An increasingly prominent issue these days is the cost of food and discussion of various options to control the pricing and profiteering by food corporations across Canada.

Depending on what you are purchasing or where you live, the cost of groceries has increased at least 30 per cent since 2020. The cost of food is ranked as the main issue for more than 75 per cent of Canadians – above housing and above gas prices.

As noted in previous columns, the sale and distribution of food in Canada is concentrated. As is just five corporations – Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, Costco and Walmart – control the market.

It’s estimated that one in four Canadians cannot afford the cost of food, and that figure rises to more than 40 per cent among Indigenous and Black communities.

The issue of food costs has been festering for some time. Now, the discussion about public grocery stores is heating up.

A few weeks ago I sat in on a webinar on public grocery stores organized by the Food Communities Network, a coalition of food policy groups and individuals working on food security. Within minutes of my logging on to the zoom presentation, the hosts had welcomed more than 300 participants just as eager as I was to learn more. The turnout amazed the hosts.

The webinar explored the possibilities of building a network of public grocery stores and shared knowledge from panellists in the US and Canada related to the investment required, accessing public distribution networks to ensure sourcing of food, and how best to maintain sustainable and affordable food systems. There was also important discussion about how family farmers and small producers might be linked into the public grocery store system.  It’s clear that people, from consumers, community groups, to family farmers, have latched on to the possibilities. A recording of that online event is available here.

During the webinar, panelists also underscored that family farmers are not the cause of food inflation. Farmers’ income has declined in the past 20 years, and was not a rich living even prior to that. In fact for the past 20 years net income for farmers has been stagnant at close to 0.

The National Farmers Union (NFU) on April 23 2026 released a report titled “Fair Food Prices? The Declining Farmers’ Share and Food Inflation” which provides ample evidence of how farmers are being exploited for profit as well. The report graphically details farmers’ share of grocery prices by analyzing 14 farm gate products and their retail equivalent. The data confirms that corporate concentration in the food industry is creating bad outcomes for both farmers and consumers, and that it is a major contributor to a farm succession and ownership crisis that is jeopardizing national food security.

The NFU report emphasizes that four companies control 80 per cent of Canada’s grocery sales, four companies account for 88 per cent of Canada’s grain handling capacity, and two companies dominate Canada’s meat processing.

As “Fair Food Prices?” notes, last year alone the grocery oligarchs raked in over $6 billion in profits, an astounding 200 per cent increase over their average net profit of $2 billion a year between 2015-2019.

And large farms are not the solution – as witnessed by the credit protection recently sought by a large western Canadian farm and the largest in North America, Monette Farms.

The NFU report concludes that farmers and consumers must organize to compel the federal government to establish profit caps on the grocery oligarchs and to set up public grocery stores as non-profit competitors.

This video titled “Why Canada needs public grocery stores”, created by Food Secure Canada and its Food Analyst Aaron Vansintjan, offers some insight into the possibilities of a sustainable alternative public grocery store and distribution system.

Food Secure Canada also recently launched a campaign around public grocery stores bringing together players from across the food security movement.

Here is a snippet of the rationale behind the campaign. You can read more here.

“Why public grocery stores — and why now? — Food prices have risen nearly 30% since 2020, while supermarket chain profits have more than doubled. Farmers are struggling to make ends meet, and Canadians can’t even access food grown in their own country. A recent poll found that the grocery prices are the #1 economic concern. People are frustrated — and they’re looking for real solutions.

Public grocery stores are a proven model. Mexico and the United States military have been running them for decades. Our initial analysis shows that a network of 50 public grocery stores across Canada could save families between 30–45% on their grocery bills. But initial analysis is just the start. To bring this idea to our leaders, we need rigorous research into what models could work in Canada, deep knowledge of what has succeeded and failed elsewhere, and a broad public movement that makes the idea impossible to ignore.”

Meanwhile, in order to ensure longevity of a network of public grocery stores, it will also be necessary to have public food distribution systems, as well as access to quality food sources and supply chains. In other words, to build a viable alternative to the current retail and distribution food oligopolies, it will be necessary to break corporate control of the food chain – no small task. You can see why planning and strategizing is important.

