Prepare for higher beef prices through 2025 and into 2026 due to supply challenges

0

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

Sorry beef lovers. Beef prices will likely remain high until mid to late 2025, possibly even longer. Droughts in North America have forced many cattle producers to reduce their herds, resulting in tighter supplies.

Higher food costs, elevated interest rates – crucial for the capital-intensive cattle industry – and downsizing herds have collectively pushed prices to record levels. As many producers exit the industry, the reduction in supply exacerbates the situation. For cattle producers, these high prices are welcome, but the story is quite different for consumers.

Beef has been a major driver of food inflation in recent months, outpacing general inflation. According to Statistics Canada, the price of beef stewing cuts has increased by 19 per cent in the last year, while beef rib cuts surged by 26 per cent. Even ground beef, often considered the most affordable beef option, has seen a 15 per cent hike in price over the past year.

These price increases build upon multiple price hikes in recent years. Given current trends, farmgate beef prices could continue climbing until mid-2025, breaking new records and prolonging the upward pressure on retail prices.

Unless you have a direct connection with a rancher or luck into some exceptional deals, you should prepare to pay significantly more for your beef purchases. Within the broader meat category, beef isn’t the only protein facing challenges – pork and chicken prices are also on the rise. The hog market has experienced similar upward pressure, which could lead to more expensive pork chops, ham, and bacon.

The situation is no different in the United States. A pound of ground beef is now at $5.67, a record high and an increase of 43 per cent since January 2021. Beef, long considered a luxury protein, is now facing price points that could severely dampen demand for an extended period. While meat sales as a category fell three per cent in the latest quarter, according to NielsenIQ, the paradox is that American consumers are still purchasing beef, albeit at a steep cost.

We’ve seen this before. In 2015, beef prices at retail surged nearly 30 per cent within a few weeks, driven by drought-induced cattle sell-offs.

Consumers retreated from the beef category, and sales never fully recovered. The current situation, however, could be even worse. As of July 1, 2024, Canada’s cattle herd was the smallest since 1987, despite the country now having 15 million more people. The U.S. is experiencing an even more pronounced decline, with the smallest cattle inventory since 1951.

At some point, producers may attempt to rebuild their herds to take advantage of high prices, but this won’t happen overnight. Economic uncertainty, including fluctuating interest rates and the U.S. presidential election, may cause the industry to delay any significant expansion.

Consumers should expect to see elevated beef prices through 2025 and into 2026. This trend is likely to hold, whether it’s BBQ season or not. The beef industry faces a tough challenge in maintaining consumer interest amidst these high prices. Back in 2015, the price surge led to the closure of many butcher shops as consumers adopted more frugal approaches to buying animal protein.

As history has shown, when prices spook consumers, new habits form. This shift could have long-lasting consequences for sectors like beef, which are key to North America’s agricultural economy. Keeping consumers engaged in the face of these price pressures will be a challenge, one that the industry must tackle head-on.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a Canadian professor and researcher specializing in food distribution and policy, is a 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.

Canada’s food waste epidemic needs a wake-up call

0

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

A new report by Second Harvest, titled The Avoidable Crisis of Food Waste, underscores the staggering scale of food waste in Canada. The findings reveal that 46.5 per cent of the food in Canada goes to waste, with 41.7 per cent of this waste deemed avoidable. This avoidable food waste represents a loss of $58 billion – a sobering figure that highlights the economic and environmental impact of wasted food.

Led by food waste expert Dr. Martin Gooch, the report is the second comprehensive assessment in five years, and unfortunately, Canada’s food waste situation has shown little improvement. However, there is hope.

Dalhousie University’s Agri-Food Analytics Lab recently introduced the Canadian Food Sentiment Index, which explores Canadians’ attitudes toward food waste. According to this index, 76.6 per cent of Canadians report actively trying to reduce food waste compared to a year ago. Rising food prices have encouraged more consumers to be mindful of their household food inventory, a positive trend that can significantly reduce waste at the consumer level.

