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.

Banning plastic packaging may compromise food safety

Troy Media
-
0
Banning plastic packaging may compromise food safety

Consumers may perceive non-plastic packaging for food items as risky to their families’ health

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

The Canadian government has introduced a prospective initiative to address plastic packaging pollution within the grocery retail sector. Known as the “Pollution Prevention Planning Notice (P2 Notice),” the initiative specifically targets plastic packaging in direct contact with food items.

Although measures like plastic bag bans and the elimination of plastic utensils have been implemented, these actions merely touch the surface of the broader challenge posed by our dependence on plastics.

P2 represents the next logical and desirable step in combating what is arguably the most significant problem in the food industry – food packaging. However, such changes will not come without considerable challenges.

The utilization of plastic materials for food packaging purposes has surged to a substantial 37.3 million tons annually, as reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Most of these plastics are single-use items that often end up in landfills.

Under the P2 Notice, Canadian grocery retailers would be required to formulate and execute comprehensive pollution prevention plans with the primary objective of reducing, reusing, and redesigning plastic packaging in food distribution.

Based on documents from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the P2 Notice is strategically designed to eliminate unnecessary or problematic plastic packaging and introduce reliable systems based on reuse and refilling for single-use plastic alternatives. The emphasis is on ensuring the recyclability, reusability, or composability of any plastic packaging associated with these products.

In principle, the aim of reducing plastic usage is commendable. However, it is important to recognize that plastics are widely used due to their food safety efficiency and lower costs compared to existing alternatives.

Plastics play a vital role in preserving food freshness and aesthetic appeal for extended periods. Considering Canada’s strong food safety culture, consumers may hesitate to purchase unpackaged or inadequately packaged items, perceiving them as risky.

Food waste is another concern, as plastics enable the safe transportation of products over long distances without compromising freshness or quality. Subpar products are less likely to be purchased by consumers, and this is well understood by grocers.

Despite the popularity of plastics among Canadians, support for their usage could wane during unforeseen events like a pandemic. Public opinion shifts have been observed in the past, with many viewing plastics as a safeguard against bacteria and viruses. Additionally, crime-related concerns arise, as plastics protect fruits and vegetables from potential tampering, as seen in a previous incident with an Australian supermarket in 2018.

Efforts to eliminate plastics are essential, but caution must be exercised. Industry and consumers alike will need to adapt their expectations, accepting certain compromises in convenience and price. However, with higher food prices these days, less than 15 percent of Canadians are willing to pay more for food with greener packaging, which poses a challenge for the industry to innovate without losing essential market support.

Grocery vendors and stakeholders have an opportunity until August 30 to contribute their valuable insights and concerns concerning the consultation document outlining the forthcoming advancements in the P2 Notice. May this process yield fruitful outcomes for all stakeholders involved.

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

Strengthening property rights part of the answer to Canada’s housing crunch

Troy Media
-
0
Strengthening property rights part of the answer to Canada’s housing crunch

Inadequate safeguards for property rights affecting housing affordability

Joseph Quesnel, Troy Media

Housing is a big issue for Canadians. Even though house prices fell slightly after the pandemic, it’s still tough for young families to find and afford a home.

A poll from Ipsos in the spring showed that about 63 out of every 100 Canadians who don’t own a house have given up on ever getting one. Almost seven out of 10 said that only rich people can afford to own homes.

However, many Canadians may not understand how property rights – or, in many cases, the lack thereof – play a part in the housing shortage, and how robust property rights can help alleviate the problem.

The recently released Canadian Property Rights Index from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy identified how local laws that control how people can use their land are a major cause for concern across Canada. These laws, known as ‘regulatory takings’, can be very limiting. Regulatory or ‘constructive’ takings refer to local land use or zoning laws that limit how individuals may use their land.

Many jurisdictions, provinces and municipalities in Canada have such laws, with the most restrictive coming from the provinces. As a result, this land can’t be used for building houses.

Excluding land from development and urban growth puts upward pressure on housing prices. There is a clear connection between urban containment policies and housing affordability. ‘Urban containment’ is a name for policies that limit the spread of cities and clearly separate city and country land.

Wendell Cox – author of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey – has documented how these policies affect housing affordability in all cities around the world. It’s basic supply and demand: policies that limit or ban the development of unused land push up the cost of land and housing.

