The Metro strike could redefine Canada’s grocery industry

Troy Media
-
0
The Metro strike could redefine Canada’s grocery industry

Metro strike is a battle against the inexorable march of automation and artificial intelligence in the grocery industry

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

Amidst the summer heat, a cold front has descended upon the Greater Toronto Area. However, this frigid front has nothing to do with the weather and everything to do with a growing chasm between grocery giant Metro and its 3,700 striking workers. The consequences of this clash extend far beyond the picket lines, threatening to reshape the entire grocery industry in Canada.

The strike, which started on July 29, has thrown 27 Metro stores across the GTA into disarray. Workers walked off the job after rejecting a tentative agreement recommended by their own bargaining committee – a move that sent shockwaves throughout the industry.

Until this week, the strike impacted only these 27 stores, but its effects are steadily rippling outward. Most Metro consumers in Ontario will likely witness the consequences of this labour dispute through empty spaces in various sections of their grocery stores. Halting trucks departing from distribution centres could sadly result in more food waste, as discarding food may be necessary if the cargo is no longer safe to consume – a bold move indeed by the striking workers.

But make no mistake; this strike is a litmus test for the public’s moral compass, and so far, the workers have garnered substantial support. Despite the potential for a settlement favouring workers to push food prices even higher, the public’s response has been surprisingly muted.

When the “Hero Pay” program was introduced during the pandemic, it revolved around work hazards and the risks associated with the virus. The public sympathized. However, with higher food prices now at the forefront, the context has shifted. This is about making the grocery industry an attractive career option, but more importantly, it’s about ensuring dignified work.

While Metro allocated millions in bonuses to a handful of executives, employees received a gift card of up to $300, exclusively redeemable at Metro-owned stores. It’s no wonder Metro finds itself embroiled in a strike.

Nonetheless, while this dispute undoubtedly centers on wages and benefits, it signifies a larger battle – one that pits traditional labour practices against the inexorable march of automation and artificial intelligence. The workers on the picket lines are not simply pursuing personal gains; they are essentially championing the cause of every grocery store employee in Canada. Their strike symbolizes a broader struggle against a business model that relies on top-heavy organizations while prioritizing low margins and meagre wages.

Conversely, grocers across Canada are watching closely. If the workers succeed in their demands, it could set a precedent that resonates far beyond the picket lines. The prospect of fair wages and improved working conditions may become the new normal, but it could also usher in a seismic shift in how groceries are delivered to our shelves.

Automation and AI are knocking on the doors of the grocery industry, promising efficiency and cost savings. If workers secure concessions through this strike, grocers might be encouraged to explore alternative avenues, such as increased utilization of AI and automation. The traditional model of hiring around 80 full-time employees to operate a store could give way to hiring fewer than 50 workers with higher wages and an entirely different skill set focused on managing and maintaining automated systems. The public should prepare for this potential transformation as well.

As the strike continues, it is likely to intensify with each passing week. The longer it endures, the deeper the scars it will leave on both sides. The grocery industry, like many others, stands at a crossroads. How it navigates this strike and its aftermath will establish a precedent for the entire Canadian labour landscape.

If Metro’s workers succeed in their fight for fair compensation and humane working conditions, the way grocery stores operate in Canada could undergo a profound transformation. The substantial influx of self-checkouts, as irritating as it may have been to many Canadians, could only mark the beginning of this evolution.

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

Demand rising for Canadian oil

Troy Media
-
0
Demand rising for Canadian oil

Canada’s heavy oil outshines WTI benchmark

Deborah Jaremko, Troy Media

Demand for oil from Canada is rising as world oil consumption hits new records.

Heavy, sour oil grades like those Canada primarily exports are experiencing what one analyst calls a “price renaissance,” outperforming the U.S. light, sweet oil benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI).

“Heavy is the crude that wears the crown,” Toronto-based Rory Johnston, founder of Commodity Context, wrote recently.

“While the most commonly referenced light sweet crudes are on an uninspiring price run, heavier crudes are actually having a pretty great year. As just one example, the price of Western Canadian Select (WCS), a heavy sour crude that represents Canada’s main crude export blend, is up a whopping $15 per barrel (about 20 percent) year-to-date.”

That’s compared to an increase of about US$5 per barrel for WTI this year.

There are several reasons for the higher Canadian heavy oil prices, says Phil Skolnick, New York-based oil market analyst with Eight Capital.

