Connect with us

Food

The Trudeau government’s latest assault on transparency is buried in Bill C-69

Published

6 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Aaron Wudrick for Inside Policy

The new powers granted to the minister of health under Bill C-69 are considerable. For example, they allow the minister to unilaterally make decisions regarding drug approvals and food safety regulations, effectively pulling products off the shelves of stores without the typical procedural safeguards. This concentration of power in the hands of the minister circumvents much-needed scrutiny and risks politicizing health decisions.

As the Trudeau government scrambles to pass its spring 2024 budget measures through Parliament before the summer recess, most of the media’s focus has centred on the budget’s headline measure, the increase in the capital gains inclusion rate. Unusually, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland chose not to include that change in its main budget bill, saying she would instead soon introduce those measures in a separate bill.

Meanwhile, the remainder of the budget measures are contained in Bill C-69, an omnibus bill that has attracted little media attention. That is a shame, as it contains provisions that warrant closer scrutiny, particularly the proposed changes to the Food and Drug Act. These amendments grant the minister of health sweeping powers, exacerbating the Trudeau government’s longstanding habit of undermining proper procedural channels when it finds them to be inconvenient.

The new powers granted to the minister of health under Bill C-69 are considerable. For example, they allow the minister to unilaterally make decisions regarding drug approvals and food safety regulations, effectively pulling products off the shelves of stores without the typical procedural safeguards. This concentration of power in the hands of the minister circumvents much-needed scrutiny and risks politicizing health decisions. It is not hard to see how such authority could easily lead to arbitrary or politically motivated actions, further diminishing public trust in a health system battered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Health Minister Mark Holland defends these new powers by arguing that they are necessary for protecting public health swiftly and effectively and suggests that only a “dishonest” minister would misuse such powers. He fails to mention that governance should not rely solely on the personal integrity of individual ministers but on robust, transparent processes that ensure accountability. It is concerning that Holland advocates bypassing established departmental procedures, which raises questions about the motivations behind these proposed changes.

A more appropriate regulatory approach would trust independent agencies, including Health Canada, to oversee the safety of health products. Establishing clear guidelines and procedures for evaluating and removing unsafe products would ensure consistency, fairness, and transparency in decision-making processes.

Unfortunately, this approach contrasts sharply with the Trudeau government’s preference for consolidating power and limiting oversight.

For instance, the Trudeau government has been criticized for its use of secret orders-in-council, which bypass public scrutiny and reduce transparency. These orders often contain sensitive decisions that the government simply prefers to keep out of the public eye.

The government has also allowed the federal access to information system to atrophy, with frequent delays and heavily redacted documents further undermining the principle of open government.

In 2017, the Trudeau government introduced changes that critics argued would limit the independence and effectiveness of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO). These amendments allowed the government to control the PBO’s work plan and staffing, potentially reducing its ability to hold the government accountable. More recently, the government cut the budget of the Information Commissioner’s office, undermining the capacity of an already overwhelmed independent officer of Parliament to hold the government to account, with the commissioner herself noting that “this reduction in my budget will spell long delays for complainants who are seeking information from government institutions.”

Further examples of this troubling trend include the government’s proposal in the early days of the  COVID-19 pandemic that sought to grant the government extraordinary powers to tax and spend unilaterally – without parliamentary approval – for almost two years. Later in the pandemic, the government faced significant criticism from Auditor General Karen Hogan for the lack of transparency and accountability regarding the allocation and spending of tens of billions in relief funds: “I am concerned about the lack of rigour on post-payment verifications and collection activities,” Hogan said in 2022.

Taken together, a clear pattern emerges of a government that regularly seeks to undermine transparency, limit oversight, and concentrate power within the executive branch, and Bill C-69 is just the latest attempt.

The government should back off and drop these proposed new unilateral ministerial powers. Strong regulatory oversight, coupled with transparency and accountability, won’t impair the government’s ability to regulate health products – all while safeguarding democratic principles and public trust.


Aaron Wudrick is the Director of the Domestic Policy Program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Agriculture

Unstung Heroes: Canada’s Honey Bees are not Disappearing – They’re Thriving

Published on

By Peter Shawn Taylor

 

Canada’s Bee Apocalypse began in 2008. That was the year the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists (CAPA) first reported unusually high rates of winter bee colony losses. At 35 percent, the winter die-off that year was more than twice the normal 15 percent rate of attrition.