This is certainly not confined to Canada. In 2015, New Zealand’s Productivity Commission stated that: “When the release of land for development is restricted (in and around cities), it creates scarcity, limits housing choices, and drives up housing prices. People with less money are hit hardest.”

Sadly, the image of ‘greedy’ land developers often hides the fact that housing accessibility and affordability mainly affect the less well-off. Critics of ‘McMansions’ in residential development often overlook the typical homes found on the outskirts of major cities. It’s not the wealthy but ordinary Canadian families who occupy these homes. Rather than being criticized, home builders deserve recognition for their contributions.

Policymakers and politicians need to find ways to balance legitimate societal needs with the need for land for housing and other development.

British Columbia and Ontario offer two case studies.

Since the 1970s, B.C. has maintained an Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as a land use exclusion zone. Designed to protect valuable agricultural land and protect the public from food insecurity, the exclusion zone has created problems for municipalities seeking to grow to accommodate growing populations. The reserve is administered by the Agricultural Land Commission, an administrative tribunal, and is very restrictive in allowing exclusions from the zone. The problem is people forget about the human need for housing and portray the issue as a victory for pristine farmland over greedy land speculators. Prejudice against the suburbs and an unrealistic faith in high-density housing also contribute to the problem.

Even though the ALR only covers about five percent of B.C.’s total land, its rules have blocked the housing and development needs of communities.

In the case of Ontario’s ‘Greenbelt,’ cynical critics are more often focused on who wants to develop the land than the fact that municipalities are being squeezed and feel that certain lands need to be excluded from the Greenbelt if they are to meet the housing and development needs of their communities.

Experience with urban containment policies in the United States might serve as an inspiration. Facing housing affordability issues, many states have seen pushback against such policies. States such as Colorado, with more robust democratic systems that allow for referenda and citizen initiatives, rejected overly restrictive urban containment policies and favoured the property rights of land users.

Canadians across all provinces and territories should also push back, stop demonizing land developers and begin to recognize their property rights so we can solve our housing problems.

Joseph Quesnel is a senior research associate with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is the author of the newly revised Canadian Property Rights Index.

What the Metro strike could mean to Canada’s grocery industry

Troy Media
-
0
What the Metro strike could mean to Canada’s grocery industry

Metro strike could become a focal point in the fight for worker rights within grocery industry

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

The labour dispute at Metro’s 27 grocery stores in the Toronto area has emerged as a pivotal focal point in the ongoing struggle for worker rights and equitable treatment within the food retail industry.

With an impressive workforce of 3,700 dedicated employees engaged in strike action, this conflict has already garnered considerable attention from scholars, policymakers, and the public alike. Beyond its immediate ramifications, the resolution of this dispute possesses the potential to reverberate across the entire Canadian grocery sector, thereby establishing a precedent for the broader frontline food industry.

At the crux of the matter lies the collective aspiration of the workforce to negotiate improved working conditions, just wages, and enhanced benefits. However, such a plea is far from simplistic within the confines of a low-margin business environment.

The issues raised by the union reflect systemic challenges afflicting numerous frontline workers operating within the sector. Amidst the mounting cost of living and economic uncertainties, employees are earnestly endeavouring to safeguard their rights and livelihoods, and their demand for fair treatment is both rational and justified. Who, indeed, could contest such a noble pursuit?

Adding fuel to the motivation of union workers to strike is the recent disclosure of hefty bonuses bestowed upon grocery executives in recent months. As per company documents disclosed earlier this year, the total compensation for the top five Metro executives for the year concluding in September 2022 amounted to a staggering $13.2 million, signifying a four percent upsurge from the previous year’s equivalent period. Notably, the bonus component of their compensation witnessed an astonishing 13.7 percent escalation, reaching a sum of $3.7 million. This disparity equates to a stark $1,000 for each employee currently participating in the strike.

Comparable announcements of corporate bonuses by other grocery retailers have elicited disapproval from both Canadians and grocery employees alike.

It is noteworthy that most employees at Metro have, in the past, received bonuses in the form of gift cards, typically amounting to $300 for full-time workers. While such a gesture may be perceived as commendable, it also raises concerns about the potential self-serving nature of these rewards, considering they emanate from one’s own employer.

