by Sylvain Charlebois and Amy Hill
Troy Media

Canadian food and beverage manufacturing plays a key role in supporting farmers and the rest of the food supply chain.

The second largest manufacturing sector, food and beverage, contributed $26.5 billion to Canadian gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020. Just 10 manufacturing sectors – including food manufacturing – contribute 80 per cent of manufacturing’s total portion of GDP.

In the last decade, few new food plants have opened and there have been significant closures. Nevertheless, food manufacturing was the second largest manufacturing sector in Canada after transportation equipment in 2020.

And food manufacturing still managed to grow its GDP contribution from 13.18 per cent in 2010 to 13.47 per cent in 2020.

All this has happened despite the sector lacking investment, suffering thin margins, facing additional grocers’ fees and dealing with aging facilities. So the food and beverage manufacturing sector in Canada is resilient.

But for Canada to become a global force in food processing innovation, the industry needs to be broadly recognized through better, more supportive policy.

And, as we’ve seen through the COVID-19 pandemic, domestic manufacturing is critical to Canadian security, including food security.

A new report by Dalhousie University uses 24 variables to examine the Canadian food and beverage manufacturing industry and the context in which it operates.

Data examined the state of the industry in 2010 and 2020, and was used to forecast industry outcomes in 2030, should it continue the current trajectory. All data came from publicly available sources.

Investment, labour concerns

Labour and greenfield investments are significant market concerns. Canada has had a small number of large companies operating broadly across the country, but that number has been shrinking over the past 10 years, with approximately 20 new national facilities opening in the recent decade compared to approximately 4,000 in the U.S.

Manufacturing is also experiencing a labour shortage, but there are concerns that the shortage is due to working conditions and unattractive wages. Wages, in constant dollars, have increased by 16 per cent over the past decade, two per cent above the 14 per cent inflation of goods and services.

Hourly food manufacturing wages remain below the average for the goods-producing industries.

Food manufacturers may be pressured to increase wages to retain skilled workers and attract new workers. Women and underrepresented minorities also present labour opportunities that the sector hasn’t fully realized.

Alongside labour challenges and aging infrastructure, a lack of greenfield investments is stunting innovation in food manufacturing and hampering upgrades to old facilities and technology.

Rising costs, thin margins

Grocers’ fees and rising input prices are eroding thin margins. Fees by grocers aren’t new, but they’ve increasingly been used since mid-2020 to structure supplier-grocer relationships.

The price of food products at the factory gate has been steadily increasing but might be eroded by measures such as grocer’s fees.
Factory gate prices rose by 27 per cent, while prices at the farm gate rose by 25 per cent over the same period.

Machinery and equipment prices have increased by 36.1 per cent over the past decade and will continue to do so.

Home renovations and regional lockdowns in 2020 impacted construction and put upward price pressure on building new facilities.

On a positive note, as players such as Google and Amazon enter the transportation market, advances in delivery may benefit food manufacturers and reduce costs.

Technology and waste

Technology and environmental concerns will be important over the next decade.

Investments are required to support the digitization of food manufacturing and have been on the horizon for some time, but most Canadian food manufacturers haven’t transitioned.

In 2010, consumers were thought to be the main cause of food waste, but this has been found to be untrue. Numbers from 2020 indicate that food processing and manufacturing account for 37 per cent of food waste.

This needs to change. Food waste often ends up in landfills and creates emissions equal to putting an additional 12 million cars on the road in Canada each year.

Regrettably, direct federal financial support for food and beverage manufacturers has been limited, possibly because most support typically comes from provincial governments.

It may also be that food and beverage manufacturing’s strong GDP performance makes it seem that government support is unnecessary.

But the pandemic’s spotlight on the food supply chain has changed things.

Government should also consider policies that support the industry and ensure Canadian food security. While financial support may not be realistic now, policy is an important tool for governments.

For example, suppliers have long called for a code of conduct between grocers and suppliers to deal with grocers’ fees. The new draft code from Sobeys and Food, Health and Consumer Products of Canada (FHCPC) provides a framework for a government version.

There are some serious questions to consider about the relationship between industry and the federal government, and between suppliers and Canada’s large grocers.

Partnerships are needed if the industry is to continue to provide food security to Canadians and if Canada is to address some of its biggest challenges in the next few years – including climate change.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University. Amy Hill holds a Bachelor of Science (Marine Biology/Oceanography combined) and a Masters of Marine Management degree from Dalhousie University.

by Franco Terrazzano
Troy Media

If you think the federal government’s so-called historic spending on a national child-care scheme is big, wait until you hear how much the government is spending to cover its debt interest costs.

In its 2021 budget, the Justin Trudeau government is promising to spend $30 billion over five years on a national child-care program. That’s a tonne of money considering we couldn’t afford it pre-pandemic.