It will also be necessary to ensure that the public grocery system cannot easily be dismantled by governments, as has been the case with other Crown Corporations and public federal programs in the past, as well as once publicly-owned transportation systems such as Via Rail. Would worker control be the answer? No doubt that aspect is under discussion.

This video from The Class Line is insightful and provides a deep dive into the issue.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) published a commentary a few months ago on its website. The commentary provides plenty of information on both the potential downsides of trying to organize public grocery stores as well as practices that could help maintain and support the initiative. For one, it is much more affordable than most might think and really puts the lie to the naysayers who believe it would be too expensive. It really is a matter of priorities and whether governments think that food should be used for profiteering, or indeed if it is a human right!

Take these few lines from the CCPA commentary:

“It would cost approximately $350 million for initial infrastructure to open 50 stores (40 in urban centres, 10 in remote regions), six distribution hubs, and run associated logistics. Annual operating costs, with government covering labour and overhead like rent, would be an additional $290 million—less than half the lifetime cost of one F-35 fighter jet. Canada recently cut a deal with the U.S. to buy 88 of them.”

Given this scenario, savings for a family could range from $2,500 to $10,000 annually. That is a chunk of change that many, many families and individuals could well use.

It really is a matter of priorities – fighter jets or food for the masses!

The post Fighter jets or affordable food – are public grocery stores really a thing! appeared first on rabble.ca.

In the last several months opposition has been growing regarding the proposed project to build a high-speed train that would link Québec City and Toronto, with stops in between.

It’s not that citizens opposed to the project are against high-speed rail — but more that they are concerned that the corporations involved are not accountable and not transparent, and that Canadians across the country will be left footing the bill for a high-speed rail system that is badly designed, environmentally unsustainable, and disruptive and economically damaging to agricultural communities and residents.

And while it is stated that Alto will be owned and managed by the federal government, who knows what the future will bring. Readers do not need to be reminded that the Carney government is planning on privatizing Canadian airports.

Once you take a look at the details, I would say those in opposition have thought through their list of grievances. We owe them a debt of gratitude, I think. While most of us might have been thinking that a high-speed rail system is an environmentally sound idea, Alto does not appear to be that at all.

The estimated $90 billion dollar project led by a consortium called Cadence has been holding limited consultations, but the process is seen to be opaque and not public or extensive. And to boot it could cost double or triple the estimated amount by the time it would be completed.

Both the National Farmers Union (NFU) and the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec (UPA) organized and led a demonstration on Parliament Hill on Wednesday, June 9 — one of several protests in recent months. There are more actions to come.

An online Parliamentary petition which closed on May 28, has garnered close to a whopping 18,000 signatures.

In part that petition to the House of Commons states:

Whereas:

• Bill C-15 includes provisions granting the federal government extraordinary powers to designate rail corridors and expedite approvals, potentially limiting full environmental review and meaningful consultation with affected landowners, municipalities, and communities;

• The Alto high-speed rail project is estimated to cost approximately $90 billion, which would equate to roughly $9,000 per Canadian family of four, yet the project would serve only a small fraction of Canadians compared with other public transit or infrastructure investments, raising concerns about cost-effectiveness, fairness, and the prioritization of federal spending;

• The proposed Alto high-speed rail project would require construction of new rail corridors through productive agricultural lands and rural communities, resulting in permanent land fragmentation, disruption of farm operations, and impacts on rural road access and emergency services;

• Construction of new high-speed rail infrastructure would generate substantial upfront greenhouse gas emissions from carbon-intensive materials such as concrete and steel, emissions that may take decades to offset as passenger vehicles increasingly electrify and reduce transportation-related emissions;

• The Ottawa–Montreal corridor is already served by multiple transportation options, raising questions about the relative public benefit of prioritizing this segment over improvements to existing rail infrastructure; and

• Upgrading existing rail corridors to provide higher-frequency passenger service could expand capacity and reliability while minimizing environmental disturbance and community disruption.

We, the undersigned, Residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to decline to approve or advance provisions in Bill C-15 that grant extraordinary powers to expedite rail corridor approvals.