Maintenance at oil sands projects has reduced available supply while, at the same time, demand has increased. The new Dos Bocas refinery in Mexico is drawing heavy oil away from refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, and petrochemical plants in China are ramping up production using heavy oil from both Canada and Latin America, Skolnick says.

Additional demand is expected when the U.S. government purchases sour crude to refill its Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

“Demand is increasing for sure,” he says.

Canada’s oil exports to customers outside of the United States reached a record 291,000 barrels per day this spring, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.

Meanwhile, American oil imports from Canada remain steady at above 4.5 million barrels per day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Even though it’s not a global benchmark like WTI, the improved pricing for heavy crudes like WCS is important because it has “a material impact” on the earnings of producing companies and nations, Johnston wrote.

Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Office has said that an increase of US$5 per barrel for Canadian heavy oil would add $6 billion to Canada’s economy over the course of one year.

With the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion now more than 80 percent complete, Canada is closer to expanding its ability to supply growing oil demand in global markets, with the benefits flowing to Canadians.

Deborah Jaremko is director of content for the Canadian Energy Centre, a Troy Media Editorial Content Provider Partner.

Red tape and waiting lists push doctors out of healthcare and toward independent practice

Troy Media
-
0
Red tape and waiting lists push doctors out of healthcare and toward independent practice

Emmanuelle Faubert, Troy Media

When workers quit a workplace in large numbers, we tend to dwell – and rightly so – on what that workplace is doing wrong.

When those workers are doctors, though, and what they’re leaving is our government-run health system, the focus shifts from what might be changed to convince them to stay to what can be done to make it harder for them to leave.

We saw this at play in a recent Globe and Mail article on Quebec family doctors leaving the government-run system to work for, or launch their own, independent healthcare facilities. Instead of asking why doctors were leaving, the authors focused almost exclusively on what pieces of legislation made it possible for them to work outside the system.

So why are more Quebec family doctors leaving the government-run health system?

For starters, doctors leaving for independent practice say it allows them to focus more on a set number of patients, treating cases with varying degrees of gravity. In contrast, the government-run health care scheme would have them work more on urgent and critical care.

While such care is obviously necessary and laudable – treating illnesses such as cancer should remain a priority – what these doctors have recognized is that there’s a whole range of patients with less severe but nevertheless critical medical conditions who go untreated for years on government-managed waiting lists.

Patients with manageable diseases, such as asthma, can spend months on a waiting list just to get some tests done when they visit their regional hospitals in Quebec. These people spend a long time worrying about what medical issue they might have, suffering from an untreated ailment, all because the health system doesn’t prioritize them.

As Dr. Jad Hobeika explains, he left the government-run system because he was “uncomfortable with the number of patients on waiting lists” for some ailments, and he decided to do something about it by joining an independent practice. He can now provide treatment for those patients for whom long waiting lists were the only kind of care government-run establishments would provide.

For others, leaving the government-run health care scheme is a way to concentrate on their passion for medicine, as opposed to filling out endless forms.

According to a report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian doctors spend about 19 million hours per year filling out paperwork. Put differently, out of every 40 hours a family doctor works in this country, about 9.7 hours is administrative work.

Some of this is insurance or employment-related – the famous “doctor’s notes” used to justify an absence come to mind – but a good part of it is also directly connected to our single-payer insurance scheme.

In Quebec, the billing system is so complex that an entire cottage industry of public insurance billing professionals has popped up to reduce the burden on doctors billing medical acts to the government-run health plan.

As such, some doctors pay thousands of dollars per year for administrative subcontractors to enter the medical treatments they’ve provided into the correct box of long administrative forms so that they can receive their compensation.

It’s no wonder some opt for an independent practice, where billing is much simpler and more direct.

And then, of course, there’s also the question of more flexible scheduling, as doctors working within the government system have much less say about where and when they work.

Given these realities, it’s no wonder some doctors are looking to spend less time working within the government healthcare scheme and more working as independent providers.

Unfortunately for them, Quebec’s legislation doesn’t allow for mixed practice. This means that doctors who want to bill the government-run health plan for medical acts are prohibited from having any other clients. This sort of “either/or” approach means that if you’re tired of dealing with some aspects of the government system, your only option is to leave it altogether.