But it’s still five times less than what the feds will have to pay in debt interest charges over that period, which will total $153 billion by 2026. That’s nearly $4,000 per Canadian. And instead of that money going towards health care or lower taxes, it’s going into the pockets of bond fund managers.

Assuming the feds can hold the line on budgeted spending – a generous assumption given the government’s track record – the deficit by the end of 2025 will still be $30 billion. The interest charges that year will be $39 billion. That means the borrowing to make up the budget gap couldn’t even cover the interest payments.

On top of this interest, taxpayers will have to eventually pay back the $1,000,000,000,000 – one trillion – debt tab.

It’s no wonder economists’ spidey senses are tingling from this debt-fueled spending spree.

The University of Calgary’s Jack Mintz noted that Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland “is rolling the dice that never-ending deficits will be manageable.” Mintz added that “just a one-point increase in interest rates would then increase the annual deficit by close to $5 billion.”

In the few months since the fall economic statement was released, the private sector has revised its 10-year government bond rate forecast up about half a percentage point. What happens if low interest rates inch up?

Mintz isn’t the only expert raising concerns.

“Are we really going to make this assumption that interest rates are going to stay static for the next 10 or 20 years?” said David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Rosenberg Research, on BNN Bloomberg. “I just find so many people have short memories against what happened in the 1970s into the 1980s, and then all the tough choices and the hardship to get our fiscal situation back into some mode of stability.”

Former finance minister Paul Martin knows a thing or two about tough choices. After all, he cut government spending by about 10 per cent during his mission to erase the federal deficit in the 1990s. He also knows a thing or two about the dangers of debt binges.
“The debt and deficit are not inventions of ideology,” said Martin during his budget speech in 1995. “They are facts of arithmetic. The quicksand of compound interest is real.”

The provinces also learned their lesson the hard way.

“When [Ralph] Klein became premier, government debt daily snatched money away from patients and students due to escalating interest costs,” said government finance expert Mark Milke in his book Ralph vs. Rachel. “Between 1985 and 1993 in Alberta, the cost of interest on Alberta’s growing debt was $7.2 billion, equivalent to two full years of what the province spent on health care just a few years previous.”

Saskatchewan had to come to terms with its deficit addiction by enduring “a lot of pain,” according to former finance minister Janice MacKinnon who closed 52 hospitals across the prairie province.

“We left a fiscal situation in Saskatchewan until it was a crisis and so we had to make dramatic cuts to fundamental programs and raise taxes to get out of the situation,” said MacKinnon.

The moral of the story is that the best time to put out a fire is before it spreads. But by betting the house that interest rates will stay low forever and nearly doubling Canada’s debt in a few short years, Budget 2021 is adding fuel to the fire.

Franco Terrazzano is the Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

by Dr. Sylvain Charlebois
Troy Media

Spend, spend, spend – that’s the strategy. And green is the colour of choice.

The environment is front, left and centre in the latest federal budget. Everybody is getting something to get more environmentally focused – well, almost everybody.

While taxpayers won’t get a break any time soon, the federal government’s footprint in our economy will grow substantially over the next few years.

However, these are not normal times. Despite record deficits, most Canadians will see this budget as a parenthesis, buying time before things get back to some sort of normalcy. Someone will have to pay for all this but it doesn’t seem to matter right now.

The federal government delivered very much what most people were expecting in the April 19 budget – and the agri-food sector is getting its due share.

The carbon tax had become a problem for farmers who had little or no option to reduce emissions. With a carbon tax likely going up to $170 a tonne by 2030, drying grains will get increasingly expensive since little alternative technology exists.

But the budget supports the use of green technologies for farmers, with $50 million set aside for the purchase of more efficient grain dryers for farmers across Canada.

It’s money better spent in this way than buying $12-million eco-freezers for Loblaws, a decision last year that became a farce. Farmers have fewer choices than grocers when it comes to reducing their carbon footprint.

Farmers already had access to programs to support the purchase of greener energy but the federal government clearly wanted to make a statement with the grain dryer funding.

Broadband internet is also getting more funding. Increasing capacity to allow for more efficient communications in remote areas should be a priority, especially with COVID-19 creating the need for more telecommuting.

Canada is a vast land that needs all the improvements in communications connections it can get. More investment for farmers and people who seek a country lifestyle is welcomed.

But the budget did miss one massive target.

Over the last few months, the federal government has been incredibly generous with farmers in the supply management systems: they will receive more than $2.7 billion over several years in compensation for hypothetical losses incurred by trade deals with Asia, Europe and the United States.

However, according to internal government documents, processors are set to lose over $300 million a year with an influx of more imported products sold in grocery stores.

For 2021-2022, food processors impacted by trade deals are to get $1 million. That’s it.