1. Cease further advancement of the Alto high-speed rail project; and
2. Redirect federal investment toward improving higher-frequency passenger rail service within existing corridors.

Both the UPA and the NFU oppose the Alto high-speed rail project which would affect agricultural communities. More than 500 farms could be impacted by expropriation or fragmentation of farms. And while the preservation of agricultural lands is important, these farmer-led organizations also cite issues related to the feasibility of the project more generally, its cost over both the short and long-term, the lack of serious public consultations and review of alternatives, and the project’s lack of sustainability overall. Both organizations note that they are not opposed to a high-speed rail project, but they are opposed to this project and how it is being managed.

For example, a full review of options with existing infrastructure has not been explored publicly. For years it was suggested that twinning the current tracks used by the Via Rail line could help solve current delays, sometimes lengthy delays, experienced by passenger traffic. Twinning  would allow for more frequent Via Rail trains and help eliminate delays. Currently the rail line used by Via Rail is owned by Canadian National Railroad and so freight is given priority over passenger transportation with Via Rail all too-often stopped to allow CN cars passage.

The NFU media release notes that the project fails on a number of fronts: firstly the flawed   structure of private/public enterprises led by a group of corporations called CADENCE, which also includes the re-branded corporation SNC Lavalin (one of the contractors on the much-maligned, unreliable and inefficient Ottawa ’O’ TraIn; secondly the cost of the project and the debt it will leave with Canadians for generations to come; and thirdly the lack of ridership for this type of limited rail transportation. The NFU is calling for a full, in-depth review of the project, along with consideration of more viable alternatives.

In is media release the NFU concludes:

“We have to start a mega-project of this scale and inter-generational impact with transparent decision-making, based on strong evidence that demonstrates how we are investing wisely in our common future. A democratic process will enable the most beneficial impacts: reducing inter-city car and air passengers; reducing GHG and carbon emissions; and delivering accessible, sustainable public transportation solutions that will benefit communities across the country. Alto HSR in its current form is none of those things. And committing to a 60-year project without proper foresight will rob from the next two generations the opportunity to deliver HSR in Canada—by building the wrong project in the wrong way, at the wrong time.”

L’union des agriculteurs du Québec (UPA) has been equally vocal in denouncing the ALTO project and calling for its halt for similar reasons as those outlined by the NFU.

This video provides a glimpse of tractor demonstrations held in February to protest the $90 billion dollar projects .

The farming community is not alone in opposing the high-speed rail project.

In late April at least a dozen mayors and reeves of eastern Ontario municipalities signed a letter opposing the project, calling for more transparency. These municipal representatives are calling for “the suspension of any further development plans” for the project.

The letter’s signees include:

• John Logel, Mayor of Alnwick/Haldimand Township
• Claire Kennelly, Mayor of Tyendinaga
• Jim Harrison, Mayor of City of Quinte West
• Arie Hoogenboom, Mayor of Rideau Lakes Township
• John Wise, Mayor of Stone Mills Township
• Ron Vandewal, Mayor of South Frontenac Township
• Brant Burrow, Mayor of Elizabethtown-Kitley Township
• Michael Cameron, Mayor of Merrickville-Wolford
• Robin Jones, Mayor of the Village of Westport
• Stephen Fournier, Reeve of Township of Drummond/North Elmsley
• Karen Jennings, Reeve of Township of Montague
• Corinna Smith-Gatcke, Mayor of Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands

Other municipalities have also passed resolutions to not allow Alto access to public lands to scout or survey the area for pathways for the high-speed rail and have refused to sign non-disclosure agreements. To date The United Counties of Prescott-Russell as well as The Township of Champlain, the Nation Municipality, the Municipality of Casselman and the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet have all passed resolutions to oppose the Alto plan.

As word spreads about the cost, lack of sustainability and accountability, it’s likely that other parts of the country will also begin to ask questions. Afterall, at least two generations of Canadians will be left holding the tab for Alto should it proceed.

HALT! Alto is becoming a popular slogan with many across rural Ontario and Québec telling the consortium —Not so fast!!!

The post HALT! — Opposition to ALTO high-speed train growing appeared first on rabble.ca.