“Successive annual losses at [these] levels … are unsustainable by Canadian beekeepers,” the CAPA warned. This set off an avalanche of dire media reports that now appear on a regular basis. Among the many examples over the years: Huge Honey Bee Losses Across Canada” and “Canada’s bee colonies see worst loss in 20 years”. As each of these stories reminds readers, the disappearance of honey bees will doom our food supply, given their crucial role in pollinating crops including canola, soyabeans, apples, tomatoes and berries.

This year the black-and-yellow striped Cassandras are back at work, with headlines shouting “Scientists warn of severe honeybee losses in 2025” and “The Bees are Disappearing Again”. If it’s spring, the bees must be disappearing. Again.

It is, however, mathematically impossible for any species to be in an allegedly continuous and calamitous state of decline over nearly two decades and never actually reduce in number. For despite the steady supply of grave warnings regarding their imminent collapse, Canada’s bees are actually buzzing with life.

In 2007, according to Statistics Canada, there were 589,000 honey bee colonies in Canada,; in 2024, they reached 829,000, just shy of 2021’s all-time high of 834,000. Figuring a conservative summertime average of 50,000 bees per colony, that means there are approximately 12 billion more honey bees in Canada today than when the Bee Apocalypse first hit.

As for beekeepers, their numbers have also been growing steadily, and now stand at 15,430 – the most recorded since 1988. As CAPA’s report acknowledges, “the Canadian beekeeping industry has been resilient and able to grow, as proven by the overall increase in the number of bee colonies since 2007 despite the difficulties faced every winter.”

How is this possible? As is usually the case where there’s a need to be filled, the market holds the answer.

It is true that Canadian honey bees face a long list of threats and challenges ranging from mites and viruses to Canada’s harsh winters. It is also true that they perform a crucial service in pollinating crops, the value of which is estimated at $7 billion annually. However, this underscores the fact that bees are a livestock bred for a particular agricultural purpose, no different from cattle, chickens or pen-raised salmon. They are a business.

And in spite of its alleged status as an environmental totem, the honey bee isn’t even native to North America. It was first imported by European settlers for its honey-making abilities in the 1600s. Since then, it has been cultivated with deliberate commercial intent – allowing it to outcompete native pollinators such as bumble bees and butterflies even though it is poorly suited to the local winter. (This highlights the irony of all those native-plant pollinator gardens virtuously installed in neighbourhoods across Canada that end up supporting an invasive honey bee population.)

The significance of the bee economy means that when a beehive collapses over the winter for whatever reason, beekeepers have plenty of motivation to regenerate that colony as swiftly as possible. While hives can create their own queens over time, this can be a slow process given the cold Canadian climate. The better option is to simply buy a new queen from a warmer country.

In 2024, Canada imported 300,000 queens worth $12 million, mostly from the U.S., Italy, Australia and Chile. That works out to $40 each. In a miracle of nature, each of these new queens can lay up to 2,500 eggs a day, and each egg takes just two to three weeks to reach full maturity as a worker or drone. It is also possible to import entire “bee packages” that include a queen and 8,000 to 10,000 bees.

As a result, even a devastating 50 percent winter loss rate, something that has occurred only rarely in Canada in individual provinces and never nationally, isn’t necessarily fatal to any beekeeping operation. The beekeeper can purchase imported queens in April, split their existing colonies and be back in business by May or June.

And regardless of the honey bee’s apparent difficulties with Canada’s unforgiving weather (efforts are ongoing to breed a hardier Canadian variant), there’s no shortage of bees worldwide. Earlier this year, the German statistical agency reported the global beehive count rose from 69 million in 1990 to 102 million in 2023. Another study looking back to 1961 by New Zealand researchers found the number of honey bee colonies has “nearly doubled” over this time, while honey production has “almost tripled.” As the New Zealand report observes, “Headlines of honey bee colony losses have given an
impression of large-scale global decline of the bee population that endangers beekeeping, and that the world is on the verge of mass starvation.” Such claims, the authors note, are “somewhat inaccurate.” In truth, things have never been better for bees around the world.