Farmers within the supply management systems can always recalibrate quotas, allowing them to stay in the system or retire. But food processors will simply lose market shares to competitive products from elsewhere in the world. This will be seen by processors, especially in the dairy sector, as a pure insult.

Once again, the federal government didn’t forget many Canadians who have been left behind by the pandemic, which is good news. The budget will provide $140 million to top up the Emergency Food Security Fund and Local Food Infrastructure Fund to strengthen our food security.

While most economists agree that consumers will start spending again as soon as they can, a growing consensus is that we’re looking at a K-shaped recovery. While some will do well, others will suffer. Supporting not-for-profits and food banks should be a priority.

Over $20 million will also be spent eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, which disproportionately impact regions outside Ontario and Quebec. It’s a nice thought but this issue is complicated. Depending on who is in power in Ontario and Quebec, only time will tell if trade within our country will become easier than it is with other countries. It’s a pipe dream for now.

Finally, the budget signalled the government’s intention to negotiate lower credit card transaction and interchange fees. This will help food retailers, restaurants and other small businesses. These businesses have been largely forgotten by the government in the last 14 months.

However, lowering credit fees will be as challenging as getting rid of interprovincial trade barriers. It’s another pipe dream but at least the government’s heart is in the right place.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University

by Dr. Sylvain Charlebois
Troy Media

Nobody wants to hear about higher taxes. It’s an unpopular and counterintuitive notion to those who believe taxation is a call of death for economies looking for growth.

But the world is different now, which is why United States Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s call for a minimum corporate tax to stop the so-called race to the bottom is an interesting one.

The G20 corporate tax average went from 33 per cent in 2000 to roughly 27 per cent in 2020. For Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, the average went from 33 to 23 per cent.

Over the last two decades, depending on who was in charge in any given country, the temptation to lower corporate taxes and increase foreign direct investments at times has been overwhelming.

What the U.S. is proposing is a 21 per cent minimum federal corporate tax rate, coupled with eliminating exemptions on income from countries that don’t enact a minimum tax to discourage offshoring of jobs.

Given the slim margins, the food industry has certainly been influenced by fluctuating corporate tax rates in recent years. Restaurant Brands International is essentially a Canadian company because of a tax inversion play to create a holding company that includes Burger King, Popeyes and, of course, Tim Hortons. When Donald Trump lowered corporate taxes in the U.S. while president, the urge to go south only grew.

But now the world appears to be of the mind that it’s time to think more broadly. The European Union and Canada are willing to discuss the issue.

However, an agreement among industrialized countries might not be easy. Corporate tax rates vary widely from nine per cent in Hungary and 12.5 in Ireland, to 32 per cent in France and Germany, to 31.5 per cent in Portugal. The combined corporate income tax rates in Canada and the U.S. are at 26 per cent. Rate differentials are substantial and the revenue base for governments to be sacrificed are significant.

Conversations about subsidies are also necessary. Levelling tax rates is one thing but countries also tend to offer sweet subsidies to attract investments. Maple Leaf Foods opted to build a new plant in Indiana after being offered a generous public subsidy exceeding US $50 million.

Taxing companies that make profits even if they don’t have a physical presence in a country – like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple – has been a goal of OECD countries for years. Yet talks about global taxation schemes have always stalled, essentially because fiscal policies are often seen as highly guarded instruments that governments have at their disposal to influence their economies.

Complying with any international guidance on tax rates would mean letting go of some fiscal sovereignty. Moreover, the politics of changing tax regimes in some countries, including Canada, would be a huge undertaking.

Still, in the post-COVID-19 era, we should expect more global policy co-ordination. The pandemic has made many governments and, frankly, most of us realize the obvious. Health, economic and environmental risks know no borders, and methods to mitigate these risks merit a more holistic view.

Countries can pursue nationalistic agendas on a variety of issues but our collective consciousness, specific to how some decisions impact other parts of the world, now has a different frame of reference.

For the food sector, Canada has seen its share of nearshoring or onshoring in recent months. Kraft Heinz is reinvesting in Montreal, building a new plant for its ketchup brand. AB InBev announced recently it was going to brew Corona and Stella Artois beers in London, Ont. Lovingly Made Ingredients, a United Kingdom-based vegetable protein manufacturer, opened a new facility in Calgary. European giant Roquette opened the world’s largest pea protein plant in Portage la Prairie, Man., a few months ago.

After years of seeing many food manufacturing jobs disappear in Canada, this new wave of investments is certainly welcome.
A global push for more carbon pricing and a better appreciation for the inherent risks in the supply chain are likely enticing companies to rethink how and where manufacturing plants ought to be built.

This new systemic way of thinking is giving Canada a competitive advantage. Corporations already appear to be assessing risks very differently. It’s time for governments to catch up.