An intriguing aspect of this dispute lies in how union workers have, to some extent, undermined their own union leadership. Despite the latter’s acceptance of Metro’s offer, the workers outright rejected it, citing a significant gap between the perception of acceptability by union leaders and the actual desires of the union workers.

A similar scenario unfolded at ports in British Columbia, which have also been grappling with labour issues since the end of June, focusing on matters of salaries and concerns about automation potentially displacing human workers. These occurrences signal a broader trend.

Undoubtedly, Metro acknowledges the indispensable value of its frontline workers in their indispensable contributions to maintaining the supply chain and guaranteeing consumers’ access to vital goods, particularly during the pandemic when their unwavering dedication and service came to the fore. Nevertheless, these efforts are frequently undervalued in terms of compensation and job security.

Despite a substantial proportion of these positions being occupied by young students or individuals seeking supplementary income, the industry is not renowned for providing ideal and desirable working conditions. It may be time to contemplate novel approaches to the management of grocery stores.

Metro’s current business model inherently poses challenges to accommodating higher wages and nurturing career-building positions at the store level without reducing the number of employees. For instance, to implement a 10 percent increase in salaries without impacting retail prices, the workforce would need to be reduced to below 50 employees, at a minimum. This scenario necessitates the incorporation of automation and artificial intelligence, consequently transforming the nature of numerous jobs within the industry.

Worth noting is that Metro’s vast presence, with over 325 grocery stores and more than 600 pharmacies across Eastern Canada, makes it a prominent player within the sector, despite not being the largest.

The outcome of this labour dispute will undoubtedly exert a profound influence on the Metro grocery chain as well as other grocers throughout the country. A triumph for union workers could embolden frontline employees in other sectors to advocate for their rights, thus potentially setting in motion a chain reaction that could reverberate across the entire retail industry.

Regrettably, for grocers, the optics of the situation are not in their favour. Frontline grocery workers currently possess considerable political capital, and they are well aware of this fact. Although most Canadians may not be acquainted with Metro’s CEO, they certainly recognize and appreciate the dedicated individuals such as Jim, Carrie, or Tom, who attentively serve them during their visits to the grocery store. These personal connections carry significant weight, particularly in contemporary times.

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

Why NATO must continue to support Ukraine

Troy Media
-
0
Why NATO must continue to support Ukraine

Waller Newell, Troy Media

The decision last week by the majority of U.S. members of Congress and senators to continue to fund Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself – $300 million in security assistance for Ukraine authorized by the House of Representatives – was a welcome reminder that despite increasing isolationist noise from some American lawmakers, most see support for Ukraine as in the interest of their country, and the West more generally.

That $300 million was part of the annual defense appropriation but Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz both proposed amendments to remove this funding. Greene’s amendment lost 341 t,o 89 while Gaetz’s failed by 358 to 70, with a majority in both parties opposing such 1930s-style neo-isolationism.

To grasp why isolationist sentiments are increasing, consider three common reasons given for opposing Western (including American, Canadian, and European) aid to Ukraine: Russia’s historical claim to Ukraine, past promises made by NATO and the United States, and concerns about Ukrainian corruption.

Russian President Vladimir Putin often claims that Ukraine is not a legitimate country but rather part of Russia. However, this claim is unfounded. Since the introduction of Christianity in 988, Kyiv has been the spiritual capital of Rus. While Ukraine was later conquered by Catherine the Great, such historical conquests cannot serve as a basis for the current international order. In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine became an independent country with its territorial integrity guaranteed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia itself through the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. It is crucial to honour this commitment.

Putin’s claim for the invasion, that NATO’s eastward expansion is aggressive and threatens Russia’s borders, does not make sense unless Russia has no intention of living in peace with its neighbours. For instance, living next to a democracy like Poland or the Baltic Republics should not pose a threat to Russia. In fact, historical evidence shows that the aggression has primarily come from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939 as part of the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Nazi Germany, which divided Poland between the two totalitarian regimes. The Soviet Union also invaded and annexed the Baltic Republics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) in 1940.

Furthermore, Putin’s claim that there was a written or tacit agreement in 1989 not to expand NATO eastward has been denied by then-U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and then-Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev.