If Quebec were to allow this, some doctors in independent clinics would no doubt choose to work part-time within the government-run system as it offers more income stability.

And instead of focusing on what legislation can be adopted to keep doctors captive in the single-payer system, maybe we could think about addressing their concerns and try to understand why some of them decide to leave for independent practice.

Emmanuelle Faubert is an economist at the Montreal Economic Institute.

In an increasingly dangerous world, we desperately need a new era of détente

Troy Media
-
0
In an increasingly dangerous world, we desperately need a new era of détente

Randolph Mank, Troy Media

Advancing peace proposals for the Russia-Ukraine conflict is risky business. No one likes appeasement. NATO countries, including Canada, are all-in on military support for Ukraine, seemingly the only solution to Russia’s 2022 invasion.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians have been killed or wounded, and millions of refugees have fled.

Things could actually get worse. Bidding farewell to Russian President Vladimir Putin at the end of his visit to Moscow in March this year, China’s President Xi Jinping remarked ominously: “Right now there are changes – the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years – and we are the ones driving these changes together.”

Are wars really unavoidable? Must military solutions always be exhausted before diplomacy can begin?

One determining factor is the tendency of countries to stick within exclusive security alliances or ‘spheres of influence’. While it’s instinctive for smaller countries to seek the military protection of larger ones, it creates a bloc in thrall to a dominant power. This produces group think. It can also put soldiers in the lead over diplomats, which is dangerous.

This is what happened during the Cold War. The opposing sides came to realize the dangers of continuous confrontation, especially with nuclear-armed missiles pointed at each other. By the 1970s, they decided to pursue détente, a deliberate effort to ease strained relations through active diplomacy.

Détente is precisely what is needed again, and the Cold War experience offers a plausible template.

The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) – a Finnish initiative – was launched in 1973. By 1975, 35 participating countries agreed to the Helsinki Accords, which committed signatories to ongoing negotiations on everything from arms control and disarmament to confidence-building and human rights. (I was a junior delegate to the 1984-86 Stockholm Conference, which focused on formulating confidence-building measures.)

The CSCE process kept otherwise hostile camps at diplomatic tables for 21e years. It led to the establishment in 1994 of a permanent organization called the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Alas, the OSCE’s ineffectiveness in handling the Russian invasion of Ukraine is precisely why a new process is needed now to deal with modern threats. China’s rise as an adversary, and its current alignment with Russia, means the process needs to be more inclusive. Giants like India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, and others, also need to have a voice in a new ‘global conference on security and cooperation’.

Of course, the G20 annual summit already convenes the major powers. But it has proved useless for resolving conflicts. Facing criminal charges at the International Criminal Court, Putin has been unable to participate for fear of arrest. Undoubtedly, a similar scenario would prevent Xi’s participation if China were to initiate its threatened military action against Taiwan.

So, unless shunning is our only diplomatic tool, a new process drawing on the Helsinki Accords model would be helpful. The first step would be to negotiate a new accord relevant to the world’s changed circumstances. Areas for cooperation would include:

            •           arms control and disarmament, including nuclear as well as new weapons technologies (cyber, A.I., space, biotech, hypersonics, etc.), plus terrorism,

            •           human rights,

            •           sanctions,

            •           economic development, and again

            •           confidence-building measures.

Keeping hostile parties at negotiating tables is precisely the point. The longer, the better. Ideally, such a process would become permanent. Members would commit to annual meetings and convene urgently in response to unfolding conflicts. Smaller non-member states engaged in conflicts could be invited, as necessary. Without changing the legal role of the UN, it would do what that body was originally designed to do, but absent the handicaps of a too-exclusive, veto-wielding Security Council, and an all-inclusive and therefore unwieldy General Assembly, all based on U.S. soil.

Establishing a new institution comes with its own set of challenges, such as forging the political commitment, selecting an apt location, determining membership, and honestly addressing the weariness of frequent summits. Fighting first and turning to diplomacy only when the parties are exhausted is a difficult habit to break.

Skeptics will argue that it’s pie in the sky to suggest otherwise. No great powers and certainly no authoritarian leaders would ever come to the table and risk existential compromise. But these hurdles are worth trying to overcome. We have done so in the past.

In the end, diplomacy will always be preferable to fighting and dying over disputes between states. In an increasingly dangerous world, we desperately need an era of détente and a new place for diplomacy to operate.