One of the main contributors to household food waste is the misunderstanding around best-before dates – another critical point highlighted in Second Harvest’s report. Many consumers now recognize that a best-before date does not equate to “bad after.” These dates, largely unsupported by scientific research, are designed to indicate optimal freshness rather than food safety, especially if the packaging remains unopened. Despite this, 55.4 per cent of Canadians still discard food that has passed its best-before date, even when the product remains sealed.

To help address this issue, Too Good To Go has launched the “Look-Smell-Taste” initiative in partnership with food manufacturers and retailers across Canada. In the “Look-Smell-Taste” initiative, informational stickers will be placed on select food items to encourage consumers to evaluate freshness with their senses rather than relying solely on printed dates.

The method is straightforward: consumers are prompted to look for signs of spoilage and smell to assess freshness and taste to confirm edibility. When consumers scan these stickers with the app, they receive additional tips and guidance, empowering them to make informed choices about whether food is still good to eat. This sensory-based approach can foster a more intuitive understanding of food quality, reducing unnecessary waste and helping households save money. While some people may still find eating food past its best-before date off-putting, others are embracing it to save money.

The food rescue market, which involves salvaging food that might otherwise go to waste, is gaining traction across the country. Stores specializing in discounted food products near or past their best-before dates are popping up nationwide, with grocery chains increasingly joining the movement. Montreal-based chain Liquidation Marie, for example, is opening its fourth store dedicated exclusively to “rescue foods.” A typical shopping trip there can cut a customer’s food bill by 50 to 80 per cent – a compelling option for those looking to save money amid rising grocery prices.

Not everyone, however, welcomes this development. Liquidation Marie’s expansion in Montreal has reportedly led to anonymous complaints filed with Quebec’s Ministry of Agriculture, suggesting unfair competition with conventional retailers. In today’s high-cost food landscape, this response is disappointing. Consumers need all the support they can get, and food rescue initiatives offer tangible help in an economy strained by inflation.

An economy that values food will waste less of it. Reduced waste promotes greater food security and a lower environmental footprint. Second Harvest’s report highlights that avoidable food waste generates 25.69 million metric tonnes of CO₂ emissions each year – the equivalent of 253,223 one-way flights from Toronto to Vancouver. By reducing food waste, we take a significant step toward a more sustainable and environmentally responsible future.

Ultimately, The Avoidable Crisis of Food Waste calls on Canadians to rethink how they value food. Simple changes – using leftovers more often, freezing food strategically, exploring food rescue options, and relying on innovative solutions like Too Good To Go’s Look-Smell-Taste approach – can make a meaningful difference. There’s a food rescuer in all of us, ready to help tackle this crisis.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a Canadian professor and researcher specializing in food distribution and policy, is a 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.

The Washington Post decision not to endorse a presidential candidate was a return to its roots of political neutrality

0

Michael Taube

Troy Media

The Washington Post decided not to endorse a U.S. presidential candidate in next week’s election. Based on the reaction of some of its loyal readers and faithful followers, you could have easily mistaken it for the end of civilization as we know it.

In reality, the newspaper’s decision was perfectly fine.

“The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election,” publisher and chief executive officer William Lewis wrote on Oct. 25. “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” he continued, noting that “we recognize … this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable.”

Lewis ultimately took a different tack. “We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions – whom to vote for as the next president.”

The closing paragraphs are also worth highlighting.

“Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds,” Lewis wrote. “Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent. And that is what we are and will be.”

This seems like a fairly balanced explanation. So, what caused the overreaction to the Post’s decision not to endorse either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump?

Pertinent details were revealed by the Post in an Oct. 25 piece written by two staff reporters, Manuel Roig-Franzia and Laura Wagner. “An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two people who were briefed on the sequence of events and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly,” they noted. More to the point, “the decision to no longer publish presidential endorsements was made by The Post’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, according to four people who were briefed on the decision.”

Aye, there’s the rub.

The largely liberal audience of this traditionally liberal newspaper was furious that an endorsement of Harris, a liberal Democrat, was scrubbed. More than 20 (mostly liberal) Post columnists, including Karen Attiah, Max Boot, E.J. Dionne Jr., Ruth Marcus, Dana Milbank and Eugene Robinson, signed a piece that called the decision a “terrible mistake.” There were also some conservatives opposed to Trump who were angry. One of them, Robert Kagan, an editor-at-large at the Post, resigned from the paper.