In terms of Ukrainian corruption, the current government has made significant efforts to combat it since the 2013 Maidan Uprising and the removal of pro-Russian oligarch Viktor Yanuvkoyvch. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky even fired numerous senior government officials last January, amid the ongoing war, to address corruption.

Throughout his time in power, Putin has sought to regain influence over the foreign policies of former Soviet states, including their weaponry. Putin’s goal is not to restore the Soviet Union but to unite the Slavic peoples of Europe under Russian control. This vision has been fueled by ideologues like Aleksandr Dugin, a Russian ultranationalist and political theorist who promotes fascist ideas inspired by Martin Heidegger’s commitment to the Third Reich. Putin’s endorsement of Dugin’s ideology and its influence explains why Putin’s claim that Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish, leads a fascist regime is not only factually incorrect but actually the opposite is true: the fascist elements reside in Dugin’s ideology and Putin’s rhetoric.

If Putin is not expelled from Ukraine, he will likely pose a threat to other democracies as well. This is why liberal democracies have a shared interest in supporting Ukraine’s war effort.

Unfortunately, the commitment to supporting Ukraine is not as strong as it once was in Western democracies, the U.S. included. This is why the neo-isolationists, although a minority in the Republican Party, have abandoned Ronald Reagan’s policy of defending and supporting freedom domestically and abroad. Some isolationists, like American journalist Mollie Hemingway, advocate for avoiding foreign entanglements, a stance with historical roots in the positions of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Others, like Tucker Carlson, even endorse Putin’s false historical claims to justify his invasions.

Despite these challenges, there is a bright spot in all this. Despotic leaders often initiate wars but often find themselves crippled by them. Russia experienced this in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. More recently, Yevgeny Prighozin’s near-coup, which resulted from Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, demonstrated that such actions can backfire domestically.

Moreover, while Putin’s invasion was supposedly aimed at halting NATO’s expansion, NATO has actually added new members along Russia’s borders. Therefore, Putin has unintentionally thwarted his own objectives. Nevertheless, he must be expelled from his remaining hold in eastern Ukraine.

Once Ukraine is free from Putin’s threat, it will have a promising future, and its values should be endorsed by liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike.

Waller Newell is Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Carleton University and a Senior Fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy. His newest book is Tyranny and Revolution: Rousseau to Heidegger.

Indigenous peoples have a chance – if they grasp it

Troy Media
-
0
Indigenous peoples have a chance – if they grasp it

The future of Indigenous policy requires emerging from the shadow of the Indian Act

Joseph Quesnel

Troy Media

Reflecting on the evolution of federal policy, it should be obvious in the third decade of the 21st century that one significant mistake made by the federal government in history to federalize every issue involving Indigenous peoples.

For better or worse, the British set out on the federalizing policy path starting with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. That determined that indigenous inhabitants of this land would be treated as collectives and negotiated with through signed treaties that set out rights and responsibilities. From the start, though, it was the central government, and it alone, that dealt with First Nation communities.

As with most top-down approaches that exist far from local conditions, Indigenous policy in Ottawa became rigid and inflexible in meeting changing needs and circumstances. Not only this, but post-Confederation, the Indian Act did not keep up with the rapidly evolving changes taking place in Canada.

For example, as provinces began to create education and health care systems, First Nations on reserve found themselves islands of federal jurisdiction within the provinces. Programs and services delivered by local or provincial governments to other Canadians were instead delivered by distant federal civil servants to First Nations.

Whereas provinces could tailor policies to suit their populations, Indigenous people had to contend with an inflexible federal Indian Act regime that denied them full access to their own lands and required them to sign off with far-away Ottawa on most aspects of public life.

In the 21st century, First Nations people on reserves find themselves facing the same problems they dealt with at Confederation: an inflexible federal regime that demands oversight for basic economic transactions, band governance more accountable to the federal government than its own membership, and land restrictions that were intended to protect the indigenous land base but that now prevent indigenous entrepreneurs and governments from accessing capital.

In other words, First Nations still have 19th-century tools in a 21st-century world, which explains the slow progress out of poverty on many reserves.