Randolph Mank is a former Canadian diplomat and business executive. He currently heads MankGlobal consulting, serves on boards, and is a Fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, Triple Helix, and the Balsillie School of International Affairs.

The growing impact of climate change on Canadian diets

Daily Herald Contributor
-
0
The growing impact of climate change on Canadian diets

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

Headlines are dominated by reports of wildfires in Maui, Hawaii, Yellowknife, and the raging fires in Kelowna. These wildfires pose a significant threat to British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley, a region that contributes a remarkable 25 percent to the province’s total agricultural output.

The Okanagan Valley plays a pivotal role in the cultivation of apples, peaches, pears, and various tree fruits, serving as the primary producer. Replacing trees in the event of damage can take several years, which is unsettling news for farmers and consumers alike.

The media inundates us with increasingly frequent and destructive natural disasters, making it clear that climate change has become a significant player in our reality. But how does this affect our dietary choices?

In partnership with Caddle, we conducted a nationwide study surveying 5,450 Canadians about their eating habits to measure the impact of climate change on their perceptions of food security. The results, based on a survey conducted just a few weeks ago this year, are revealing and raise questions about the growing influence of climate change on what we put on our plates.

The survey reveals that more than half of Canadians, a staggering 52.3 percent, are either very concerned or extremely concerned about climate change. This concern is not unfounded, as 73 percent of Canadians believe climate change affects weather patterns, resulting in higher temperatures in Canada.

When it comes to food production, 61 percent of Canadians believe that climate change is impacting Canada’s ability to produce food. However, it is heartening to note that despite these concerns, 60.3 percent of Canadians believe we will continue to have access to the same foods regardless of climate-related changes and patterns. This suggests a certain confidence in the resilience of our food system.

Yet, Canadians are worried about food availability. Nearly half, or 47.1 percent, fear climate change will affect food availability. Some have already noticed these changes, with 40.1 percent of Canadians reporting alterations in the availability or variety of certain foods during the summer over the past few years.

What is even more intriguing is that environmental concerns are now influencing the dietary choices of some Canadians. Nearly 38 percent of them often or always consider the environmental impact of their food choices during the summer. This demonstrates a gradual shift toward a more sustainable diet, one that is conscious of its environmental footprint.

However, there are regional disparities across Canada. Quebec, with 48.1 percent, has the highest percentage of respondents who consider the environmental impact of their food choices during the warmer months, while Saskatchewan, with only 26.4 percent, has the lowest percentage. These differences may be attributed to various factors, including regional dietary habits and awareness of climate issues.

In conclusion, the findings of this study clearly indicate that Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the connections between climate change and their diet. The natural disasters regularly afflicting our country make us reflect, and environmental concerns are increasingly influencing our dietary choices.

It is crucial to note that the growing awareness of climate issues in our diet does not necessarily mean we should panic or completely give up meat, for example. The transition to a more sustainable diet can be gradual, by choosing environmentally friendly options, when possible, while still enjoying the foods we love.

Small actions, such as buying local and seasonal produce and reducing food waste, can have a significant impact on reducing our ecological footprint. The key is to stay informed, make informed choices, and support more sustainable agricultural and food practices that benefit both our health and the planet.

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

There are better tools to make housing more affordable

Troy Media
-
0
There are better tools to make housing more affordable

by Marc Lee

Troy Media

Federal government ministers have just gathered for their annual late summer cabinet retreat, knowing that housing affordability is a top priority for Canadians.

This is because, for a growing number of people in Canada, the housing market is broken. At its core, Canada’s housing market is afflicted by decades of financialization – the treatment of housing primarily as an investment rather than a place to live.

The cost of home ownership remains close to all-time highs relative to incomes. Tight rental markets have given landlords tremendous bargaining power to raise rents sky-high. And homelessness is pervasive across the country, from street and park encampments to people getting by in RVs or couch surfing.

Housing affordability is worse than in 2017 when the federal government announced the National Housing Strategy (NHS), which recognized in legislation that “housing is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person” and that “the right to housing is a fundamental human right affirmed in international law.”

In practice, the NHS has failed to live up to those ideals. If anything, the NHS is supporting the ongoing financialization of Canada’s housing stock by emphasizing low-interest loans to private developers building market rental housing.