Their collective outrage was both juvenile and preposterous. As someone who has written columns since 1996, as well as editorials for two publications, I know this world quite well – and they’re not living in reality.

Newspaper owners like Bezos have every right to get directly involved in the decision-making process of a political endorsement like the presidency. The reason for his decision, which former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron speculated was related to fear of retaliation by Trump, is both unproven and immaterial. It may be frustrating to watch this unfold in-person or from the outside, but there’s nothing you can do to stop them.

Two additional points. While Bezos has donated a lot of money to Democratic political candidates, it’s widely believed he’s a libertarian. Maybe he finally got fed up with the Democratic Party lurching further to the left. Also, Bezos isn’t the only newspaper owner who killed a presidential endorsement. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns the Los Angeles Times, did the same thing a few days earlier. His daughter, Nika, told the New York Times it had to do with Harris’s support for Israel’s war in Gaza. Whether you agree or disagree with Soon-Shiong, he had as much right as Bezos to make this decision.

Newspapers also have the freedom to endorse or not endorse a presidential candidate. In the past, many publications chose a position of political neutrality. The Post used to be one of them. Between 1877 (when the newspaper was founded) and 1976, it only endorsed one presidential candidate: General Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, in 1952. “In the light of hindsight, we retain the view that the arguments for his nomination and election were compelling,” the Post’s editorial board wrote in 1960. “But hindsight also has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation’s Capital to have avoided formal endorsement.”

After nearly a century, this policy abruptly changed. The Washington Post endorsed nearly every Democratic presidential candidate over 12 election cycles. The only exception was Michael Dukakis in 1988. As it happens, they didn’t endorse his Republican opponent, George H.W. Bush, either.

If the Post has decided to move the needle back toward political neutrality, so be it. This isn’t a rejection of democracy, abuse of power, error in judgment, or even a victory for Trump, as some have suggested. Newspaper editorial endorsements are simply becoming less influential, less impactful and, in the case of a growing number of publications, less common as the years go by.

Our civilization will find a way to survive newspapers like the Washington Post making reasonable and rational decisions to stop endorsing presidential candidates. Even if liberal snowflakes and conservative NeverTrumpers can’t bring themselves to accept this new reality.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.

Political games are taking priority over Canadians’ rising food costs

0

Roslyn Kunin

Troy Media

More than half of Canadians are feeling the pressure of the rising cost of living. It is even affecting eating habits. Not only have many given up little luxuries like occasional restaurant meals, but they are now much more frugal in their grocery shopping, and some have even had to cut back on what they eat.

Having enough money to buy food is a basic necessity, and you’d expect the Canadian government to take this issue seriously. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case. For many politicians, playing political games seems to take priority. A clear example of this is the Bloc Quebecois, whose support in Parliament is now crucial to prevent a no-confidence vote and avoid triggering an election. This shows how politics can overshadow the well-being of the people.

The Bloc has offered to support the Trudeau government subject to certain conditions. One of these conditions is that a law be passed by Oct. 29 ensuring that supply management regulations for dairy and other products are not changed, nor used as bargaining tools in trade agreements or for securing similar benefits for Canada.

Restricting milk and related production has long been a “sacred cow” for the Canadian government (pun intended). This system benefits the small number of producers who hold quotas but comes at a cost to everyone else. Not only do we have to pay higher prices for basic food items, but we’re also limited in terms of choice. A more open industry could provide more options and variety, but the current system keeps those opportunities out of reach.

If that weren’t bad enough, the proposed legislation takes things a step further. By demanding that supply management never be part of trade negotiations, Canada’s ability to negotiate with other countries is severely limited. With fewer options on the table, Canada will likely receive less from other nations in return, reducing our access to international markets and customers.

This means that not only Canadian consumers are being harmed, but so are businesses, employers, and workers. Canadian firms that currently export or have the potential to export in the future will face limited access to international markets, restricting their growth and opportunities.