Still, there are signs of an economic spring. First Nations have changed in recent decades because a growing urban middle class formed from members exposed to how the rest of Canada lives. They support certain constitutional rights for their communities but are much more open to voluntary change and want democratic governance and prosperity.

As a journalist and indigenous policy analyst for over 15 years, I have witnessed and documented this shift within the indigenous populace. In addition, indigenous leaders who have galvanized indigenous support for change and challenge the so-called Aboriginal orthodoxy have emerged.

British Columbia indigenous businessman and lawyer Calvin Helin, whose 2008 book Dances with Dependency documented the problems of dependency within First Nations communities, is one example. So too reformist political leaders such as Kamloops Chief Manny Jules, Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Indian Band, and Ellis Ross, now a Liberal member of the British Columbia legislature but who was previously the elected chief councillor for the Haisla First Nation on the coast of British Columbia. It was Ross who, in attracting natural gas investment to that territory, was the main force behind its drive from poverty to prosperity.

The best way to understand the dynamic now underway in Indigenous Canada is a 2022 observation from Financial Post columnist Diane Francis. Francis wrote of how Indigenous peoples in Canada were undergoing a “Quiet Revolution.” This was a reference to the period in Quebec’s history when that province, and the society therein, underwent profound social and political upheaval, including calls for modernization.

This is why First Nations people thus have both a choice and a chance. They seek the same good life and avenues as other Canadians, despite any rhetoric to the contrary: greater opportunity for themselves and their children and honest, transparent governance in their communities. Although most are committed to addressing past struggles, such as unresolved land claims and recognition of indigenous rights – no easy task given different views about what those terms mean – many are more concerned about economic independence for their communities and jobs for themselves and their family members.

One frank truth must be acknowledged: The real division in the 21st century is not necessarily between “indigenous” and “settlers,” as many vested interests, too many academics, and some indigenous ideologues claim. Instead, the division is between middle-class, pro-reform Indigenous leaders, grassroots Indigenous peoples, and businesspeople versus the Indigenous political organizations and scholars who are overly invested in the status quo, including reflexive, unproductive activism.

That status quo includes an attachment to ongoing government-granted preferences, including, ironically, for the continued isolation of indigenous peoples, but this time justified with reference to protecting an assumed “pure” culture.

This opposition to needed change is why reformists in government and elsewhere must find common cause with the indigenous reformist voices who are already pushing for change, and marginalize those too invested in the status quo.

Joseph Quesnel is a writer and researcher based in Nova Scotia and a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation. This chapter excerpt is from the Aristotle Foundation’s new book, The 1867 Project: Why Canada Should be Cherished – Not Cancelled, edited by Mark Milke.

What does the latest interest rate hike mean for your wallet?

Troy Media
-
0
What does the latest interest rate hike mean for your wallet?

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

The Bank of Canada has once again increased its benchmark interest rate, this time by .25 basis points to five percent, amid growing apprehension from a number of financial experts regarding its potential impact on consumers. And their concerns are not unfounded.

Let us examine the evidence …

Undoubtedly, food and housing constitute the fundamental necessities of life. Pertinent data reveals that the cost of housing exerts a considerable influence on our grocery expenditures. Notably, despite prevailing inflation, the latest quarterly results from Empire/Sobeys/IGA indicate a $16 million decline in food sales compared to the corresponding quarter of the previous year. That’s right, $16 million. Similarly, Loblaw/Provigo experienced a mere 3.1 percent increase in food sales over the past year, despite inflation consistently exceeding nine percent for the preceding 12 months. Metro witnessed a modest 5.8 percent rise in food sales at their stores during the last quarter.

In essence, retailers are, at best, merely sustaining their food sales. Consumers may be visiting restaurants more often, but we are all actively pursuing special offers, forsaking national brands, and gravitating towards more affordable stores. While food prices are undeniably rising, discounted products can still be found. On average, supermarkets proffer a range of 15,000 to 60,000 products, contingent upon the shopping locale. Consequently, alternatives do exist.

Conversely, housing presents significantly disparate and less accessible options.

The past year has proven challenging for almost everyone due to escalating interest rates. Particularly, rental costs in Canada have surged in recent months. For instance, the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment is presently $1,828, according to Rentals.ca, a 13.03 percent increase over a single year, amounting to an additional $238 per month. Consequently, tenants of one-bedroom apartments must now bear a rent that exceeds the preceding year’s by nearly $3,000.