The generations severely affected by the pandemic will perceive risks differently than citizens who have been largely spared COVID’s wrath. Citizens who pay a lot of taxes will expect governments to set up mechanisms not only to mitigate clear and present dangers, but also future ones from abroad.

Whether it’s about setting up a minimum corporate tax rate among OECD countries or something else, our selfish ways of governing are no longer viable given the global risks we must manage.

Yellen’s effort is a good one, even if it doesn’t amount to much of anything. Harmonized global policy thinking is needed more than ever.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

by Dr. Sylvain Charlebois
Troy Media

We learned recently that McCain Foods has upped the ante in TruLeaf Sustainable Agriculture and its wholly-owned subsidiary GoodLeaf Farms, Canada’s largest commercial vertical farming operation.

McCain has invested $65 million in GoodLeaf, making it the single largest shareholder in the venture. The idea is to create a national network of sustainable vertical farms that will bring fresh produce to several urban markets in the country.

These are exactly the type of projects we need in Canada.

GoodLeaf has come a long way from its humble beginnings in an abandoned school in Bible Hill, N.S. It now operates a fully-automated 45,000-square-foot facility in Guelph, Ont., and is looking to expand its operations nationally, with McCain’s support.

These are highly capital-intensive projects and getting a private sector leader in partnership is nothing short of a coup. The company has the technological experience and expertise to do well.

McCain brings to the table far more than just cash. The company is probably one of Canada’s best agri-food vertical integrators. It understands supply chain economics very well. The potato industry in Canada is amazingly well-co-ordinated, mostly due to McCain’s leadership. From farm to fork, farmers, distributors and even food service, including players like McDonald’s, all work together to improve efficiency and quality.

Last year, McCain had to deal with a 300-million-pound glut of potatoes due to the closure of thousands of restaurants. More than 75 per cent of fries are consumed through food service. Most of the glut was rerouted or repurposed within months, and 12 months later, the industry is back on its feet.

While milk was being dumped everywhere, the potato industry regrouped and got it done. It was an impressive feat.
McCain’s ability to work the food chain will help GoodLeaf. Since these projects are about generating business in a high-volume, low-margin environment, risks can be high. Dealing with grocers is never easy but understanding the stock-keeping unit (SKU) game and what happens in grocery stores will be critical. These partnerships are key for Canada’s ongoing pursuit of more food autonomy.

Food autonomy is about moving the needle on domestic production. It’s not about food sovereignty, which fosters the desire to produce and regulate everything within our borders. An autonomous food system is about building production capacity in an open economy.

Investing in controlled-environment agriculture (CEA) is about optimizing growing conditions for any crops, throughout the year, regardless of weather patterns. CEA technologies have come a long way to include hydroponics, aeroponics, aquaculture and aquaponics.

There are several ways to grow crops effectively and safely. GoodLeaf uses hydroponic techniques to produce sustainable, safe, pesticide-free, nutrient-dense leafy greens, very much what a growing number of consumers are looking for.

Vertical farming also knows no limitations when designing a supply chain. To reduce logistical requirements and increase product quality and freshness, vertical farms can be built in cities, in suburbs, anywhere. Growing microgreens or produce generates no smell, unlike livestock.

The potential is substantial, especially for a country like Canada where produce price volatility has historically given consumers sticker shock.

According to NielsenIQ numbers, vegetable prices over the last 12 months have increased by almost 11 per cent. Some products, like tomatoes and cauliflower, have seen higher increases.

When healthy food is perceived as financially out of reach, some consumers will walk away and their nutrition will suffer.

With climate change, CEA and vertical farming can become humanity’s best friend, no matter where you live in the world.

Conventional outdoor agriculture has also come a long way but it remains highly vulnerable to a variety of uncontrollable factors.

So the McCain-GoodLeaf partnership is a step in the right direction. We have access to clean water, clean energy and affordable land in Canada, compared to other places. All the main elements are there for this growth.

But $65 million is still a very modest sum compared to what we’re seeing elsewhere in the industrialized world.

AppHarvest, an agri-tech company operating one of the world’s largest CEA facilities in Morehead, Ky., became a publicly-traded company in the fall.

The transition provides AppHarvest with more than $600 million of unrestricted cash, which will primarily be used to fund operations and the building of many other facilities around the United States.

With climate change affecting crops in Florida, Arizona and California, coupled with the emergence of better soil and plant science, agri-tech clearly has the attention of many investors. The pandemic just made the issue even more obvious. America has now over 50 major vertical farming operations, with more to come.

We have much to do in Canada to catch up. But this new McCain-GoodLeaf venture should be a good case study.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

by Dr. Sylvain Charlebois
Troy Media

According to the United Nations, 2021 is the International Year of Fruits and Vegetables. Many couldn’t care less about a proclamation from a global agency that has been criticized over the years as being inner-looking and out of touch.

