Category: Uncategorized

  • CGI acquires U.S. tech consulting firm Callibrity

    CGI GIB-A-T +0.04%increase says it has acquired U.S. technology consulting firm Callibrity.

    Financial terms of the deal, which closed Tuesday, were not immediately available.

    Founded in 2007, Callibrity brings experience in financial services, insurance and manufacturing.

    CGI says Callibrity adds 120 consultants and strengthens its presence in the Cincinnati market.

    Vijay Srinivasan, president of U.S. commercial and state government operations at CGI, says Callibrity brings deep technical expertise, a strong consulting mindset and a culture of curiosity and collaboration.

    CGI has 94,000 consultants and professionals around the world.

  • U.S. crude oil tops $100 again – last seen in May – as market braces for prolonged Iran war

    • The White House has discussed the possibility that the Iran war could drag on past Inauguration Day in January 2029, U.S. officials told The Wall Street Journal.
    • The report contradicts President Donald Trump’s claim on Wednesday that the war would end immediately after the midterm elections.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/10/iran-us-oil-hormuz-supply-trump-military-brent-wti.html

  • Crude Oil Price – Sept. 9/26 (AM)

    Summary

    • WTI is approximately US$95–96/bbl as of September 9, 2026, driven mainly by escalating U.S.–Iran conflict and impaired Middle East shipping.
    • My base case is for the geopolitical premium to decline gradually, taking WTI toward US$80–90 by early December.
    • Estimated average over the next three months: US$86–92/bbl.
    • Futures support a declining path: October is near US$96, November US$92 and December US$89—strong backwardation.
    • The forecast carries unusually high uncertainty because developments around Iran, Saudi infrastructure and the Strait of Hormuz outweigh normal supply-demand factors.

    Key Drivers

    1. Strait of Hormuz and Iran — dominant short-term driver

    WTI has risen roughly 20% over the past month. The immediate cause is concern about Middle East oil production, tanker movements and attacks on regional infrastructure. WTI traded near US$95.70, while Brent moved above US$100 on September 9. Reuters

    A ceasefire or material improvement in tanker traffic could remove US$10–20/bbl of risk premium relatively quickly. Damage to major Saudi or Gulf infrastructure could instead push WTI above US$110.

    2. Futures curve anticipates lower prices

    ContractApproximate price, September 9
    October 2026US$95.72
    November 2026US$92.45
    December 2026US$88.96

    The downward curve indicates that the market expects current shortages and geopolitical risks to ease. It does not guarantee that outcome. MarketWatch futures data

    3. EIA expects supply recovery

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects Brent to average approximately US$78/bbl in Q4 2026, based on recovering Strait of Hormuz traffic, restarted production and eventually rebuilding inventories. WTI normally trades below Brent, although the spread is unusually uncertain during shipping disruptions. U.S. EIA

    My base forecast is higher than the EIA model because the current conflict remains active and December WTI futures are still close to US$89.

    4. Demand and OPEC+

    OPEC currently forecasts only about 0.6 million barrels per day of global demand growth in 2026, limiting fundamental support once the geopolitical premium fades. OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report

    OPEC+ could support prices by delaying production increases. Conversely, increased Gulf production or weak Chinese demand would accelerate a decline.

    Scenarios

    ScenarioProbabilityThree-month WTI outcomeConditions
    Bull25%US$105–125Hormuz disruption worsens; Saudi/Gulf facilities damaged; OPEC+ cannot compensate
    Base50%US$80–90 by DecemberShipping gradually improves; outages recover; conflict remains contained
    Bear25%US$65–78Ceasefire, rapid supply restoration, weaker global demand and inventory rebuilding

    TSX Implications

    WTI levelLikely Canadian market effect
    Above US$100Strong cash flow for CNQ, SU and IMO; positive for the TSX Energy sector, but inflation and interest-rate risks rise
    US$80–90Still constructive for major producers; supports dividends and buybacks without as severe an inflation shock
    Below US$70Pressure on smaller, higher-cost producers; integrated producers and pipelines remain relatively more resilient

    What Would Disprove the Base Case

    • WTI holds above US$100 for several weeks despite attempted supply restoration.
    • Strait of Hormuz traffic deteriorates rather than improves.
    • Verified damage materially reduces Saudi or other Gulf production.
    • December futures move above October futures, signalling expected shortages rather than normalization.
    • Conversely, a ceasefire combined with rapid inventory rebuilding could push WTI below the base range much sooner.

    Base conclusion: WTI is likely to remain elevated and volatile during September, but the balance of evidence points toward US$80–90 by early December, with a three-month average around US$89/bbl.

    Educational analysis only; geopolitical developments can invalidate commodity forecasts quickly.

