By Matthew Mendelsohn | Part of our Special Series: The Ownership Solution
Food is too expensive in Canada. There are many reasons, but one is certainly the oligopolistic control of our food markets—in retail groceries, but elsewhere in the food supply chain as well.
Governments at all levels are aware of this and have indeed tried various approaches to deal with the cost of essentials.
The Canada Grocery Code, a set of written but voluntary rules designed to bring greater fairness, transparency and predictability to the Canadian grocery supply chain, may have some impact. Investments in the security of the supply chain may help Canada withstand shocks. And the National School Food Program, which has a target of providing school meals to 400,000 more kids per year, should deliver real results.
A variety of general income support measures have been introduced or increased to help support modest income Canadians deal with rising costs, including for food.
The most important initiative is reform to competition law and create a more empowered Competition Bureau.
We will have to wait to say what the real-world impacts of all these efforts are.
But the federal government hasn’t confronted some of the structural forces within their control that lead to higher food prices. A big one is excess profit taking by our grocery giants and their use of their market power to overcharge Canadians for essentials.
The evidence is very clear that we experienced “sellers’ inflation” during COVID—large grocery chains and others taking advantage of the disruption and confusion in the market to raise prices out of proportion with their increased costs. This same kind of inflation-of-choice is likely to take place again during the current energy crisis.
Canada’s grocery chains make profits way out of line with their global peers. The international evidence for this is clear.
And Canadians feel it—the data are clear that, since COVID, food inflation has spiked.
So, I’m really excited about the City of Toronto moving forward to pilot public grocery stores and investigate algorithmic pricing. As City of Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow said on March 27th, “this could go a long way to making life more affordable withy more competition to drive down costs, helping households save more and eat better.”
A case could be made to move more aggressively, but a pilot is a good way to gather information and experiment with small changes first and then adjust and scale as we learn what works.
How will they be designed? Can they be delivered effectively? Would it be better if it was city run or run by some other community ownership structure? How will they integrate with local supply chains? Will they focus on a basket of core staples? I’m not sure.
But there are things I am sure about. I know that what we have been doing is not working. Too many people in Canada—a wealthy, food-producing country—go hungry. It’s simply not acceptable.
I know that the neoliberal economic solutions—let capital set the rules, reduce the role of government in shaping markets and allow big players to consolidate—have delivered us to where we are: many working people in Canada can’t afford an apartment or food.
I also know that publicly owned stores won’t use a crisis and market confusion to raise prices out of line with their increase in input costs in order to deliver high returns to investors.
And I know that governments should try different things to solve public problems. We really are in a moment of geopolitical and economic rupture. The solutions we’ve tried for the past 50 years are unlikely to be the ones that are best moving forward—some of them actually have exacerbated the inequality and affordability crises we’re experiencing.
There is lots of evidence that more public and community ownership of the economy is one part of the solution to the crises we face. We should be open to trying more solutions that don’t come from the neoliberal handbook.
Share with a friend
Related reading
New research on the Big Banks and the businesses left behind
The productivity, resilience, inclusive growth and economic sovereignty objectives Canada is trying to achieve are not independent of its financing system. Canada ranks second-worst in the G7 as a place to be an entrepreneur, with 55 per cent of small-business owners saying they would not recommend starting a business here right now. A new SCP report by Michelle Arnold argues that this is not a reflection of the limits of our entrepreneurs, but the limits of our lenders - when it comes to SME financing, what the Big Banks can do is limited by how they're structured. If we want a stronger economy that works for workers, communities and small businesses, we need a financial system diverse enough to serve them.
Built to Exclude: Why Canada’s enterprises need a different kind of financing | Report
Canada's enterprise financing system is dominated by big banks that control 93% of banking assets and nearly 80% of SME lending. While stable and respected, they have structural constraints—minimum deal sizes, rigid credit models, collateral requirements—that systematically stop them from lending to a range of viable businesses. The SMEs left behind include businesses looking for small loans, seasonal enterprises, non-profits, cooperatives and rural firms. If we continue to undercapitalize SMEs trying to get off the ground or grow, this will have cascading economic and social consequences. Canada needs alternative financing institutions that operate alongside commercial banking as permanent, scaled infrastructure.
👏 Letting the big W sink in
In the Spring Economic Update, the federal government moved to make the legislative structure and tax incentive for Employee Ownership Trusts (EOTs) permanent. This is amazing news! At Social Capital Partners, we are grateful that the government has made these changes. Thanks to Prime Minister Mark Carney, François-Philippe Champagne and Ryan Turnbull for understanding the importance of employee ownership. This and more all in one funny-but-factual biweekly read.