Some of this criticism is certainly warranted but depending on the topic, these campaigns can bring a healthy load of success and change.

The year 2016 was the International Year of Pulses. At the time, consumers were starting to mentally correlate food choices with environmental stewardship.

Context helped shine some light on Canada’s most overlooked crop: pulses.

Slowly, Canada’s becoming a super vegetable protein powerhouse and consumers are buying in. In 2020, plant-based sales grew 31 per cent in Canada, even amid the pandemic.

The focus on fruits and vegetables this year can assist the UN’s ambitions to advocate for the importance of healthy diets and lifestyles through sustainable food systems.

Our fight with COVID-19 went from keeping safe to achieving immunity in the last month or so. Collective immunity has been top of mind for many people, given our acute focus on how vaccines are being rolled out.

The best medicine, virus or not, is sound nutrition. One of the major pieces to building a strong immunity system is eating more fruits and vegetables. If one country needs to be reminded of that, it’s certainly Canada.

In 2021, despite volatile prices, 41 per cent of Canadians intend to increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables. Last year, it was 46 per cent. Canadians did buy more fruits and vegetables at retail in 2020, but they have bought more of other food categories as well.

According to NielsenIQ, vegetable sales in Canada have risen seven per cent in volume and 13 per cent in dollars since vegetables became more expensive. Fruit unit sales were up five per cent and seven per cent in dollars.

Restaurants aren’t a significant market for fruits, so lower percentages there aren’t surprising. In volume, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia all saw sales up in volume by eight per cent for vegetables and six per cent for fruits.

The lowest increase for both categories was in the Maritimes, at two per cent for vegetables and only one per cent for fruits. Those figures are disappointingly low.

Most products experienced tremendous growth in retail sales in 2020. Tomatoes were the most popular produce in 2020, as sales grew almost 28 per cent in dollars. Since some people were still looking for convenience, bagged vegetables grew 25.8 per cent in the last 52 weeks.

In fruits, oranges saw the biggest increase in sales at 21.9 per cent, followed by cherries and lemons.

Dollar sales of both celery and peaches dropped in 2020 but this is likely because these products’ price points were much lower than in 2019.

Highly-publicized recalls also have impacted some categories in the last year, mainly for peaches and lettuce. Numbers suggest onions dodged a bullet in 2020 as they too were subject to a recall.

But given what happened to the food-service industry in the last 10 months, these numbers may just be a mirage.

People cooked more often at home and that required more produce being bought at the grocery store. Unit sales for tomatoes, for example, only grew six per cent. Almost one Canadian in five started a home garden in 2020 and many grew tomatoes, but still. In general, the numbers aren’t impressively high with many restaurants closing.

Figures from NielsenIQ suggest we may not be buying and eating more produce, as our minds may have yet to focus on healthy eating. Since March 2020, it has all been about baking, snacking and indulging to simply overlook the awfulness of the pandemic, if only for a while.

As suggested by Canada’s Food Guide, fruits and vegetables are vital components for achieving quality of life and a stronger immune system amid the pandemic.

Also, recalls and highly volatile retail prices spook consumers all the time, which is why many consider produce the most vulnerable section of the grocery store.

Declaring 2021 the International Year of Fruits and Vegetables is both timely and important.

vAs more governments investigate food autonomy as a priority in the post-COVID era, building awareness of the value of consuming produce will be parallel.

Building capacity through controlled-environment agriculture in Canada can only make our produce supply chains less vulnerable to macro-factors like currency and bacterial outbreaks.

We also desperately need to take care of our immune systems, and as soon as possible. Reminding us of the importance of eating enough produce benefits everyone.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

by Dr. Sylvain Charlebois
Troy Media

It was certainly a year to be forgotten for the food service industry. Statistics Canada numbers told us this week that food service sales dropped a whopping 32 per cent from the fourth quarter of 2019 to the same period in 2020.

The food retail/service ratio, a key metric to assess how important food service is in our lives, also saw a significant shift in the fourth quarter of 2020. Before the pandemic, about 35 per cent of all the money spent on food in Canada was in food service and restaurants.

In quarter two of 2020, it went below 20 per cent, the lowest level in decades.

It’s back up to 24.3 per cent but that’s still a very low percentage compared to before the pandemic.

Across the country, the sector registered fewer than 20 bankruptcies since August.

But many restaurants have simply closed or given up on their business. COVID-19 has ripped away the dreams of many entrepreneurs and chefs. It’s heartbreaking.

Even worse, a large number of new Canadians, who have brought more innovation and wealth into the sector over the last several years, have had to close shop. A lot of them were family businesses. It’s happening around the world, including in Canada.