The same scenario also applies to two-bedroom apartments. The average monthly rent in Canada stands at $2,243, reflecting a 10.7 percent surge over a year, with approximately one-third of Canadians renting their residences.

Homeowners and mortgage borrowers face an even more alarming situation. For those who acquired a $500,000 house last year, with a 25-year mortgage with a 20 percent down payment, the monthly payments hovered around $1,700, subject to the prevailing interest rate. These payments have now surpassed $2,800 per month, or $1,100 more per month and nearly $13,000 more annually. Maintaining the same standard of living under such circumstances necessitates a considerable financial commitment. Moreover, over time, many households find themselves compelled to renegotiate their mortgages at significantly higher interest rates.

In contrast to the relative accessibility of substituting grocery items, effecting changes concerning rent or mortgage payments proves more arduous. Such adjustments entail either selling and relocating or seeking a roommate to share the burden of housing costs. Regardless of the chosen course of action, associated expenses inevitably accompany a change of address.

The statistics underscore the financial strain endured by Canadians, held captive by the exorbitant costs of housing and consequently compelled to make compromises in their grocery expenditures. These compromises encompass both financial considerations and nutritional factors – this is the new reality.

Given the foreseeable persistence of rising rents and mortgage rates, the prevailing macroeconomic context compels us all to embrace a more frugal mindset reminiscent of the trends experienced in the early 1980s. During that era, promotional products not only experienced temporary surges in popularity but became the norm for many households.

Although the prospect of abundance and indulgence will eventually resurface, it will require some time to materialize.

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

Trudeau’s carbon tax crusade a war on Canada’s poorest

Troy Media
-
0
Trudeau’s carbon tax crusade a war on Canada’s poorest

Gwyn Morgan

Troy Media

Wildfires in Canada and unseasonably high temperatures in Europe are being blamed on climate change, escalating the perceived urgency to “do something” about carbon emissions.

In Canada, it seems no volume of emissions is too small to worry about. B.C. taxpayers will soon be paying some $28 million to connect cruise ships docking in Victoria to electric shore power so diesel generators can be shut down. This must set a world record in terms of the cost per unit of avoided emissions.

We’re also on track to establish a coast-to-coast cost record on emissions reductions through ever-rising carbon taxes on motor fuel plus deliberate debilitation of the oil and gas industry – though it contributes the largest share of any industry’s GDP and export revenue.

Motorists in B.C., Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are already paying average federal and provincial gasoline taxes of 15.4 cents per litre, plus carbon taxes of 14 cents for a total of 29.4 cents per litre. The federal carbon tax is scheduled to increase to 37 cents per litre by 2030, taking average gasoline taxes to 52.4 cents per litre.

But that’s not all. On Canada Day, the feds also imposed their “clean fuel standard,” a scheme requiring providers of motor fuels to progressively reduce “carbon intensity.” Environment and Climate Change Canada says this will raise gasoline costs another 17 cents per litre.

Adding these together means motorists in provinces making up 80 percent of Canada’s population will be paying average motor fuel taxes of 69.4 cents per litre by 2030. In the U.S., by contrast, total federal and state gasoline taxes average just 11.7 cents per litre – with absolutely no sign of increasing.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has concluded these rising motor fuel taxes are “broadly regressive,” meaning the economic impact will fall disproportionately on lower-income people already struggling to pay the rising cost of groceries and other necessities. And the cost of all those necessities will be driven even higher by carbon taxes levied on the fuels used to produce and deliver them.

How ironic that a self-described “progressive” Liberal government kept in power by the deeply socialist NDP – both supposedly dedicated to protecting the poor – is fighting a war on carbon emissions on the backs of those who can least afford it.

Speaking of people who can least afford carbon taxes, a just-published study entitled How will Atlantic Canada fare under the carbon tax? found that the two most populous Maritime provinces will be the hardest hit. Nova Scotia’s reliance on power generated from high-taxed coal will see its power production costs rise an estimated 109 percent, while those in New Brunswick will climb 42 percent.

That’s the direct impact on individual Canadians.

