Charlebois: Our upcoming election is about your grocery bill, not Trump

Election food for thought

Photo: Pixabay

What if the dismantling of the global economy isn’t a side effect – rather it’s the very point of Donald Trump’s agenda?

By undermining multilateral trade frameworks, imposing aggressive tariffs, and sowing uncertainty across global supply chains, Trump is deliberately attempting to rewire the global economy around the United States.

It’s a high-risk strategy, but one that could prove devastatingly effective at reasserting American economic dominance – while letting the rest of the world grapple with the fallout, including skyrocketing food prices and disrupted agricultural markets.

While many in the West view his actions as reckless, even irrational, there’s reason to believe that there’s a deliberate playbook behind this chaos.

Trump has long criticized trade liberalization and globalization. His views on tariffs aren’t new – they date back over three decades And unlike many presidents who’ve built wealth via globally integrated industries, Trump cut his teeth in real estate and media, sectors largely insulated from international competition.

That perspective shapes his disdain for multilateralism and his preference for bilateral economic muscle.

Markets have responded accordingly. Since his inauguration, U.S. indices like the S&P 500 and Nasdaq have posted notable corrections – driven by growing investor concern over persistent inflation, economic slowdowns and the erratic direction of tariff policy.

For the food sector, where margins are thin and supply chains complex, this environment has already increased input costs and weakened trade fluidity.

But beyond the noise, Trump appears to be pursuing a form of neo-mercantilism. His economic worldview echoes a pre-First World War model, where tariffs – not income tax – funded governments. He rejects the post-war consensus: a multilateral order shaped by institutions like the WTO, IMF and World Bank, designed to foster global economic interdependence and stabilize food flows and commodity markets.

Instead, he envisions a new economic order centered solely on American leverage. His nostalgic vision of an “American Golden Age” involves reduced reliance on trade, reindustrialization and a consumer-driven economy detached from international obligations.

In this light, what appears like a self-sabotaging trade strategy could in fact be designed to compress global demand, suppress U.S. interest rates and re-ignite American middle-class consumption – exporting inflation and volatility abroad, particularly into emerging markets and food-importing nations.

The implications are profound. If global agri-food flows are destabilized in favour of U.S. self-sufficiency, nations like Canada – highly integrated into American supply chains – become uniquely vulnerable. A weakened U.S. dollar might soften some food prices at home, but the overall macroeconomic shock would be severe.

In such a scenario, Canada’s agri-food sector would need to pivot fast: dismantle protectionist barriers, pursue new trade partnerships, and invest heavily in domestic food resilience and value-added processing. But more fundamentally, Canada would need to recalibrate its agri-food geopolitical posture.

Ottawa’s recent hesitations – such as protecting an underdeveloped battery sector at the cost of agricultural diplomacy – signal a worrying misalignment. While others assess Trump’s return pragmatically, Canada risks being caught flat-footed, trapped in ideological bias rather than strategic foresight.

Trump’s antagonism toward China only complicates things further. His narrative frames the pandemic not as a global tragedy, but as a geopolitical affront from a communist regime to capitalist hegemony. In that sense, his economic retaliation – through tariffs, reshoring, and deglobalization – may be viewed as a reassertion of U.S. supremacy.

If true, the consequences are not abstract. They will be felt at ports, in grain terminals and in grocery aisles.

And as Canada heads into a federal election, the ballot-box question won’t be how to deal with Donald Trump. It will be how to respond to an evolving global food order – one increasingly shaped by two superpowers: the United States and China.

This new agri-food world is not only real, it’s shifting by the day. And those who fail to adapt may find themselves not just behind but left out entirely.

Let’s hope that recognition comes soon.

Sylvain Charlebois is the director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

With rise of Trump in U.S., monarchy’s popularity rebounds in Canada

Monarchy still popular

Photo: U.K Government/Wikimedia Commons

King Charles III. Despite growing calls for change, Research Co. polling suggests the monarchy remains resilient.

For the past few years, the perceptions of Canadians on the monarchy have steadily tilted towards republicanism.

This month, 31 per cent of Canadians (up eight points since March 2024) told Research Co. that they want the country to remain a monarchy, while 40 per cent (down six points) would prefer to have an elected head of state. Just under one in five Canadians (18 per cent, down three points) do not care either way and 11 per cent (up one point) are undecided.

Two demographics are clearly divided. Women are split on whether Canada should stay as it is (34 per cent) or have an elected head of state (35 per cent). Canadians aged 55 and over are also torn (36 per cent for a monarch and 37 per cent for a purported president).

The push for an elected head of state is stronger among men (45 per cent), Canadians aged 18 to 34 (41 per cent) and those aged 35 to 54 (43 per cent). Regionally, support for maintaining the status quo is highest in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (35 per cent), followed by Ontario (34 per cent), Atlantic Canada (also 34 per cent), B.C. (32 per cent), Alberta (31 per cent) and Quebec (24 per cent).