But COVID-19 may offer the food service industry an opportunity to experience a great reset. Like many sectors, food service has had to adapt, pivot, convert and change over the last 12 months to survive. It has been incredible.

While the industry will come out of the pandemic with scars, the future presents a great opportunity to redefine its purpose in our overall economy.

Even with the pandemic’s end in sight, it’s unclear if people will be comfortable going out and about, patronizing their favourite restaurants again.

It will take time before most Canadians stop fearing the virus. The fear must be managed carefully by restaurant operators.
While many establishments have disappeared, the gap created by the massive exodus will provide room for more innovation.
New recipes, new cuisines, new ingredients, new tastes, new ways of serving, new restaurant designs and more.

Canadians, coming out of their kitchen-intensive pandemic days more food literate, will have different expectations. The need for more creativity will spark innovation for years to come.

Perhaps it won’t happen at the very beginning of the post-pandemic era, when pent-up demand will get people out no matter what. But soon after, Canadians will expect more.

The way the competitive landscape is defined by operators will also change. As a result of the pandemic, the supply chain is much more open and democratized. Many companies can sell online – and not just food. Prepared meals and meal kits are being delivered at a record pace.

With e-commerce becoming a legitimate strategic option for a growing number of operations, farmers, farmers’ markets, and processors can and are selling directly to consumers.

Kraft Heinz, of all companies, is operating three ghost kitchens in Canada. Imagine, a multinational consumer goods company delivering meals to consumers. Profits aren’t the aim – rather, it’s about understanding the ever-changing customer.

Loblaws, through its PC Chef app, is in the meal kits business as well, prepared by well-established restaurants in some parts of the country.

The pandemic has altered the rules for everyone, including restauranteurs.

Market access and consumers’ expectations will make things interesting. A combination of both always leads to more innovation.

On the human side of the equation, the sector will need to find a way not only to attract more talent but also to offer people a chance to build careers. Salaries and how workers are compensated need urgent attention.

During COVID-19, the no-tipping agenda was brought back into focus. Tipping is known to be discriminatory and can only benefit the few. The experience, and the meal itself, is the product of many people’s work, not just the server.

To make the sector more attractive, and for equality’s sake, the practice of including the tip in prices, like we see in many parts of the world, will need serious consideration.

It’s time for a great reset so the sector becomes a place of choice for a growing number of people who have lost their professional positions due to COVID’s wrath.

It’s unclear when Canadians will be back out in full force and once again spending at least 35 per cent of their budget on food consumed outside the home. It could take a few years, perhaps more.

But as with everything, humans will bounce back – and a different food service industry will surely be ready.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

by Dr. Sylvain Charlebois
Troy Media

Humans are creatures of habit. Most of us are hardwired to leave our homes to go to a place of work, along with colleagues. Most never really questioned it.

Earning a living was about going through the endless commute, dealing with gossip and office politics, and working with people you like and dislike.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic and the crisis surrounding it have made the inefficiencies of the normal 9-to-5 work day more obvious.

Almost a year after the pandemic came suddenly into our lives, reports suggest that many people are working longer hours while experiencing screen fatigue and the challenges of working remotely. Many have struggled to strike a balance between work and personal time when both are spent under the same roof.

Physical barriers that divided us from our workspace no longer exist for many of us.

In the process, employers and employees have realized that substantial savings can be achieved by using technologies that weren’t around just a few years ago. Now we have virtual meetings and conferences – some virtual conferences even get participants to create avatars when attending.

But attending virtual anything won’t get people to eat together or grab a coffee while chatting about work. You can’t feed an avatar.

Some conferences, therefore, are starting to send food and samples to participants at their homes so the experience can be synchronized between many addressees.

Whether it’s about sampling new food or offering a full meal delivered at the exact same time to meeting participants, the food service industry is more capable of supporting these types of events than before the pandemic.

Nothing will replace face-to-face meetings and conferences, obviously, and they will come back. But for cash-strapped organizations, or companies that can’t afford lavish hotels and restaurants, the technologies being developed today can help to get their feet through valuable doors. And the food service industry – catering, casual or fine dining players – can be part of this new trend.

Trying new products without the distraction that hyper-socialization brings at events can get potential customers to pay more attention.

The Reddit-GameStop situation points to how democratized information can change market conditions swiftly, regardless of how much capacity an organization has. It’s a new world.

Work flexibility is slowly becoming a thing. The flex option will allow employees to come into the office up to three days a week. An increasing number of companies are committing to getting employees to work from home most of the time, while visiting the workplace from time to time. The U.S. company Salesforce, which employs about 50,000 people, is the latest to do so.

The financial case for employers is just too strong for them to overlook opportunities that work-from-home or work-from-away can provide.