What about damage to the businesses that employ them? Members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), struggling to recover from the pandemic, now face bankruptcy due to the year-end deadline to pay back Canada Emergency Business Account loans. The CFIB estimates 250,000 Canadian small businesses are at risk of failure. Ironically, escalating federal fuel taxes, imposed by the government they are required to repay, are raising virtually all of their operating costs as many teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.

Then there’s the impact on our exporters. Cross-border trade with the U.S. accounts for the lion’s share of our exports. Business investment per worker is an important predictor of economic prosperity and competitiveness. A just-published study by the Fraser Institute finds that Canadian business investment per worker was $14,687 in 2021 compared with $26,751 in the U.S. Rising carbon taxes are certain to widen that gap, driving more Canadian factories south of the border – and further driving down our living standards.

But will all this economic sacrifice make any difference whatsoever to climate change? Hardly. Calculations using data from the Government of Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions website show that if all our gasoline and diesel-powered cars and trucks were taken off the road for one year, the total emissions avoided would offset China’s emissions by just 58 hours. But where are the calls for a carbon-intensity tax on Chinese imports?

How ironic that a nation with one of the world’s greatest endowments of energy resources deliberately drives the costs of its energy to be among the world’s highest. It brings to mind the ancient Japanese practice of hara-kiri, meaning “disembowelment with honour.” The difference is that ritual suicide by hara-kiri was a personal choice. Canadians have no choice in the Trudeau government’s disembowelment of the country’s economic well-being.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

We got the CERB all wrong

Troy Media
-
0
We got the CERB all wrong

Survey reveals CERB boosted employment and skills development during pandemic

Katherine Scott and Trish Hennessy

Troy Media

Of all the headlines about how much the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) cost and questions about who received it, there’s a buried headline: CERB helped Canadians get better jobs after the pandemic shutdown.

Working with the Future Skills Centre and Abacus Data, we surveyed 1,500 Canadians who received the CERB during the COVID-19 shutdown.

Overwhelmingly, they said CERB was a positive experience. It provided stability during a global crisis: 70 percent of respondents said CERB had a positive impact on their household financial situation.

But CERB was more than just an income support.

Two-thirds of respondents said it helped them deal with the stress of the pandemic. Sixty percent said it allowed them to take care of ill family members. Half of them said it helped them re-enter the job market.

And here’s the real news: CERB provided the space and financial resources for many survey respondents to improve their skills.

While many Canadians hunkered down during the pandemic lockdowns binge-watching Ted Lasso and learning how to make sourdough bread, 37 percent of CERB recipients in our survey said they used the time to further their education.

CERB was a big incentive. Close to three-quarters of respondents who pursued education while on CERB said they would not have done so without income support.

The sudden and sharp shutdown of Canada’s labour market at the start of the pandemic was traumatic for many of us. The uncertainty gnawed at us. As governments re-opened the economy, transitioning from lockdown mode to re-entering the workforce wasn’t easy for everyone.

Our survey shows that CERB played a key role in easing the transition: two-thirds of respondents who returned to the workforce said CERB allowed them to re-enter the job market in a way that worked best for them. Sixty-two percent said it gave them time to think about the career or job they wanted. Aim higher!

And it worked: 35 percent of respondents changed employers, 31 percent changed their job position or got a new job title, and 30 percent shifted into a new industry. These numbers are up to 10 percentage points higher for those who chose to upgrade their skills while on CERB.

We see those results in Canada’s shifting labour market, where many workers went from low-wage jobs before the pandemic to higher-paying jobs today. In fact, almost half of survey respondents said their current job is a better skills match, they have better job satisfaction, better job security, and better income.

So why aren’t we talking about the positive benefits the CERB program had on hundreds of thousands of Canadians during one of the gloomiest periods in our history?

Receiving CERB income gave many Canadians the time and space to look for the right job, not just the first job that came along – especially young people.

This is a good news story. But there’s a caveat: the majority of survey respondents said that while CERB helped them pay the bills and think about their work life in new ways, it wasn’t enough for most people to afford to go back to school.

Much is made about the $500 weekly benefit, but it was still a bare minimum income support.

A total of 7.6 million people collected CERB – a quarter of all adults. Canada’s short-term emergency benefit programs successfully served as a financial bridge for millions to get back to employment.