Canada relies heavily on exports due to its relatively small domestic market. Limiting our ability to reach international customers will lead to fewer and smaller producers within the country. This will result in fewer jobs, lower tax revenue, and a generally weaker economy.

As consumers, we will not only face higher prices and fewer options in the dairy aisle but every product or service that could have benefited from freer and more open trade negotiations will now be less available.

Right now, many Canadians are concerned about the upcoming American presidential election, and rightly so. Some of the proposed policies could hurt Canada. One such policy mentioned by Donald Trump is particularly worrying. In addition to the 60 percent tariff he wants to impose on all imports from China, he is now discussing a 10 percent or even 20 percent tariff on all imports from other countries, including Canada.

Let’s set aside the fact that such tariffs would devastate the American economy and its consumers and focus on what it means for us. More than a third of Canada’s economy depends on foreign trade, with the U.S. being our biggest trading partner. Imposing tariffs would close off, rather than expand, markets and trade opportunities. We know this would have serious negative effects on Canada.

We don’t want others damaging our economy like this, yet the legislation proposed by the Bloc would do exactly that, even if on a smaller scale. The bill has already passed through the House of Commons and is now before the Senate. It’s amazing that it has gone this far.

It’s time for the Canadian government to demonstrate that it is governing for the benefit of all, or at least the majority, of Canadians. The interests of small pressure groups, like dairy farmers, must not be allowed to continue to squeeze our already strained budgets. Our international negotiators must be free to secure the best possible deals for us – whether as consumers seeking variety and affordable prices or as producers who need markets to grow their businesses, create jobs, and contribute to the economy.

The Bloc’s proposed legislation should not be passed.

Dr. Roslyn Kunin is a respected Canadian economist known for her extensive work in economic forecasting, public policy, and labour market analysis. She has held various prominent roles, including serving as the regional director for the federal government’s Department of Employment and Immigration in British Columbia and Yukon and as an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Kunin is also recognized for her contributions to economic development, particularly in Western Canada.

Why your cup of coffee won’t get cheaper anytime soon

0

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

Most agricultural commodities are experiencing price drops compared to last year, including staples like wheat, corn, barley, and canola. Even cocoa, which hit a historical high less than a year ago, has seen a decrease.

However, coffee prices remain an outlier, with arabica coffee hitting a 13-year high. A pound of arabica coffee now costs US$2.70, reflecting an increase of over 80 percent since September of last year. This surge is largely due to severe droughts and wildfires in Brazil and Vietnam, the world’s top coffee producers, which, together, account for around half of the global coffee bean production.

Historically, companies like Tim Hortons raised prices during coffee price surges, as they did in 2011 when coffee prices spiked. However, it’s important to note that the cost of coffee beans typically comprises a small portion – between five to 10 percent – of the total price of a cup of coffee at large chains. The bulk of the price of your cup of coffee goes toward covering labour, rent, utilities, and other operational costs. As such, while we can expect some price adjustments, drastic increases are unlikely in the short term.

The fluctuation in coffee prices over time is primarily driven by climatic factors. Arabica coffee requires specific growing conditions, and the regions suitable for its cultivation are shrinking due to climate change. Meanwhile, global demand continues to grow, especially in emerging markets like China and India, where coffee consumption is rising despite their traditional preference for tea.

Canada, too, is a significant coffee-consuming nation, ranking 11th globally with an average of 1.57 cups per person per day. Coffee is deeply embedded in the daily routines of Canadians, with the average individual expected to drink around 35,000 cups of coffee over their lifetime. However, countries like Luxembourg, Finland, Sweden, and Norway boast even higher per capita coffee consumption, with people drinking more than five cups a day in some cases.

As coffee is one of the most traded commodities in the world, there is increasing interest in finding more sustainable ways to produce it, such as through lab-grown methods. Research on lab-grown coffee has been ongoing since the 1970s, but significant advancements in replicating the taste and aroma of traditionally farmed coffee have only been made recently. A study by the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland suggests that lab-grown coffee could eventually match the flavour profile of conventional coffee, and there’s optimism about the scalability of the technology.