To remedy this, the federal government should amplify its support for non-market housing, including low-cost financing for co-ops and non-profit rental housing. The feds should also put federal land into use for the development of non-market affordable housing, and double down by acquiring additional public land.

New units can be produced at lower cost by cutting out developer profits, pressing local governments to waive development fees, and eliminating the GST on new rental housing.

Once these upfront costs of getting new housing built are covered, the stream of rental income from new housing can be used to repay the initial investment.

Another needed change is for Indigenous communities, which saw a paltry $4 billion allocated for Indigenous housing in the 2023 federal budget – rather than the $56 billion investment in urban, rural, and northern Indigenous housing recommended by Canada’s own National Housing Council.

If it was ambitious, the federal government could build one million new non-market and co-op housing units over the next decade. It could create housing policies with specific targets for Indigenous peoples, seniors, people with disabilities, immigrant families, lone parents, and people fleeing domestic violence.

By renovating the National Housing Strategy (NHS), it can genuinely and positively impact those who bear the brunt of Canada’s housing and homelessness crisis. The feds should also continue the Rental Construction Financing Initiative to provide low-interest loans for all rental housing projects – tied to more stringent criteria on providing affordable units – as higher interest rates continue to raise the cost of building.

In addition, federal support for the community housing sector to acquire existing affordable rental buildings would go a long way to keeping properties out of the hands of real estate investment trusts (REITs) aiming to renovict tenants to charge higher market rents.

British Columbia’s new $500 million Rental Protection Fund for non-profit housing providers to purchase existing rental buildings should be a model for a federal program.

These investments are not particularly costly from a budget perspective because, in most cases, the federal government would retain land or other assets.

An ambitious fiscal effort is needed for the federal government to make housing a human right. All of the tools above are available; what’s missing is the political will.

Marc Lee is a senior economist with the British Columbia office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Decoding Canada’s food inflation maze

Daily Herald Contributor
-
0
Decoding Canada’s food inflation maze

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

July’s food price data tells us a lot about why our grocery bills are the way they are.

Some Canadians might not acknowledge it, but things are getting a bit better. Our food prices increased a bit less this month, going from 8.3 percent to 7.8 percent. To make it simpler, even though food is still expensive, the prices aren’t going up as fast.

Because of this, we might soon see some essential unprocessed food items like sugar, flour, and coffee get a bit cheaper. However, the latest figures from Statistics Canada reveal a nuanced depiction of the myriad elements influencing the costs of our food. For example, bad weather like droughts and too much rain, especially in the east, made some food more expensive this summer. However, big problems from the past, like the pandemic and issues in Ukraine, don’t really affect prices anymore.

The current monthly report shows how different food prices have changed. Meat got a bit more expensive, increasing by 1.3 percent from June to July. This could be attributed to a combination of factors affecting beef prices, shifts in consumer preferences, disruptions in livestock production in Canada and the United States, and fluctuations in international trade dynamics. Veggie prices also went up by 1.2 percent, which may indicate local and global supply uncertainties, exacerbated by potential weather-related disruptions impacting harvests in certain regions.

Notably, bakery and dairy products have seen slight increases of 0.8 percent and 0.6 percent respectively. These subtle increments reflect the intricate processes of production, transportation, and the numerous factors converging to deliver these staples to our tables. Meanwhile, the one percent decline in fish prices may highlight evolving consumer behaviours or shifts in the availability of imports.

Fruit got a lot cheaper, going down by 3.4 percent. While this reduction could be welcome news for consumers, it also underscores the vulnerabilities that can disrupt getting fruit from farms to stores, especially in summer. Transportation bottlenecks, trade imbalances, and shifts in global demand are all contributing factors to such fluctuations.

Even in the broader context of the G7 nations, Canada’s food inflation data presents a unique narrative. Despite the fluctuations, Canada maintains the second lowest food inflation rate within the G7, underscoring a level of economic resilience in the face of global challenges. Only the United States currently boasts a lower food inflation rate, at 4.9 percent.

Quebec and Ontario, the country’s most populous provinces, demonstrate varying rates of food inflation. Quebec, with the highest rate among the provinces at 9.4 percent, reflects distinctive regional dynamics. In contrast, Ontario’s rate of 7.2 percent highlights a potentially different balance of supply and demand factors. While Ontario’s weather has been favourable for harvests, Quebec has experienced excessive rainfall that has damaged a significant portion of crops.