As the federal government looks at Employment Insurance (EI) reform, it should not lose sight of the lessons from CERB. A better income support for the jobless should consider building a bridge between unemployment and training opportunities. That would amount to a win-win situation.

Katherine Scott is a senior researcher and Trish Hennessy is a senior strategist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ national office.

Competition Bureau makes the right call for more competition in grocery sector

Troy Media
-
0
Competition Bureau makes the right call for more competition in grocery sector

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

The Competition Bureau’s call for increased competition in the Canadian grocery sector is stating the obvious. Canada is home to numerous oligopolies that dominate various industries, with only a few companies holding significant market share. For example, five major players in the grocery sector control nearly 80 percent of the food retail market.

While some oligopolies function more effectively than others, their success depends on the companies behaving ethically, which is precisely the issue plaguing the grocery sector in Canada.

Loblaw, Empire/Sobeys, and Metro hold the reins as dominant grocers in the market. Although these companies are well-managed, the Competition Bureau’s recent report highlights some of their practices aimed at maintaining market dominance.

One notable aspect of the report is the endorsement of the Grocer Code of Conduct. While the Code itself is not directly related to the Bureau, it significantly contributes to enhancing competition. By providing a platform to address supply chain disputes, the Code serves as a necessary disciplinary measure against grocers who abuse their market power, granting food manufacturers more influence.

Consequently, independent grocers gain access to a wider range of products and increased protection. Ultimately, the Code offers consumers more choices and potentially more stable retail prices, making it a positive development worth applauding.

Additionally, the report emphasizes the need for all levels of government to participate in making the food market in Canada more competitive. This point cannot be stressed enough. Many consumers are unaware of how territorial grocers can be when expanding into small cities and towns across the country.

They may acquire plots of land to prevent competitors from opening stores nearby, and shopping mall leases may include terms that restrict the operation of other food retail outlets. While seemingly insignificant to city councils and mall managers, these measures can have a considerable impact on market prices.

In contrast to the United States, where the intricacies of mergers, acquisitions, and their effects on consumers are closely scrutinized, Canada lacks a similar level of attention to such matters. This discrepancy needs to be addressed.

The report suggests that Canada should tackle interprovincial barriers to attract external players like Aldi and Lidl, two German-based grocers already operating in the United States for several years.

The ways, means, and locations for selling food products vary significantly between provinces, and labour laws also differ. When Walmart entered the Canadian market in 1994, it faced challenges and made mistakes along the way. Walmart Canada now has over 400 stores nationwide, but it took years. On the other hand, Target’s entrance into the Canadian market in 2014 failed miserably due to the intricacies of our market, and this experience has served as a lesson for many companies worldwide, including Aldi and Lidl.

Entering the U.S. is considerably easier, even for Canadian businesses. This fact is exemplified by Canada’s T&T Supermarket, operated by Loblaw, which is expanding into the American market, where competition is even more intense. Greater opportunities, less bureaucracy, and a more flexible fiscal regime in the U.S. contribute to this favourable environment.

However, the most significant aspect is America’s clear understanding of competition as a concept, with an unwavering commitment to eliminating monopolies and oligopolies. Americans view competition as an essential aspect of the market and are vehemently philosophically opposed to excessive consolidation.

In Canada, too much competition can indeed become an issue. Our love-hate relationship with the concept has resulted in the establishment of crown corporations and “legal cartels” in various sectors, including dairy, eggs, poultry, and maple syrup, to name a few. We have grown accustomed to these marketing mechanisms, at least until prices become a problem for consumers. At that point, we expect the government to intervene. This conflicting attitude towards competition poses one of the greatest challenges for the Competition Bureau.

The desire for increased competition and the attraction of more players to the grocery sector necessitate that the Competition Bureau take effective action. The food industry is currently grappling with a genuine problem of a price-fixing culture, which erodes consumer trust. We are now discovering that the bread scandal is about more than just bread.

These revelations are making Canada a less attractive place to invest. Executives at Aldi and Lidl can read the headlines. Instead of granting immunity to executives or waiting for companies to confess, it is time to investigate and pursue legal action against companies that choose to violate the law.

In the United States, engaging in collusion can result in imprisonment.

It’s that simple.

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

1...678...20Page 7 of 20