The lab-grown coffee sector has attracted significant investments over the past two years. Atomo Coffee, for example, has raised millions to develop molecular coffee made from plant waste. Other startups are also raising tens of millions of dollars to create sustainable coffee alternatives that reduce water use, lower carbon emissions, and reduce the deforestation associated with traditional coffee farming.

However, until lab-grown coffee becomes mainstream, it is unlikely that consumers will see lower prices on their cup of coffee. For now, stocking up on coffee beans when prices dip may be the best strategy for coffee lovers to manage rising costs.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a Canadian professor and researcher specializing in food distribution and policy, is a 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.

Say yes to opportunity, change and challenge

0

David Fuller

Troy Media

In 1988, Louis approached me one day and asked if I would join him in building a business. I knew I was taking a chance, but I said yes.

By saying yes, I had to turn down an offer from Tom that would have made me three times the income over the short term. There were days when I was struggling and stressed and thought that perhaps things would have been different if I had said yes to Tom and no to Louis.

But in the long term, it worked out for the best. In fact, it has worked out wonderfully.

Some of the greatest things in life happen when we say yes. Think about the times when you’ve taken a chance on something or someone and it has changed your life for the better. The time when you said yes to an invitation, yes to a date, yes to an opportunity, yes to volunteering.

I know there have been many times when I’ve been scared and stood there wondering what I’ve just agreed to. Sometimes, saying yes has involved a lot of work, time, and commitment. But who said we would grow if there weren’t some challenges?

Recently, I was working with a business owner, James, who said yes to a challenge. James could have let his business continue on the road it was on, but he knew in his heart that it wasn’t satisfying. James understood that continuing to do what they had always done was going to lead to failure. Not only failure of the business, because the business model didn’t work anymore, but also failure to follow his dreams, which in essence is a spiritual failure.

How many of us continue to do what we’re doing even though we know it’s not working?

How many of us are doing the same old thing in business and getting the same results, even though we know we have the opportunity to say yes to something better?

What is that doing to you on a deep level?

Saying yes often takes work. Making change always does. It takes courage.

As James is about to discover as he moves his business in a different direction, there will be challenges. However, change is life for James – new life for his business and life-giving for himself.

As entrepreneurs, sometimes we get stale doing the same old things. When we say yes to opportunities that make sense, we become invigorated. And this invigoration spurs growth, and growth, when managed properly, is often profitable.

Is it time for you to say yes to change in your life or your business?

Saying yes isn’t just about making a decision; it’s about embracing the unknown. It’s about trusting that the discomfort of change will eventually give way to something greater. When we say yes, we open ourselves up to new experiences, new challenges, and new growth. It’s not always easy, and the road isn’t always smooth, but the rewards can be incredible.

Just as I found that the decision to work with Louis led to long-term success and fulfillment, so too can your yes lead you to unexpected and rewarding places. Whether it’s in your personal life or your business, saying yes could be the key to unlocking your next big opportunity.

So, what are you waiting for? The power of yes is in your hands.

David Fuller is a Commercial and Business Realtor with a strong reputation as an award-winning business coach and author. He has extensive experience helping businesses grow and succeed, providing guidance on various aspects of business management, strategy, and development. His work as a business coach and author has earned him recognition in the industry, making him a respected figure in both real estate and business coaching.

Gas and diesel ban an unaffordable mistake

0

Franco Terrazzano and Kris Sims

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

The Trudeau government’s ban on new gas and diesel vehicles is a nonstarter for three powerful reasons.

            •           Canadians want to drive gas-powered minivans and diesel pickups.

            •           Canada does not have the electrical power to fuel these battery-powered cars.

            •           Canadians do not have the money to build the power-generating stations needed to power these government-mandated vehicles.

Let’s start on the showroom floor.

The Trudeau government is banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035.

In about 10 years’ time, Canadians will not be allowed to buy a new vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine because the government will forbid it.

Canadians disagree with this.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released a Leger poll showing that 59 percent of Canadians oppose the federal government’s ban on new gas and diesel vehicles.

Among those who are decided on the issue, 67 percent of Canadians, and majorities in every demographic, oppose the Trudeau government’s ban.