The discussion surrounding the carbon tax is also noteworthy. Amidst this intricate landscape, the impact of clean fuel and carbon taxes on food prices warrants consideration. While these policies aim to promote environmental sustainability, their direct influence on July’s food inflation remains uncertain. The complex interplay of market dynamics and government interventions makes it difficult to pinpoint the exact effect of these measures.

In the broader context, the increasing cost of lodging is becoming a significant concern for many Canadians. Rising shelter expenses are likely to place additional strain on Canadian households’ food budgets. The latest quarterly results from grocers reveal a growing preference for store brands and discount stores within a more cost-conscious consumer market, a trend likely to persist into the upcoming fall season.

In the end, July’s food price data isn’t just about numbers. It shows how strong Canada’s farming is compared to other places, even if we don’t always see it. After dealing with high food prices for 18 months, it’s clear that our food system can handle tough times. This should remind us all to work together to make sure everyone in Canada can get good, affordable food.

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

‘Skimpflation’ the latest challenge for price-conscious grocery shoppers

Troy Media
-
0
‘Skimpflation’ the latest challenge for price-conscious grocery shoppers

by Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

Food prices are rising, and new words are being created to explain why. Along with higher prices and smaller product sizes – a trend known as “shrinkflation” – consumers have also found themselves grappling with the concept of “shelflation.” If you’ve noticed a decline in product quality, you can blame “shelflation,” which refers to food items having a shorter shelf life due to disruptions in the supply chain, particularly affecting perishables like produce.

Another term you need to be aware of is “skimpflation,” which signifies a subtle alteration in the nutritional composition of certain products. This isn’t a new practice; food companies have been doing it for years. They’ve changed recipes, which can often result in discernible disparities in taste and texture.

For example, a recent CBC report highlighted changes in E.D. Smith’s pumpkin pie filling recipe, with vegetable oil moving down the ingredient list and water taking on a more prominent role as the third primary ingredient. Familiar products like Cheez Whiz have changed too, with cheese no longer being the main ingredient and being replaced with something called “modified dairy substances.” This trend extends across a spectrum of products, including granola bars, chips, chocolate, pasta, and crackers.

Why are food manufacturers doing this? There are a few reasons. While “skimpflation” might make you think companies are just trying to save money – and that’s part of it – there’s more going on. As the cost of food ingredients surge, companies reformulate and rigorously test new recipes to keep prices down while ensuring consumers remain unaware of any changes. Admittedly, the nutritional integrity of products can be compromised in the process.

But food manufacturers might also reformulate products to appeal to specific demographics, or to meet new rules and regulations. This might involve intentional alterations in flavours, calorie counts, sodium levels, fat content, or even sugar content.

An upcoming law in 2026 about labels will require symbols on packages with high levels of saturated fat, sugars, and/or sodium. To avoid having such an indicator on their products, companies are changing their recipes now, resulting in revised ingredient lists for numerous food items.

Essentially, “skimpflation” is about more than saving money. It’s also a response to new rules and regulations. These practices are legal, but if you want to understand what’s happening, you’ll need to watch food labels closely. Unfortunately, there’s not much else customers can do.

“Skimpflation” is also affecting customer service in grocery stores. A recent report from Field Agent Canada showed that many people are unhappy with the service they’re getting. Seventy-nine percent have noticed products being unavailable, 55 percent have encountered longer queues, 48 percent have found fewer checkout clerks, and 39 percent have found insufficient checkout lanes. The proliferation of self-checkout lanes has also made some customers unhappy. These issues highlight more ways companies are trying to cut costs.

However, the impact of “skimpflation” on our food economy extends beyond products to encompass customer service. Over the past year, a report from Field Agent Canada has illuminated a host of unsatisfactory service-related experiences in grocery stores, indicative of a shift in service quality and labour issues. As a collective, 79 percent of Canadians have observed instances of product unavailability, 55 percent have encountered longer queues, 48 percent have noted a shortage of checkout clerks, 47 percent have struggled to locate store employees, and 39 percent have identified an insufficient number of checkout lanes. The proliferation of self-checkout lanes in recent years has further exacerbated consumer dissatisfaction. All these instances underscore a trend of cutbacks and cost-saving measures.

The landscape of grocery shopping has undergone a transformation. Not only have products evolved, but the service provided has also undergone alterations. It is imperative for consumers to pay attention and adapt to these changes in the food market as they navigate the evolving food economy.