Since employers are looking for ways to trust employees when they can’t always see them, we all need to figure out how to foster social capital for ourselves as employers. That’s what the pandemic is forcing us to learn and food service can certainly support our workforce in transition.

The four-day work week is also being considered by a growing number of employers. A Harris Poll suggested that 82 per cent of employees would consider working more hours over four days instead of working fewer over five. Respondents felt it would make them more productive.

Traffic at grocery stores increases by 25 to 30 per cent on Saturdays and Sundays, essentially because most of us only have the weekend to shop for food.

Few of us enjoy grocery shopping on weekends, especially these days. Beyond the long lines at the cashier, by Sunday afternoon, empty shelves aren’t uncommon. In-store merchandizing and traffic management practices could improve to make our grocery experience much more enjoyable.

Online shopping is also likely to expend its footprint. Before COVID-19, about 1.7 per cent of all food was purchased online. Now, it’s almost four per cent. This also provides opportunities for companies to redefine their relationship with consumers, regardless of their roles within the supply chain.

Processors, startups, farmers’ markets and farmers now have a link to consumers without spending millions on marketing, thanks to COVID. That means more choice for consumers and more opportunities for all food players.

So if the 9-to-5 workday ends, good riddance. The food industry can only benefit over time.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

There’s a gap in the Canadian education system that prevents Black Canadians from being both Black and Canadian

by Karine Coen-Sanchez
Troy Media

“Where are you from?” I was asked.

“Canada,” I replied.

“No! I mean where are you really from?”

I never understand that question and why my answer isn’t sufficient. I have to explain my heritage and the reasons why I don’t fit the prototype of what a Canadian person must look like.

Somehow, I can’t be both Black and Canadian. I must position myself in a way that doesn’t ruffle white Canadian fragility and its definition of Blackness.

It’s this kind of all-too-common experience that regularly reminds me that there’s a gap in the Canadian education system that prevents Black Canadians from being both Black and Canadian.

It’s past time for this to change. Students at all levels need more opportunities to learn about race, not only in textbooks but also through experiential education. Teachers and professors need more institutional support to do this and do it well.

Black Canadian history education in elementary, middle or high school only happens in February (Black History Month), and seems to be dominated by the study of U.S slavery! Canadian Black history is erased – it never existed, therefore a Black Canadian can’t exist within a white Canadian society.

Of course, this isn’t true.

Canadian historian Afua Cooper talks about slavery as Canada’s best-kept secret. Concealed racism is in the fabric of our education system and the strategic ignorance has an impact on Black students’ academic progress. This limits students’ reflexivity, critical thinking and understanding of multiculturalism in Canada. As a country, our collective consciousness is unable to understand racialized Canadians because our existence is erased from the very beginning of our educational journeys.

As I recall my academic journey from elementary to high school, I’m reminded that my teachers never taught subjects related to Black Canadian scholars, Black historians and their contribution to the Canadian culture. I never learned about:

Anderson Ruffin Abbott, first Canadian-born Black doctor in Canada;

Elijah McCoy, Canadian-American inventor and engineer;

William Peyton Hubbard, Canadian inventor and politician.

How come I never knew these Black Canadian pioneers? How come I never knew significant Canadian authors such as Dionne Brand, Afua Cooper and George Elliott Clarke? How was this colonial education practised and maintained? And for what purpose?

I learned that my skin doesn’t permit me to be fully Canadian. There’s a distinction between my citizenship and the colour of my skin, reinforced by psychological gaslighting and polite racism.

Now I observe my children’s invisibility in the school system and their collective consciousness manipulated by false stereotypes, and I see them being placed at risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The lack of discussion of anti-Black racism in the Canadian educational system is a covert form of systematic racism contributing to the cycle of racism.

Today, as a PhD student, I also see ingrained racist structures in our post-secondary system preventing students and professors from openly engaging in anti-racist discussions. I recently conducted a survey with racialized university professors across Canadian universities. Alongside some very troubling results about these professors’ experiences of racism throughout their careers, they reported a lack of support when it comes to addressing issues of race and racism in the classroom.

One respondent said: “I self-censor and self-police extensively. I am keenly aware of the broad grey area” when asked: has there been any restriction on developing your course syllabus?

Another respondent answered: “I no longer teach certain texts on the history and theory of race and racism, or on certain political and social conflicts because of the risk.”

Professors are not only victims of racism; they’re also not provided with the support or the tools to encourage classroom inclusivity. With the lack of resources available for racialized professors in Canadian post-secondary institutions, the cycle of racist curriculum and structural racism will continue.

There are solutions. We can draw on the rich work of racialized educators to do better. Educator, activist and theorist bell hooks writes about the importance of a transgressive approach in education where educators can teach students to ‘transgress’ against racial, sexual and class boundaries in order to achieve freedom. The underlying philosophy is that education is a practice of freedom. She explains teaching as a performative act and teachers as catalysts who invite everyone to become more engaged.