Now, let’s look under the hood.

Canada does not have the electricity to charge these battery-powered cars. The government hasn’t presented any plan to pay for the power plants, transmission lines and charging stations for these government-mandated vehicles.

That leaves a big question: How much will this cost taxpayers?

According to a report for Natural Resources Canada, Canada’s vehicle transition could cost up to $300 billion by 2040 to expand the electrical grid.

Let’s look at why this will cost so much.

The average Canadian household uses about 10,861 kWh of electricity per year. The average electric car uses about 4,500 kWh of energy per year.

The average household’s electricity use would jump by about 40 percent if they bought one EV and charged it at home.

Canada is home to 24 million cars and light trucks that run on gasoline and diesel, according to Statistics Canada.

If all those vehicles were powered by electricity and batteries, that fleet would use about 108 million mWh of power every year.

For context, one large CANDU nuclear reactor at the Darlington nuclear plant in Ontario generates about 7,750,000 mWh of power per year.

Canada would require about 14 of these reactors to power all those electric cars.

Building a large nuclear reactor costs about $12.5 billion.

That’s a price tag of about $175 billion just for all the power plants. The Natural Resources report estimates the transition to electric vehicles could cost up to $300 billion in total when new charging stations and power lines are included.

Who would be paying that tab? Normal Canadians through higher taxes and power bills.

Canadians cannot afford the cost of these mandatory electric vehicles because they’re broke.

Canadians are broke largely because of high taxes and high inflation, both driven by the Trudeau government’s wasteful spending.

About half of Canadians say they are within $200 of not being able to make the minimum payments on their bills each month. That’s also known as barely scraping by.

Food banks are facing record demand, with a sharp increase in working families needing help. That means parents holding down jobs still depend on donated jars of peanut butter to feed their kids.

Rubbing salt into the wound, the federal government also put taxpayers on the hook for about $30 billion to multinational corporations like Honda, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt to build EV battery factories.

The roadside sobriety test is complete, and the Trudeau government is blowing a fail on this policy.

Canadians are opposed to the Trudeau government banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.

Canada does not have the electricity to charge these battery-powered cars.

Canadians don’t have the money to build the new power plants, transmission lines and charging stations these vehicles would demand.

It’s time to tow this ban on new gas and diesel vehicles to the scrapyard.

Franco Terrazzano is the Federal Director, and Kris Sims is the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Poilievre’s confrontational style is chipping away at Canada’s political standards

0

Gerry Chidiac

On Sept. 17, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh confronted a heckler who shouted “corrupted bastard” at him while he was walking outside the Canadian Parliament buildings. Singh stopped, turned around, and challenged two nearby men to face him directly. Both denied responsibility, claiming the insult came from behind them.

Lacking proof that either of the two men hurled the insult, Singh moved on, but the message was clear: Canadians have had enough of cowards who hide behind anonymity to spew insults and threats. Respect is earned by owning up to your actions, not by hiding behind a wall of fear and avoidance.

I may be nostalgic, but I remember when politicians debated ideas in the House of Commons and crafted sharp, clever insults while still respecting parliamentary decorum. Outside the chamber, they had meaningful discussions and created legislation that actually benefited Canadians. It may sound eccentric, but I found those question periods quite entertaining.

Today, Parliament has become an uglier place, much of it fueled by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who has adopted a confrontational style popularized by U.S. Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. That style suits Canada about as well as “Rollin’ with the Gangsters” fits Weird Al Yankovic’s White and Nerdy music video. Poilievre’s behaviour is out of place because Canada’s political system is “nerdy” but effective. Canadians deserve elected officials who are serious, not angry clowns chasing clickbait.

Poilievre has repeatedly shown himself to be unwilling or incapable of showing simple human decency. He often lashes out at reporters from media outlets he dislikes. After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at a rally in August, where law enforcement snipers killed the gunman, Poilievre offered condolences for the victims but added, “I am also happy that the suspected shooter is dead.” What kind of leader feels “happy” about the death of a misguided young man with grieving parents? No other world leader made such a cruel remark.