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

Price-fixing accusations cast shadow on food industry giants

Troy Media
-
0
Price-fixing accusations cast shadow on food industry giants

Serious breach of trust? High-ranking food industry executives accused in alleged price-fixing scandal

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

We have just learned that major Canadian food companies, namely Loblaw, Metro, Maple Leaf Foods, Walmart, and Weston Bakeries, find themselves entangled in a class-action lawsuit filed in Quebec. It seems inevitable that we may soon witness a similar class-action lawsuit affecting the rest of Canada.

The lawsuit in Quebec alleges that these industry giants colluded to unlawfully manipulate the price of meat, resulting in households allegedly paying more than $4 billion in unjustified excess. At the centre of the case lies a critical piece of evidence – an email dating back to March 2007, wherein the former president of Maple Leaf Foods, Michael McCain, outlines a concerning discussion with Paul Del Duca, a former Senior Vice President at Metro in Ontario.

There is some truth in the perspective that this is just another class-action lawsuit perfect for an ambulance-chasing law firm seeking work. However, the implications of this lawsuit are profound, casting a shadow of doubt on the integrity of these corporate behemoths and raising serious concerns about consumer justice in the Canadian market. The gravity of these allegations cannot be understated, as they potentially represent a betrayal of trust and a breach of ethical business practices, impacting countless Canadian families.

For many years, observers have speculated that the price-fixing culture in the food industry might extend beyond just bread and impact other sections of the grocery store, including meat. In 2017, when Loblaw and Weston Bakeries admitted guilt for fixing bread prices for 14 years, they also implicated Empire/Sobeys, Metro, Giant Tiger, Walmart, and Canada Bread. Initially, all companies denied involvement, but Canada Bread, under new ownership, recently admitted their role and paid a $50 million fine, revealing a link between bread and meat price-fixing.

Canada Bread was owned by Maple Leaf Foods during most of the 14 years when the alleged bread price-fixing scheme was ongoing. The email from 2007, likely written by Michael McCain himself, suggested that a “new pricing strategy” could be considered for other food categories, including meat.

Data shows that the average household spends over $2,000 on buying meat trifecta components, which include beef, chicken, and pork, making it more than double the amount Canadian households spend on bakery goods. The financial implications for each and every one of us are significant.

Interestingly, the Quebec-based lawsuit mentions the same companies involved in the alleged bread price-fixing scheme, except for two companies, Empire/Sobeys and Giant Tiger. Although both carry Maple Leaf Foods branded products, no rationale was provided for their exclusion.

For months now, many Canadians have accused the food industry of gouging consumers, citing “record profits” recorded by many companies. Coping with market conditions and higher operational costs is one thing, but colluding and breaking the law is an entirely different matter.

If proven true, the accusation of price-fixing strikes at the core of fair competition, stifling the fundamental principles that govern a healthy market. When corporations conspire to manipulate prices, consumers become the ultimate victims, forced to bear the burden of unjustified costs while their trust in the system erodes.

Particularly alarming in this case is the alleged involvement of high-ranking executives from prominent companies. The email correspondence between McCain and Del Duca serves as a chilling reminder that unethical practices may have reached the upper echelons of corporate leadership, where decisions of far-reaching consequence are made.

Such revelations expose the vulnerabilities in our corporate governance and demand immediate scrutiny to ensure that similar breaches of trust do not persist.

In other words, the food industry indeed has a price-fixing problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

The significance of the class-action lawsuit becomes even more pronounced considering the entity spearheading the legal action. The lawyers involved are taking up the mantle for the Competition Bureau, which has faced criticism for its lacklustre track record in enforcing fair competition practices. Although Loblaw and Weston Bakeries received immunity when coming forward in 2015, the gift cards and apologies offered to Canadians do not make them feel protected in any way.

In the United States, executives caught colluding go to jail, while in Canada, they receive immunity. The contrasts could not be more significant. Rather than waiting for companies to admit guilt or relying solely on lawyers to do its work, the Competition Bureau needs to step up as soon as possible.

