Liberals Miss The Big Picture On Canada’s Food Crisis

“Right now, the Liberal platform does not meet the public’s desire for change“

Now that Mark Carney’s Liberals have formed government, it’s time to examine how they plan to address Canada’s escalating food crisis. With grocery costs having ballooned by 20% from 2020 to 2023 and one in four Canadians living in food insecure households, the situation demands urgent action—especially as we face potential trade wars and economic uncertainty under a second Trump administration.

Despite Trump’s threats grabbing the headlines, food affordability remained a deciding factor this election. Days before the last voting day, Abacus polling found that 45% of voters saw reducing the cost of living their top concern, with “dealing with Trump” a distant second at 30%. Many Canadians intuitively understood trade disruptions would further drive up food prices in an already strained system.

With these interconnected challenges in mind, Food Secure Canada outlined ten key policy areas that would build food sovereignty, increase affordability, strengthen resilience to global instability, and tackle food insecurity. How do the Liberals’ plans measure up? By analyzing their Canada Strong platform, we can assess which critical food policies the new government is likely to advance—and where food movements will need to apply pressure to secure the transformative changes we urgently need.

School food and public procurement

Let’s start with the good news. The Liberal platform fully and unequivocally committed to making school food permanent (caveat: but not necessarily universal). Our movements have long campaigned for school food that is available for all children, with a commitment to culturally appropriate food across schools in Canada, especially in Indigenous, Black, and migrant communities. Last year’s launch of the National School Food Program was an important step in that direction, and we’re glad it is seeing renewed commitment. Carney’s government should ensure that school food is universal and culturally appropriate.

The platform also states that, where possible, schools should source Canadian food. This is very promising. Local food procurement by public institutions offers farmers a stable source of income, building resilience into the food system. The platform also makes reference to Canadian-made procurement in government contracts. This is great news, and we should push for food being explicitly included in that mandate. All government funded institutions, such as hospitals, prisons, and defense, could be sourcing a set percentage of their food locally—a policy a number of provinces, including Quebec are already advancing. 

Mandating local procurement by public agencies will catalyze the transition to a more diverse, resilient, and sovereign food system. This innovative policy would be a huge step in building food sovereignty in Canada. 

Supply management

The Liberal platform assures us that they will “keep Canada’s supply management off the table in any negotiations with the U.S.” This is excellent news. Canada’s supply management, which supports dairy, egg, and poultry farmers, guarantees predictable incomes for many farmers and ensures stable prices and safe products for consumers. Canadian farmers will be relieved, though some industry players looking to open Canada’s agriculture to foreign competition may not be so happy. Donald Trump, who has repeatedly attacked and singled out Canada’s dairy supply management, will also not be too happy. We should push the Liberals to expand supply management to other products, like legumes and grains. This would strengthen Canada’s food sovereignty and give us more leverage against Trump’s aggressive tariffs.

Indigenous food sovereignty

On the whole, the platform’s policies on Indigenous reconciliation are mixed: equally encouraging, not ambitious enough, and vague. There is a clear commitment to act on the calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, however, this is somewhat weaker than under the Trudeau government. Commitments to develop Indigenous territories and the Arctic are justified within the broader goals of strengthening Canadian defense and economic sovereignty. Indigenous control over their resources and food system appears secondary. As Riley Yesno, of the Yellowhead Institute remarked, “the platform deals heavily with securing Canada’s presence internationally and building a homegrown economy. Indigenous people know that you can’t do that without us. We are more than just an election issue.”

There is a promising statement that the government will “replace Nutrition North”—the government’s own flagship policy for food security in the North—with evidence-based approaches co-developed with Inuit and Northern Indigenous leaders. This suggests an acknowledgement that Nutrition North has failed. In recent years, a supermarket monopoly in Northern communities increased its profit margins while benefiting from Nutrition North subsidies as well as government-built transportation infrastructure. Rather than more corporate handouts, government efforts to expand infrastructure in the North should be linked to support of Indigenous foodways. In addition, instead of propping up a monopoly, they should foster retail competition by supporting public or cooperative grocery stores, as well as country food, hunting and foraging. 

Cost of living

Let’s move to the most immediate problem facing Canadians: the cost of living crisis. Research shows that ensuring a basic income floor is the most efficient way to reduce poverty and food insecurity—as well as reducing healthcare costs. Other policies, such as affordable housing, reducing taxes, medical, energy and grocery bills are also effective. 

The Liberal party put forward a few proposals that address the cost of living crisis, but fall well short of what is needed. The promised tax reduction for low and middle income households will be a welcome relief in a potential recession. Housing unaffordability cannot be solved by the market; Carney’s proposal for a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes, is promising in this regard. The temporary boost to the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors, the promise to reform the Disability Tax Credit, the commitment to the Canada Child Benefit, and strengthening Employment Insurance recognize that income supports are necessary to bring Canadians out of poverty. 

However, these policies do too little to address the big issue that 60% of food insecure households have a steady source of income—meaning that the food crisis affects working families and that income supports need to be radically re-thought and expanded, not just maintained or incrementally increased. With these policy proposals, we do not see a path toward meeting the goal of reducing food insecurity by 50% and eradicating severe food insecurity by 2030 as per the Sustainable Development Goals Canada has signed on to, especially not during an increasingly likely recession. The government will have to act fast to address the cost of living crisis that is only going to get worse. 

Racism

The platform acknowledges racism in Canada, but its promises to address it are inadequate. About 40% of Black and Indigenous households experience food insecurity, almost double the national average. This needs to be treated as a national emergency. The Liberal platform promises to “Confront systemic barriers and create opportunities for Indigenous Peoples, Black Canadians, and racialized communities…  by reshaping systems to better reflect and support all Canadians”. This language is vague and insufficient. 