It’s terrifying to contemplate where this disregard for human life is taking us. Recently, in Lebanon, electronic devices exploded, killing dozens, including children, and injuring thousands more. We can only imagine the devastation if one of these devices had made its way onto a commercial airliner. No one has claimed responsibility for what former British MP George Galloway called “the biggest act of mass terrorism since Sept. 11.” We all now feel less secure with our technology.

The best we can hope for is that the international judicial system holds those responsible accountable and that our leaders insist on upholding humanitarian law in the future.

Canada urgently needs stronger laws to protect its citizens, including our politicians. Much of the violence is fueled online, often resulting in anonymous threats that must be taken seriously. Our parliamentarians need to unite to create laws that protect civil liberties while holding criminals accountable. This is no easy task, but it must be done.

Earlier this month, Singh ended the supply-and-confidence agreement with the Trudeau government after securing significant improvements in dental care for millions of Canadians and making progress on pharmacare legislation. However, while the dental care program has been successfully expanded, the pharmacare plan is still in development.

If parliamentarians fail to collaborate, an early election could potentially hand power to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives. This raises the question: what would it mean for Canada if Poilievre were given a prominent platform on the international stage? His confrontational style and preference for conservative, business-first policies could drastically alter Canada’s traditionally progressive stance in global forums.

Previous Canadian leaders earned our country a global reputation for being principled, congenial, and tough. Thank you, Jagmeet Singh, for reminding us how this is done.

Gerry Chidiac specializes in languages and genocide studies and works with at-risk students. He received an award from the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre for excellence in teaching about the Holocaust.

Food insecurity at record levels as economy shrinks

0

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

Earlier this month, Feed Ontario (formerly the Ontario Association of Food Banks) disclosed that over a million residents in Ontario, Canada’s wealthiest province, sought assistance from food banks over the past year.

A million people. That’s essentially Nova Scotia’s entire population.

This revelation is in stark contrast to the situation south of the border. In 2023, while 13.5 percent of American households grappled with food insecurity – characterized by low or very low food security – the rate in Canada was significantly higher at 22.9 percent. This suggests that food insecurity in Canada is a staggering 69.6 percent more prevalent than in the United States – a profoundly unsettling statistic.

The challenge of affording food in Canada is exacerbated by anemic food sales, particularly stark when compared to the United States, where grocery store sales increased by 1.8 percent in the last 12 months, according to U.S. Federal Reserve Economic Data. In stark contrast, Canadian grocery store sales have plummeted by a worrying 3.2 percent, according to Statistics Canada.

One plausible explanation for this disparity lies in the higher interest rates in Canada, which likely impose a heavier burden on Canadian households than on their American counterparts, given that the average debt per household is considerably higher in Canada. The Bank of Canada’s pathway to achieving a more stable inflation rate without detrimentally affecting Canadians appears much narrower than that of the U.S. Federal Reserve, evidenced by the harsh reality of 10 consecutive rate hikes last year, compelling Canadians to economize, particularly on food expenditures.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Canada’s per capita economy is shrinking, lacking the wealth growth seen in the U.S. According to World Bank data, in 2002, when Jean Chretien was prime minister, the U.S. GDP per capita was 56.6 percent higher than Canada’s. The current gap, at 53.07 percent, is perilously close to this historical peak.

The main drivers of GDP growth in Canada are currently immigration and public spending, with the government shouldering much of the economic burden. The situation is becoming increasingly dire. Moreover, the early enthusiasm for the Trudeau administration’s push for a green economy is fading.

The carbon tax, Trudeau’s principal policy for fostering an eco-friendly economy, is losing support due to ongoing economic struggles. Even within the federal NDP and the BC NDP government, growing voices are questioning whether the carbon tax is the best way forward.

The failures of the carbon tax reflect a broader trend in recent policymaking: the adoption of populist policies devoid of rigorous metrics to measure their long-term success, paired with extensive communication campaigns aimed at convincing Canadians of their value.

The federal carbon tax is set to rise to $95 per metric ton by April 2025, with a target of $170 per metric ton by 2030. Despite mounting pressure, the Trudeau government has failed to evaluate whether this policy effectively reduces emissions or to assess its long-term economic impact, especially on the agri-food sector, from farm to table.

