Earlier this month, Feed Ontario (formerly the Ontario Association of Food Banks) disclosed that over a million residents in Ontario, Canada’s wealthiest province, sought assistance from food banks over the past year.
A million people. That’s essentially Nova Scotia’s entire population.
This revelation is in stark contrast to the situation south of the border. In 2023, while 13.5 per cent of American households grappled with food insecurity – characterized by low or very low food security – the rate in Canada was significantly higher at 22.9 per cent. This suggests that food insecurity in Canada is a staggering 69.6 per cent more prevalent than in the United States – a profoundly unsettling statistic.
The challenge of affording food in Canada is exacerbated by anemic food sales, particularly stark when compared to the United States, where grocery store sales increased by 1.8 per cent in the last 12 months, according to U.S. Federal Reserve Economic Data. In stark contrast, Canadian grocery store sales have plummeted by a worrying 3.2 per cent, according to Statistics Canada.
One plausible explanation for this disparity lies in the higher interest rates in Canada, which likely impose a heavier burden on Canadian households than on their American counterparts, given that the average debt per household is considerably higher in Canada. The Bank of Canada’s pathway to achieving a more stable inflation rate without detrimentally affecting Canadians appears much narrower than that of the U.S. Federal Reserve, evidenced by the harsh reality of 10 consecutive rate hikes last year, compelling Canadians to economize, particularly on food expenditures.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Canada’s per capita economy is shrinking, lacking the wealth growth seen in the U.S. According to World Bank data, in 2002, when Jean Chretien was prime minister, the U.S. GDP per capita was 56.6 per cent higher than Canada’s. The current gap, at 53.07 per cent, is perilously close to this historical peak.
The main drivers of GDP growth in Canada are currently immigration and public spending, with the government shouldering much of the economic burden. The situation is becoming increasingly dire. Moreover, the early enthusiasm for the Trudeau administration’s push for a green economy is fading.
The carbon tax, Trudeau’s principal policy for fostering an eco-friendly economy, is losing support due to ongoing economic struggles. Even within the federal NDP and the BC NDP government, growing voices are questioning whether the carbon tax is the best way forward.
The failures of the carbon tax reflect a broader trend in recent policymaking: the adoption of populist policies devoid of rigorous metrics to measure their long-term success, paired with extensive communication campaigns aimed at convincing Canadians of their value.
The federal carbon tax is set to rise to $95 per metric ton by April 2025, with a target of $170 per metric ton by 2030. Despite mounting pressure, the Trudeau government has failed to evaluate whether this policy effectively reduces emissions or to assess its long-term economic impact, especially on the agri-food sector, from farm to table.
The design of the rebate system ostensibly allows Canadians to overlook the real costs of this poorly conceived policy. However, administering this massive program is not only costly but also fails to leverage the Canadian economy effectively. It is imperative to devise policies that genuinely foster both economic and environmental sustainability for the nation.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a Canadian professor and researcher specializing in food distribution and policy, is a senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
©
The commentaries offered on Â鶹´«Ã½ are intended to provide thought-provoking material for our readers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Contributors' articles or letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any Â鶹´«Ã½ staff.