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

Unravelling Canada’s true emission story

Troy Media
-
0
Unravelling Canada’s true emission story

Does Canadian natural gas have lower methane emissions than the rest of the world? Who knows

Thomas Fox, Troy Media

As a PhD student working on methane, I recall hearing claims from regulators and industry representatives that Canadian natural gas boasted the world’s lowest methane emissions. At the time, the assertion seemed plausible, given Canada’s early adoption of stringent regulations and visionary policies enabling the use of alternative methane monitoring technologies and a robust regulatory offset market.

However, almost a decade later, Canada still lacks the necessary data and methodologies to substantiate claims about the low-methane performance of its gas.

Canada is not entirely to blame. To prove our industry’s relative performance, we must use a common standard for measuring emissions, one also used by the countries or regions we compare ourselves against.

Unfortunately, we have been missing both a standardized set of measurements and a framework for interpreting them to draw inferences about the performance of entire regions, industries, or countries. Additionally, many other gas-producing nations have been slow to adopt robust measurement practices, preventing meaningful comparisons.

To make matters worse, industry, government, and society have grown increasingly confused as diverse new measurement technologies provide emissions estimates inconsistent with regulatory reporting techniques. A company’s (or a country’s) ‘true’ emissions are, therefore, unclear and complicated by a combination of imperfect engineering equations, immature measurement capabilities, and extreme spatial and temporal variability in emission rates.

Fortunately, emerging initiatives and data could enable Canada to establish itself transparently and credibly as a global leader in low-carbon energy. For instance, the MiQ-Highwood Index, released in June 2023, provided, for the first time, a measurement-informed national-scale average methane intensity for the U.S. of 2.2 percent.

Unfortunately, no similar credible estimate currently exists for Canada. With new methane regulations currently in development both in Canada and the U.S., and with the emergence of new public datasets that greatly exceed historical estimates, we must think carefully about how we acquire, interpret, and disclose emissions data so that our claims are seen as credible.

The key to communicating Canada’s narrative to the world lies in adopting new international standards for measuring, quantifying, extrapolating, and disclosing emissions from the oil and gas (O&G) industry. Canadian companies and academics are actively contributing to developing and implementing these global standards to enable benchmarking of companies, O&G supply chain segments, specific commodities, and entire countries in their emissions performance assessments. Pertinent examples include the GTI Energy Veritas Protocols, the United Nations OGMP 2.0 methane reporting program, and the MiQ Standard for low-methane gas certification.

Through these standards, the world is transitioning away from rudimentary “bottom-up” accounting frameworks grounded in industry-average assumptions, as currently used by Canadian regulators, and towards company-specific carbon accounting based on emissions inventories informed by site-level “top-down” measurements. In the U.S., intensity-based targets, backed by empirical data and the best available quantification methods, are replacing traditional emissions reduction targets expressed as a percentage of an elusive and unmeasurable baseline, as done in Canada.

Until now, Canada’s credibility in backing up its performance claims has suffered due to inadequate measurement and reporting of emissions. To stay competitive, we must shift towards reporting methane intensity using a common language accepted and understood by international stakeholders. This requires empowering Canadian industry to develop and maintain measurement-informed emissions inventories aligned with international standards. Failure to do so will result in new public datasets with satellites and aircraft revealing the real story to the world, likely harming Canada’s credibility.

To address these challenges and seize the opportunities ahead, I urge the governments of Canada and Alberta to embrace measurement, transparency, and credibility by taking the following steps:

            •           Conduct a review of emerging international carbon accounting standards, assessing their alignment with Canadian requirements for data collection, quantification, and tracking.

            •           Shift towards intensity-based targets instead of vague percentage reductions based on a long-past baseline year.

            •           Design, build, implement, and maintain an emissions database to share information and demonstrate excellence internationally, adhering to widely accepted standards and measurement-informed reporting requirements.

            •           Encourage and support operators to join international methane reduction and reporting programs.

It is time for Canada to take a decisive step towards establishing itself as a global leader in low-carbon energy and methane emissions reduction. By embracing new international standards and investing in measurement-informed reporting, we can achieve our environmental goals, enhance our industry’s credibility, and secure a sustainable energy future.

Thomas Fox is President of Highwood Emissions Management. His expertise is in methane detection and quantification technology, voluntary initiatives, measurement-informed inventories, and forecasting emissions management strategies through simulation. At Highwood, Thomas works with industry, regulators, and innovators to evaluate and deploy cutting-edge emissions management solutions. He holds a PhD from the University of Calgary and an MSc from McGill University.

1...567...20Page 6 of 20