Paulo Freire, likewise, understands education as a practice of freedom, discusses the importance of dialogue between the oppressed and the oppressors, and argues that oppressors must be willing to rethink their way of life and to examine their role in oppression if true liberation is to occur.

Drawing on these kinds of writers, educational institutions could support experiential education approaches on race and racism that focus on reflection and introspection, and that teach learners to make explicit their usually unconscious social reactions and behaviours in various contexts.

This kind of learning could be supplemented by efforts like citizen-science community mapping projects to help students understand racial, cultural and religious differences. In this way, smartphones, tablets and computers can becomes tools that help young people reflect on how they interact with different races and deconstruct what they learned through the media and what remains in textbooks written by elites.

The possibilities are endless.

We’re educated to absorb social stereotypical behaviours and reactions. The subconscious is the guiding force in our social perception of various races.

But stereotypes can be unlearned. Social conditioning such as self-policing and self-censorship can be unlearned through reflection, introspection and transformative learning.

However, Canada’s educational systems remain governed by a narrative founded on white supremacy. Racist structures are maintained by oppressive systematic policies.

Nevertheless, I believe that through collaborative community engagement and learning we can overcome these structural barriers.

I no longer want to be a victim of structural racism but rather a victor who contributes to fundamental academic change.

Karine Coen-Sanchez is a PhD student in Sociology at the University of Ottawa.

by Margaret Morris and George Carson
Troy Media

Even during the pandemic, labour and delivery are the most frequent reasons for hospitalization in Canada, with over 350,000 births per year. That’s happy news. But of these births, nearly one third are by caesarian section (C-sections). That rate is far too high – and rising.

C-section is the surgical procedure to deliver a baby that involves an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterine wall, recommended when the baby’s or mother’s lives are at risk from a vaginal delivery. Nearly 105,000 C-sections take place each year, making it the most common hospital-based surgery in Canada.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of using our limited health care resources wisely. Yet we know that a significant proportion of C-sections are being done when they may not be necessary.

C-section rates have more than doubled in the past 25 years. Even accounting for some changes in the child-bearing population over this time such as mothers having children later and higher rates of obesity and chronic diseases, we know that this still shouldn’t be driving such a sharp increase in the way babies are being born.

So why is this happening?

C-sections can be life saving for both mothers and newborns when they are medically necessary. When needed, the benefits far exceed the risks for the pregnant woman and the newborn. But each C-section is also a major operation. This surgery has significantly more risks than a vaginal birth – including higher rates of infection, hemorrhage and death for the mother. In some cases, there can also be immediate and long-term risks for the newborn.

As well, after a C-section, there is a scar on the uterus, which has implications for any future pregnancies and labour. Recovery from a C-section, as any woman who has had one can tell you, can be painful — and it usually includes a longer hospitalization and recovery period than vaginal birth.

Unnecessary C-sections can harm patients. As a past and the incoming President of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC), we are committed to raising awareness about the harms of C-sections that are not medically necessary, among our colleagues across Canada and among expecting mothers.

As part of the Choosing Wisely Canada campaign, which is an organization dedicated to reducing unnecessary tests and treatments in health care, the SOGC recently released recommendations for all clinicians involved in birth, including obstetrician gynecologists, family physicians and midwives, and urge rethinking when C-sections are necessary.

Research suggests that a significant part of the over-use of C-sections often occurs when it appears that mothers are not progressing in early labour. Labour has both a latent or beginning phase, followed by an active phase. The transition from latent to active labour can take time; in some cases, many hours. A latent phase of up to 20 hours is normal for a woman having her first labour.

For healthy women with a single pregnancy, the optimal management during this phase is to allow them time to progress while offering supportive care including pain relief and rest. Most women can then enter active labour and most proceed to vaginal delivery.

Across Canada there are major differences in C-section rates among provinces, among hospitals in the same city and even between individual obstetricians. We know from research that a major driver of this variation can simply be impatience. Deciding to do a C- section may often relate to providers’ and/or patients’ reluctance to wait for active labour.

Our recommendation urges physicians to rethink their practice for the latent phase of labour and wait and see if a patient can safely deliver vaginally to curb rising C-section rates.

Now more than ever, it is important to use health care resources wisely. Thinking twice before undertaking the most common surgical procedure for the most common reason for hospitalization in this country – labour and delivery – is a great place to begin.
Dr. Margaret Morris is Professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at the University of Manitoba and the President-designate of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada.

Dr. George Carson is Clinical Professor Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Saskatchewan and past president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada.

The views in this commentary do not reflect the views of the SOGC.