising year. After months of relative calm, grocery prices have surged again since spring, driven by tariffs, weather disruptions and a weakening Canadian dollar.
Between March and September, food inflation jumped sharply across several everyday staples. Coffee and tea prices rose by nearly 15 percentage points, sugar and confectionery climbed by more than three, while beef and condiments each increased by about one.
These aren’t luxury goods—they’re breakfast-table essentials. Canadians are paying more for their morning coffee, family barbecues and pantry staples than they were just six months ago.
When compared with other G7 countries, Canada’s performance stands out—and not in a good way. Japan currently faces the highest food inflation rate at 7.2 per cent, followed by the United Kingdom at 5.1 per cent. Canada sits third at 3.8 per cent, the only G7 country to post three consecutive monthly increases. Italy follows closely at 3.7 per cent, while the United States, Germany and France are all below Canada at 3.2, 2.9 and 1.7 per cent, respectively. For an advanced, food-producing nation, this is not a comfortable position.
Much of the renewed pressure can be traced back to trade policy. The counter tariffs introduced in March, combined with new U.S. measures, have quietly inflated costs across the entire food chain. Tariffs are by nature inflationary: they disrupt market efficiencies, raise input prices and trigger retaliatory actions that make goods more expensive on both sides of the border. What begins as a political statement quickly becomes an economic burden, felt most acutely in grocery aisles.
The loonie’s recent weakness has only made matters worse. Since January, the Canadian dollar has fallen significantly against the U.S. dollar, amplifying the cost of imported products such as coffee, cocoa and processed foods. For a country that imports roughly $70 billion in food annually, currency depreciation functions like a silent tax on every grocery bill.
As we move into the winter months, these forces show few signs of easing. Transportation costs remain high, retailers are passing along supplier increases and consumers are already adapting by trading down or buying less. While overall inflation is moderating elsewhere in the world, Canada’s food sector is moving in the opposite direction.
Prime Minister Mark Carney recently remarked that his government will be judged by the prices Canadians pay at the grocery store. On that score, Canadians are indeed paying attention. Tariffs, trade friction and a soft currency have all converged to make food more expensive. Voters are noticing.
In a world where food inflation is once again a global problem, Canada’s return to the top of the G7 pack is an unenviable distinction.
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
Your $350 Grocery Question: Gouging or Economics?
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a visiting scholar at McGill University and perhaps better known as the Food Professor, has lamented a strange and growing trend among Canadians. It seems that large numbers of especially younger people would prefer a world where grocery chains and food producers operated as non-profits and, ideally, were owned by governments.
Sure, some of them have probably heard stories about the empty shelves and rationing in Soviet-era food stores. But that’s just because “real” communism has never been tried.
In a slightly different context, University of Toronto Professor Joseph Heath recently responded to an adjacent (and popular) belief that there’s no reason we can’t grow all our food in publicly-owned farms right on our city streets and parks:
“Unfortunately, they do have answers, and anyone who stops to think for a minute will know what they are. It’s not difficult to calculate the amount of agricultural land that is required to support the population of a large urban area (such as Tokyo, where Saitō lives). All of the farms in Japan combined produce only enough food to sustain 38% of the Japanese population. This is all so obvious that it feels stupid even to be pointing it out.”
Sure, food prices have been rising. Here’s a screenshot from Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index price trends page. As you can see, the 12-month percentage change of the food component of the CPI is currently at 3.4 percent. That’s kind of inseparable from inflation.

But it’s just possible that there’s more going on here than greedy corporate price gouging.
It should be obvious that grocery retailers are subject to volatile supply chain costs. According to Statistics Canada, as of June 2025, for example, the price of “livestock and animal products” had increased by 130 percent over their 2007 prices. And “crops” saw a 67 percent increase over that same period. Grocers also have to lay out for higher packaging material costs that include an extra 35 percent (since 2021) for “foam products for packaging” and 78 percent more for “paperboard containers”.
In the years since 2012, farmers themselves had to deal with 49 percent growth in “commercial seed and plant” prices, 46 percent increases in the cost of production insurance, and a near-tripling of the cost of live cattle.
So should we conclude that Big Grocery is basically an industry whose profits are held to a barely sustainable minimum by macro economic events far beyond their control? Well that’s pretty much what the Retail Council of Canada (RCC) claims. Back in 2023, Competition Bureau Canada published a lengthy response from the RCC to the consultation on the Market study of retail grocery.
The piece made a compelling argument that food sales deliver razor-thin profit margins which are balanced by the sale of more lucrative non-food products like cosmetics.
However, things may not be quite as simple as the RCC presents them. For instance:
- While it’s true that the large number of supermarket chains in Canada suggests there’s little concentration in the sector, the fact is that most independents buy their stock as wholesale from the largest companies.
- The report pointed to Costco and Walmart as proof that new competitors can easily enter the market, but those decades-old well-financed expansions prove little about the way the modern market works. And online grocery shopping in Canada is still far from established.
- Consolidated reporting methods would make it hard to substantiate some of the report’s claims of ultra-thin profit margins on food.
- The fact that grocers are passing on costs selectively through promotional strategies, private-label pricing, and shrinkflation adjustments suggests that they retain at least some control over their supplier costs.
- The claim that Canada’s food price inflation is more or less the same as in other peer countries was true in 2022. But we’ve since seen higher inflation here than, for instance, in the U.S.
Nevertheless, there’s vanishingly little evidence to support claims of outright price gouging. Rising supply chain costs are real and even high-end estimates of Loblaw, Metro, and Sobeys net profit margins are in the two to five percent range. That’s hardly robber baron territory.
What probably is happening is some opportunistic margin-taking through various selective pricing strategies. And at least some price collusion has been confirmed.
How much might such measures have cost the average Canadian family? A reasonable estimate places the figure at between $150 and $350 a year. That’s real money, but it’s hardly enough to justify gutting the entire free market in favor of some suicidal system of central planning and control.
-
MAiD1 day agoDisabled Canadians increasingly under pressure to opt for euthanasia during routine doctor visits
-
Alberta1 day agoPetition threatens independent school funding in Alberta
-
Business1 day agoCanada Revenue Agency found a way to hit “Worse Than Rock Bottom”
-
Digital ID1 day agoToronto airport requests approval of ‘digital IDs’ for domestic airport travel
-
Media1 day agoCarney speech highlights how easily newsrooms are played by politicians
-
Business2 days agoTrans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
Opinion1 day agoCarry-On Carney And The Trials Of Brian Peckford
-
Business2 days agoCanada is still paying the price for Trudeau’s fiscal delusions






