A Good Start but Not a Quick Fix: What Canada’s New Food Security Strategy Really Means

The federal government’s new food security strategy is getting a lot of attention—and for good reason. It signals a willingness to invest in Canada’s food system, strengthen domestic capacity, and improve resilience in the face of growing uncertainty. All of that is positive. The dias at the announcement focused on lower costs. Was that meant to imply lower food prices?

But if we’re asking the simple question—will this reduce food prices for consumers in the near term?—the answer is much less clear.

The federal government’s new food security strategy is getting a lot of attention—and for good reason. It signals a willingness to invest in Canada’s food system, strengthen domestic capacity, and improve resilience in the face of growing uncertainty. All of that is positive.

Helping Small and Medium Grocers and Local Food Producers

One of the more interesting elements of the strategy is the focus on terminals and food hubs. These investments aim to provide an alternative supply chain for the way food moves through the system, particularly for smaller grocers and local restaurants. That matters.

Smaller players often face higher costs because they lack access to scale, logistics infrastructure, and consistent supply. Terminals and hubs can help address that gap. They can make it easier for independent grocers and food service operators to access products, potentially at better prices, and compete more effectively with larger chains. It doesn't mean that they will be cheaper than the large grocers. Grocers like Longo's in Ontario used to get some of their produce at the Ontario Food Terminal. That changed when they were bought by Empire Group (Sobeys) and accessed the more cost efficient grocer's corporate purchasing and logistics infrastructure. Hubs and terminals will lower costs for these grocers and make them relatively more competitive, but it won't make them cheaper.

These investments may help level the playing field, but they don’t fundamentally change the underlying cost structure of producing, processing, and distributing food. As a result, they may shift who can compete—but not necessarily what consumers ultimately pay.

Another benefit of terminals and hubs is that local producers will have another outlet for their production. Removing the middleman from the equation may increase returns for producers and decrease costs for small grocers. That is a very good thing. But, again, it likely won't lower costs in the grocery store.

Resilience Through Diversification

Another key pillar of the strategy is investment in processing capacity, greenhouses, and vertical farming. This is added on to previous initiatives which accelerated the write off new greenhouse construction. This is also a positive development, and arguably one of the most important long-term contributions of the policy. Canada’s food system has always been exposed to weather-related risks. Droughts, floods, and extreme heat can significantly affect supply, and when supply is constrained, prices rise. We’ve seen this repeatedly in recent years across different commodities. Beef prices, coffee prices, tomatoes and more. In November lettuce prices in Canada went up 30% because Southern California, which provides over 90% of North America's lettuce in November had production issues. Having an alternate source, particularly one less susceptible to weather issues, increases the resilience of the system by lowering the dependence on one single supplier. Prices might still go up but not likely as much. Expanding greenhouse production and exploring vertical farming creates an opportunity to partially de-couple food production from weather variability. Increasing domestic processing capacity also reduces reliance on external systems that may be disrupted. The result is not necessarily lower average prices but less volatility. That resilience is very valuable. In other words, these investments may not make food cheaper over time, but they can reduce the magnitude of price spikes when shocks occur. For consumers, that kind of stability has real value—even if it doesn’t always show up as lower prices at the checkout.

Uncertainty Around Red Tape Reduction

Like many strategies, this one also highlights the need to reduce regulatory burden, or “red tape,” to improve efficiency and competitiveness. In principle, this makes sense. Excessive or poorly designed regulation can add costs, slow investment, and limit innovation. In practice, however, the impact will depend entirely on how and where those changes occur.

• Are we targeting rules that genuinely add cost without improving outcomes?

• Are changes being implemented consistently across jurisdictions?

• How quickly can businesses respond?

• 
  

Without clarity on these questions, it’s difficult to assess the likely impact. It is certainly possible, even likely, that reducing unnecessary regulatory burden could lower costs over time, but it is unlikely to deliver immediate price relief, and poorly targeted changes could simply shift costs elsewhere.

A Strategy Focused on the Right Problems

Stepping back, the most important takeaway is that the strategy is focused on the right structural issues.

• Strengthening supply chains

• Expanding domestic capacity

• Improving resilience

• Supporting a broader set of market participants

These are all worthwhile objectives, especially in a global environment marked by uncertainty and disruption. But they are not quick fixes. Food prices are influenced by geopolitical uncertainty, global markets, input costs, exchange rates, labour, transportation, and weather. No single policy, and certainly not one focused on long-term capacity, can quickly bring those prices down.

Food Security Strategy: Opportunity and the Risk

There is a real opportunity here for Canada. Investing in infrastructure, production capacity, and innovation can position Canadian agriculture and food as a stronger, more resilient contributor to both domestic food security and global markets. It can create new opportunities for producers and improve the system’s ability to respond to shocks. But there is also a risk that the success of the policy will be judged by the wrong metric. If the expectation is that this strategy will significantly reduce grocery bills in the near term, it will almost certainly be seen as falling short. If instead we evaluate it based on its ability to improve resilience, support domestic production, reduce vulnerability to shocks, and expand opportunities for Canadian producers, then it has a much greater chance of being viewed for what it is: a solid foundation for a stronger food system.

The real challenge now is not just implementing the strategy—but communicating what it can and cannot achieve. Policymakers, industry, and analysts need to be clear. This is about resilience, not immediate affordability. This is about long-term capacity, not short-term price relief. At the same time, that doesn’t mean affordability should be ignored. It simply means it needs to be addressed with the right tools. That includes targeted supports, income measures, and policies that directly affect consumer purchasing power. We saw an initiative to provide relief not through lower prices but direct payments to the lowest income Canadians. Affordability is a combination of price and income. If income goes up at the same rate as prices, affordability doesn't change.

The strategy is a good start. But we should be clear-eyed about what it is designed to do and ensure we build on it in ways that address both resilience and affordability.

Recommended citation format: von Massow, M, "A Good Start but Not a Quick Fix: What Canada’s New Food Security Strategy Really Means." Food Focus Guelph (144) , Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, June 15, 2026.

Key Words: Food, food supply chains, food security, food policy, food prices, resilience