We need clear policies that match the scale of the problem, especially when it comes to the food system. A household food security lens shows that this is best addressed through ensuring a basic income floor for all. A community food security lens is also necessary: we need policies that support community cohesion and autonomy, such as empowering racialized farmers, traditional food provision, and culturally appropriate school food. 

Competition 

Remember when Canadians mobilised to Boycott Loblaw? Corporate price gouging and food unaffordability dominated headlines last year and united voters across the political spectrum, rural and urban, coast to coast to coast. However, there is little in the platform that promises to address this. It notes that the Liberals will support small and medium-sized businesses, that they will empower the Competition Bureau to make origin of product labelling more stringent, invest in greenhouses and other intensive farming technologies, and add the cost of food into the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. These may be helpful, but lack detail and fall well short of the scale of the problem.

Let’s say it clearly: the Canadian food retail industry is controlled by an oligopoly. Just 5 companies control 80% of the retail market. This has led to unfair, anti-competitive, and anti-consumer practices. The Liberal party needs to assure Canadians that they are committed to making real change in two ways. First, they need to strengthen the Competition Bureau to crack down on price gouging and market domination by a few firms. Second, they need to invest in local food infrastructure, such as food hubs, public markets, cooperatives, non-profit grocery stores, small and medium sized businesses, and processing. The Liberals already acknowledge that, when it comes to housing affordability, the market alone can’t fix a market failure. The same lessons need to be applied to food affordability.

Trade

On trade, the platform aims in the right direction but does not quite hit the mark. During the election campaign, both the Conservatives and Liberals made a big deal about removing barriers to interprovincial trade, and it has become a flagship policy for Mark Carney. However, we share concerns with labor and environmental advocates that wholesale indiscriminate deregulation of internal trade may mostly serve large corporations who want to do away with provincial labor and environmental protections, while small and medium sized businesses may not see the benefits of policies designed exclusively for the large players. We need a clear commitment to scale-appropriate regulations and infrastructure and protecting labor, health, and safety regulations.

The Liberals also focus heavily on diversifying Canada’s export markets. This will see support from many farmers, who are understandably worried about Canada’s dependency on United States exports and imports. However, in a wider context of climate change and geopolitical turmoil, a focus on cash export products (such as beef and canola) need to be balanced with domestic production for domestic consumption. We need more support for (w)holistic approaches such as agroecological, diversified and shortened supply chains, and local transportation, distribution and processing infrastructure. This is a tremendous opportunity to link the urgent need to protect Canadian producers against trade disruption, with the need to build food sovereignty.

Farmers

There is a mixed bag of a few good policies for farmers, but these don’t do nearly enough to grapple with the overwhelming need in the sector. The platform promises to build food processing capacity in rural areas, direct the Canada Infrastructure Bank to prioritize investments in agriculture, and offer some money for clean agri-tech and accessing international markets. They also double agricultural loans and insurance in cases of tariffs or extreme weather events. These are good signs—especially the promise of large investments in agriculture infrastructure. 

While the platform recognizes challenges in the sector it does not address their scale. Farmers are being hit by climate change, debt, generational poverty, and sky high agricultural rents. Yet they are rarely rewarded when they diversify their products or make an effort to be more sustainable. They are not happy about industrial carbon taxes, which they see as further financial burdens. There is a reason farmers, by and large, have been leaning conservative. 

There is a way out: rather than penalizing farmers, the government should support them with training, infrastructure, and buffers against risk, while breaking apart predatory monopolies in the sector, such as fertilizer, seeds, machinery, and retail. For example, the National Farmers Union calls for a Canadian Farm Resilience Agency that trains farmers in low-emission practices. Other policies such as expanding rail networks, the right to repair, a local food infrastructure fund to help farmers reach local markets including though support for food hubs, and support for young, low income and minority farmers would also go a long way.

Temporary Workers Program

The Liberal platform proposes to “return immigration to sustainable levels” by capping the amount of temporary workers. It also aims to “stabilize permanent resident admissions”. Notably absent is any mention of improving the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

The platform overlooks the way abuse and exploitation is designed into the program. For example, a January 2025 Amnesty International report documented widespread abuses, with workers reporting they were “treated like slaves”. The program needs serious reform, to eliminate exploitation, offer clear paths to citizenship for temporary workers, and reduce farmers’ dependence on it by improving income and labor conditions on farms.

Conclusion: missing the (w)holistic?

The Liberal platform contains some promising commitments to supply management, school food, and Indigenous sovereignty. However, it is striking that there is no mention of the Food Policy for Canada, which was first introduced by the Liberals in 2015 after hard-fought movement advocacy, and has since been gradually sidelined. There is a need to work together with food actors from coast to coast to coast to further develop a (w)holistic vision that connects climate change, poverty, decent work, and trade. Key initiatives like reforming temporary worker programs, training farmers in agroecology, and building local food infrastructure cross departmental boundaries but, together, create a path to food sovereignty. We need a coordinated, cabinet-level approach to create policy coherence and a cohesive national food strategy. Without a whole-of-government approach, even the positive elements of the platform amount to minor tweaks, missing the potential for system change.

The Buy Canadian movement has shown that the public gets it: people want more widely available local food and do not trust large corporations to deliver it. People also need higher incomes to be able to afford healthy and culturally appropriate diets. Right now, the Liberal platform does not meet the public’s desire for change. In this moment of global instability, food insecurity, and price inflation, we need the Liberals to deliver—our future depends on it.

Aaron Vansintjan, PhD is Policy Manager at Food Secure Canada. He has consulted for  political parties and non-profits on food policy for over a decade, and is a published author in economic and environmental policy.