Canadians’ views on important Royal Family figures are not behind this eight-point rise in support for the monarchy. The favourability rating for King Charles III reached 40 per cent this month, while Queen Consort Camilla is at 30 per cent. Duchess Meghan has the same favourability as the reigning monarch (40 per cent), while the numbers remain higher for Prince Harry (47 per cent), Prince William (54 per cent) and Princess Catherine (58 per cent).

The King’s favourability rating is highest among British Columbians (46 per cent), Canadians aged 55 and over (50 per cent), Liberal Party voters in 2021 (also 50 per cent) and Canadians who want the monarchy to remain in place (62 per cent). While these numbers are significantly lower than what Queen Elizabeth II received in her reign’s final years, they do show some pockets of satisfaction with the current monarch.

Pressure on the King to partake in specific activities has subsided. Just over half of Canadians (51 per cent, down 17 points) want him to commit to reducing the carbon footprint of the Royal Family, and more than two in five (44 per cent, down 16 points) want the monarch to advance the cause of reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. On this question, British Columbians are well above the national average (59 per cent).

Two other questions bring good tidings to the current monarch. More than two in five Canadians (44 per cent, down eight points) say they have no problem with King Charles III being featured on coins and bills that will be used in Canada, and 40 per cent (down 10 points) would have preferred to see Prince William become King.

Our collective perceptions on where we go from here have not changed. More than half of Canadians (53 per cent, up one point) expect Canada to still be a monarchy 20 years from now, while just under a third (32 per cent, down one point) think the country will have an elected head of state in the next two decades.

The last few weeks have seen Canadian politicians gaining popularity on account of their positioning during U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term. Doug Ford won a new mandate in Ontario with an approval rating of 56 per cent, David Eby has seen his personal numbers rise in British Columbia to 55 per cent and Justin Trudeau was seen as a proper manager of the tariff dispute by 54 per cent of Canadians.

While some Canadians openly wondered if King Charles would scold Trump for his “51st state” overtures, the tradition of monarchs abstaining from politics has proven more powerful. Although not yet near the level of support for ultimately having an elected head of state, the popularity of the monarchy as the preferred form of government for Canada has rebounded. At a time of uncertainty and consistent verbal attacks by an American president who appears increasingly imprudent, the institution of the monarchy has become more appealing.

Mario Canseco is president of Research Co.

Results are based on an online survey conducted from March 10-12, among 1,001 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to census figures for age, gender and region in Canada. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

Canada sleepwalks into another trade war

Trade dispute with China

Photo: Chung Chow/BIV

Vanterm container terminal at the Port of Vancouver

The lack of foresight in Ottawa’s trade and industrial policies is astonishing. And farmers keep paying the price,

Canada has walked itself into an unnecessary trade war with the United States’ biggest geopolitical rival, China. The consequences are now clear--new retaliatory tariffs from China directly target our farmers, affecting over $3 billion in agri-food commodities and products. These measures are a direct response to Canada’s decision to impose a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) back in October—a move designed to align with U.S. trade policy and shield the North American auto sector from low-cost competition.

But now, the landscape has shifted. (former U.S. president) Joe Biden is no longer in office , current U. S. President Donald Trump is signalling hostility toward Canada and China is retaliating against Canadian farmers. Meanwhile, the United States is also taking an aggressive stance against Canada, unprovoked, further complicating trade relations.

Canada has been in this position before. During the Huawei affair in 2018, China employed similar tactics. When Meng Wanzhou, a top Huawei executive, was arrested in Vancouver, China swiftly imposed restrictions on Canadian canola, pork and other agricultural exports. China’s geopolitical strategy is calculated and effective, targeting industries that generate maximum pressure on the Canadian government.

By contrast, Canada’s trade policy is often reactionary, driven by optics rather than strategic, long-term planning.

Now, China is once again sending a clear message by targeting Canadian farmers in retaliation for an EV tariff—even though Canada has yet to import a single Chinese-made electric vehicle. This comes at the same time that Canada installs a new prime minister to replace Justin Trudeau, the leader who originally imposed the EV tariffs. The symbolism is undeniable, yet it remains unclear whether Ottawa grasps its significance.

At the heart of this issue is Canada’s flawed strategy on EVs—a policy that mirrors the protectionist nature of supply management in the dairy sector. The federal government has poured over $50 billion into the EV and battery industries, supporting domestic manufacturing, critical minerals and supply chain development. Beneficiaries include Volkswagen, Stellantis-LG Energy Solution, Northvolt and Honda, among others.

To protect these investments, Ottawa followed the U.S. lead in imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs, effectively limiting market competition and driving up domestic EV prices over time.

This raises an important question: if the Canadian government is still serious about climate action, shouldn’t it prioritize making EVs more affordable rather than blocking cheaper imports? Instead, Ottawa has chosen to prioritize jobs in the auto sector over environmental concerns. The inconsistency is staggering.

Meanwhile, the EV and battery industries that Canada is trying to protect remain in their infancy. We are not importing Chinese EVs, yet our agricultural sector is bearing the cost of this policy misstep.