Here in Canada, the ability to import queens from other countries, together with their prodigious reproductive capabilities, backstops the amazing resiliency of the bee industry. Yes, bees die. Sometimes in large numbers. But – and this is the bit the headlines always ignore – they come back. Because the market needs them to come back.

If there is a real threat to Canada’s bee population, it’s not environmental. It’s the risk that unencumbered trade in bees might somehow be disrupted by tariffs or similar bone-headed human interventions. Left on their own, bees have no problem keeping busy.

The longer, original version of this story first appeared at C2CJournal.ca

Continue Reading

Business

Our addiction to dairy supply management is turning Canada into a trade pariah

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Sylvain Charlebois

A new bill shielding dairy, poultry and eggs from trade negotiations sends the wrong message to global partners and punishes Canadian consumers

Last week, the House of Commons unanimously approved Bill C-202, a law that would prohibit Canada from making any trade concessions
involving its supply-managed sectors, including dairy, poultry and eggs.

The bill now moves to the Senate for final approval. With unanimous support, the House is reinforcing a decades-old protectionist system just as Canada faces mounting pressure to modernize its economy and re-establish credibility as a global trading partner.

Introduced initially as Bill C-282 by the Bloc Québécois in the last Parliament, Bill C-202 grants blanket immunity to supply-managed sectors, most notably dairy, regardless of the negotiating partner or economic context. With its approval in the House, Parliament has already sent a clear signal: this system is off-limits, no matter the cost.

Canada’s approach to supply management and trade keeps circling back to the same policy mistakes—protecting an outdated system whose relevance is increasingly hard to justify.

Supply management, a system that controls domestic production through quotas, guarantees prices for farmers and restricts imports with high tariffs, especially in dairy, poultry and eggs, was introduced decades ago to stabilize farm incomes and ensure domestic supply. But today, it’s more about shielding entrenched interests than serving consumers or the broader economy.

During the federal election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney stated in a Radio-Canada interview that no legislation was necessary to protect the dairy industry. It appears he has since changed his mind, or someone changed it for him.

While the prime minister’s shift signals executive backing, not everyone is convinced. The Senate may still push back, as some senators have raised
concerns about the bill’s long-term economic consequences. But the political momentum is unmistakable: protectionism is once again being presented as national interest.

In Ottawa, few MPs from any party challenge one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country: the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Their influence is
formidable, both federally and provincially. Despite this outsized influence, it’s worth asking: what exactly are we protecting?

Canada has the highest industrial milk prices in the G7. A litre of milk in Canada can cost up to twice as much as it does in the U.S.—an added burden for families already struggling with inflation and rising grocery bills.

These elevated prices don’t drive innovation or reinvestment. Many producers are content to maintain the status quo, insulated from competition. The result? Consumers pay more while the industry resists efficiency and change.

Defenders of supply management often point to food safety. It’s true that bovine growth hormones are banned here. That’s commendable.

But other practices deserve more scrutiny. A 2022 study published in Trends in Food Science and Technology found that palm oil derivatives are permitted in feed for Canadian dairy cows. This may help explain the firmer, less spreadable butter observed at room temperature—a phenomenon dubbed “Buttergate,” which was initially dismissed by dairy farmers despite growing evidence.

More recently, a peer-reviewed study co-authored by researchers at McGill and Dalhousie universities estimated that Canada discards between 600 million and one billion litres of milk annually. The dairy lobby rejected the findings but has yet to present alternative data.

The reality is simple: cows don’t stop producing milk when demand dips, so waste is inevitable.

Rather than engage critics or offer transparency, the dairy sector leans on silence and self-congratulation. Reform is taboo. This unwillingness to confront hard truths at home has international consequences.

Looking ahead, Canada will need to renegotiate trade deals with the United States, Mexico and other partners.

Trade negotiations with countries like the U.S., our largest trading partner, require flexibility and credibility. Shielding entire sectors from negotiation signals that we are unwilling to deal in good faith.

Two choices await: we either pay billions in compensation to dairy farmers every time we offer concessions, a practice that borders on economic racketeering, or we forfeit our standing as a credible trade partner.

What message does this send to the world at a time when Canada urgently needs to diversify its economy?

By clinging to a politically convenient system, our elected officials are rewarding complacency and institutionalizing inefficiency, all under the guise of defending national interests.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is 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.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X