The design of the rebate system ostensibly allows Canadians to overlook the real costs of this poorly conceived policy. However, administering this massive program is not only costly but also fails to leverage the Canadian economy effectively. It is imperative to devise policies that genuinely foster both economic and environmental sustainability for the nation.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a Canadian professor and researcher specializing in food distribution and policy, is a 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.

Canada’s federal debt doubles to $1.2 trillion under Trudeau

0

Franco Terrazzano

Pop the campaign; it’s official: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doubled the federal debt.

It took nearly two dozen prime ministers and a century-and-a-half to rack up $616 billion in debt, where the total stood before Trudeau’s first year in office.

Less than a decade later, on Aug. 30 of this year, Trudeau officially doubled the debt to $1.232 trillion.

Trudeau’s debt binge has a material impact on Canadians’ lives.

First, Canadians want to leave their kids and grandkids with a bright financial future.

But a baby born today is already on the hook for about $30,000 in federal government debt. That debt must be paid back with interest, which means higher taxes for future generations unless future governments cut spending.

The future looks bleak.

New data published by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) forecasts the next federal balanced budget in 2040. That would mean another $296 billion added to the debt.

And even that balanced budget projection won’t materialize if the government introduces new spending and the economy doesn’t grow for 16 years straight.

Second, more debt means more money wasted on interest charges.

The federal government’s debt interest charges cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every week.

The government now wastes more money servicing the debt than it sends to the provinces in health transfers. In fact, it takes every penny collected from the GST to pay the interest on the debt.

According to PBO projections, debt interest charges over the next decade-and-a-half will cost taxpayers $847 billion. That’s a cost of more than $18,000 for every Canadian.

Third, big deficits make it more likely the government will take more money from Canadians, as evidenced by this year’s capital gains tax hike.

“Canada could finance these critical investments by taking on more debt, but that would place an unfair burden on younger generations,” Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said while introducing her capital gains tax hike.

That tax hike was sold to Canadians, in part, to keep the debt from spiralling further. But it illustrates how the government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

The capital gains tax hike is expected to take $6.9 billion from taxpayers this year. But with the government spending $535 billion, it will burn through that cash in five days.

Trudeau can’t lay the blame for this fiscal dumpster fire on the pandemic.

Trudeau promised to balance the budget in 2019. He broke that promise and instead ran a $20-billion deficit before the pandemic struck.

In fact, the Trudeau government was spending at all-time highs in 2018, even after accounting for inflation and population growth. That means the Trudeau government was spending more money than the government did during any year of the world wars or past recessions.

Trudeau then used the cloud of a pandemic to go on a debt-fueled spending spree.

The federal government announced $576 billion in new spending during the pandemic. Of that new spending, $205 billion was for “non-COVID-19 measures,” according to the PBO.

You may believe that a high level of spending was warranted, even though the auditor general found $32 billion – 15 percent – of pandemic subsidies went to ineligible or suspicious recipients.

You may even believe there was no way to cut other areas of the budget to fund pandemic subsidies, even though families and businesses make these tough decisions all the time.

But $205 billion, or 35 percent, of new spending announced during the pandemic had nothing to do with the pandemic.

And spending is still ballooning.

Last year, the government promised to find $15 billion in savings over five years.

How is that going? Well, the government increased spending by $24 billion last year and plans to increase spending by another $111 billion over the next five years.

Taxpayers have many reasons to be pessimistic.

Trudeau doubled the debt in less than a decade. Debt interest charges blow a $1-billion hole in the budget every week. The government is on track to run deficits for the next decade and a half. And this government has proven it doesn’t care about fiscal responsibility.

But here’s a reason to be optimistic: things aren’t too far gone, yet.

The federal government could reverse its capital gains tax hike and still balance the budget next year if it stuck to its spending plan from just two budgets ago. And nobody was screaming about austerity when Trudeau tabled his 2022 budget.

After a decade of runaway government borrowing, limiting spending growth isn’t enough. Canadians need the government to cut spending.

Franco Terrazzano is the Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.