To put the misallocation of funds into perspective, let’s consider what else could have been achieved with the $50 billion funnelled into EVs and batteries. The beef sector, a vital component of Canada’s food security, offers a compelling case study.

With $50 billion, the meatpacking industry could be revolutionized. A mid-sized meatpacking plant costs roughly $200 million to build, meaning these funds could support the construction of approximately 250 plants, each capable of processing between 500 and 2,000 cattle per day.

Alternatively, large-scale industrial plants, like those operated by Cargill and JBS, typically cost $800 million each, meaning this investment could fund around 62 massive facilities, each capable of handling 4,000 to 7,000 cattle daily. For context, Cargill’s High River plant processes 4,000 cattle per day, while JBS’s Greeley facility in the U.S. handles about 5,000. This level of investment would decentralize the North American meat supply chain, increase competition and improve food security by reducing reliance on a handful of dominant processors.

The lack of foresight in Ottawa’s trade and industrial policies is astonishing. If a country controls its food supply, it holds far greater economic and strategic leverage. China understands this well. The question now is whether Canada’s next government will learn the lesson before more damage is done to our farming sector.

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.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

Trump's shadow looms large over Carney's path forward

Canada's new PM

Photo: Maria Rantanen

Mark Carney in Richmond on Jan. 16, 2025. He was selected as Liberal Party leader this past Sunday.

There aren’t many among us today in Canada who can thank U.S. President Donald Trump for an improvement in their station in life but new Liberal Leader and prime minister-designate Mark Carney is one.

His dominant Liberal leadership victory Sunday had a lot to do with the U.S. president and the on-again, off-again, up-again, down-again, soon-again, probably-again, more-again threats, bluster, reprieves, musings, restatements, demands, dial-backs and mind games.

Were it not for Trump, he might have won the leadership but been roadkill in an election. As it stands, and for how long no one knows, he is now a presumptive prime minister. Canadians, for the time being at least, consider him a better foil for the guy behind the desk in the Oval Office, and for the time being that appears to be what matters.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who could have coasted to victory only a couple of months ago in delivering an axe-the-tax, stop-the-crime, build-the-homes message, now has to earn the job seemingly all over again with a Canada First message against Carney’s Canada Strong one. Just as Poilievre shed his glasses for contact lenses and the blue suit for a wider fashion ensemble, he has to shed the Canada-is-broken mantra for Canada-is-great jingo. It must feel to him familiarly like one of those squandered third-period Vancouver Canucks leads that now has to go into overtime.

Campaigns matter, and in today’s climate of constant change, no one can tell what a handful of weeks will reshape in voter intentions. But if the election is about Trump, it leans toward Carney. If the election is about outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, you can’t be all that sure.

It is worth wondering why, if Carney is the answer, there are such questions about him. But there are: about his real role as a bank governor here in suppressing a recession, in England about ministering to Brexit; about his role in Brookfield Asset Management’s decision when he was chair to situate headquarters in New York; about his deficit accounting scheme to separate capital from operational spending; and how vigorously he will pursue an agenda on climate change spending while contending with the uncertainty of Trump tariff threats. There appear to be blanks to fill in on his housing strategy, his blueprint for Indigenous reconciliation, Canada’s defence and our place in the wider world.

It is worth wondering, because to date we can’t get these answers ourselves. Carney has consciously been selective about his media access and hasn’t seen it necessary to sell himself through local and regional media – and hardly ever through the national press – as he sold himself in his leadership campaign. The strategy can’t last, of course. He will call an election any day or week now and he can’t get more than a few days in a bubble.

Understanding Trump is an impossibility. Despite what his famous book says, there appears no Art of the Deal anyone can follow. There are insufficient powers to neutralize him, and mollifying him appears to be an embarrassing exercise in sycophancy. As best as anyone can tell, we need to stay awake to constant provocation for the next three-and-a-half years. It’s as if we’re entering COVID 2.0 with a cross-border social distancing. Is Carney, who will have to reset the game with Trump even if he has a brief period in office, the guy who can penetrate the fog?

The choice for voters, then, amounts to electing a prime minister with no political experience or one with only political experience, one with vast private sector experience or one without any.

It was a little disconcerting that Carney’s low-octane acceptance speech Sunday had the energy of a concession. His intellect has not yet stepped aside to unfurl what lies beneath in emotion. The polls may show Canadians trust his credentials to best stand for the country in this existential moment, but would it have hurt him to at least revel and rev us up in the moment?

Former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien was the king of turning down the political temperature, and perhaps Carney also sees the value in soothing and not stoking the frayed nerves of the country. Maybe, too, he is borrowing from the subtlety of (hockey legend) Gordie Howe in playing the "elbows-up" game without advertising it. Whatever the case, the time ahead will be politically fascinating like nothing we can recall.

Kirk LaPointe is a Glacier Media columnist with an extensive background in journalism who is vice-president in the office of the chairman at Fulmer & Company.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.