    Crude Oil – NEW 52W High

  • Bank of Montreal becomes first Big Five bank to eliminate most online trading commissions

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-bank-of-montreal-becomes-first-big-five-bank-to-eliminate-most-online

    Summary

    • BMO InvestorLine will introduce unlimited commission-free online trading on stocks, ETFs and options starting September 14.
    • Options will carry no trading commission, although the per-contract fee is being reduced rather than eliminated.
    • BMO is also eliminating brokerage account administration and transfer-out fees.
    • The strategy targets younger investors and responds to competition from Wealthsimple, Questrade and National Bank Direct Brokerage.
    • The immediate revenue loss appears manageable: InvestorLine represents about 9% of BMO Wealth Management revenue, while its broader value is bringing clients into banking, advisory and private-wealth services.

    Strategic Impact

    BMO is sacrificing transaction-fee revenue to attract more customers, increase assets under administration and deepen relationships across the bank. InvestorLine’s assets grew at a 14% compound annual rate from 2020 to 2025, with clients under 35 its fastest-growing segment.

    The move is strategically positive for customer acquisition but could pressure competitors—particularly other major-bank brokerages—to lower their commissions. National Bank already offers commission-free trading, although it is Canada’s sixth-largest bank and therefore outside the Big Five.

    Implications for BMO

    Short term: Slightly negative for fee revenue and potentially higher technology and platform costs.

    Long term: Potentially positive if BMO converts InvestorLine users into mortgage, deposit, advisory, private-banking and wealth-management clients.

    Key risk: Zero commissions will not create lasting customer loyalty unless BMO’s platform, research, execution quality and customer service remain competitive.

    Bottom line: This is more of a customer-acquisition and cross-selling strategy than a material near-term earnings event for BMO. It raises competitive pressure across Canadian discount brokerages but is unlikely, by itself, to materially affect BMO’s overall valuation.

  • Trade Wars – Opinion/Commentary

    OPINION:

    2025 baseline already showed the hit. Goods exports −0.2% to $779B, imports +2.8% to $789B. U.S. exports −5.3% to −5.8%; U.S. surplus shrank from $101B to $82B. Non-U.S. exports +17% (UK gold, EU, China) did not fully replace lost U.S. volume. Export share to the U.S. fell to ~72%.

    What this latest round adds

    • Sept 29 bans (alcohol, motorcycles, whey, molasses) are small vs $715B+ two-way goods trade. Alcohol to the U.S. was already crushed by the 50% tariff; spirits take the production/jobs hit, craft beer less so.
    • Canada’s CA$28B countertariffs raise input costs for manufacturers that still buy U.S. parts, appliances, metals, farm equipment.
    • GSA procurement exclusion is a slow bleed for Canadian IT/office suppliers, not a 2026 GDP event.
    • The live threat is still autos/steel/aluminum/lumber and a possible 50% auto tariff from Jan 1, 2027 — not whisky.

    Macro channel

    • Growth: drag via lower export volumes, higher imported input prices, delayed capex. Not a recession trigger by itself if energy and USMCA-origin autos stay open.
    • Inflation: two-way tariffs = higher consumer and producer prices (alcohol, appliances, some food inputs). Partially offset by a weaker CAD if the Bank stays on hold.
    • CAD / BoC: more reason for a dovish bias if U.S. demand for Canadian goods keeps sliding; energy still the swing factor.
    • Labour: concentrated — spirits, some dairy ingredients, export-oriented manufacturing, logistics — not economy-wide unemployment spike.
    • Investment: the real cost. Rules changing every few weeks. Chamber point is correct: firms can price a 25–50% tariff; they cannot price a moving list.

    Who absorbs it

    • Exporters to the U.S. in targeted consumer goods: margin compression or lost sales.
    • Importers/retailers of U.S. goods: pass-through to Canadian consumers.
    • Provinces with alcohol/export manufacturing exposure (ON, QC, BC, Prairies energy less directly).
    • Winners on paper: import-competing domestic producers and any successful EU/Asia diversion. That substitution is multi-year, not Q4.

    Bottom line 2025 already priced a U.S. share loss and a wider goods deficit. This week’s bans are political escalation on a thin slice of trade. The economic damage scales with duration and whether autos/energy get pulled in. Stable high tariffs: manageable hit to GDP and a one-time price level shift. Unstable lists plus auto threat: investment freeze and a larger 2026–27 growth haircut.

    COMMENTARY

    Summary

    The analysis is directionally strong: the latest product bans affect a narrow portion of Canada–U.S. trade; autos, steel, aluminum and lumber remain the larger macroeconomic risks.

    The 2025 figures are broadly correct, but they demonstrate deterioration—not necessarily that tariffs caused the entire decline.

    Canada’s counter tariffs cover approximately C$27.6 billion of U.S. imports, commonly reported as about US$20 billion. Both figures should not be presented as though they use the same currency.

    One correction is important: a weaker Canadian dollar would generally increase imported inflation, not offset it.

    The strongest conclusion is that persistent policy uncertainty could damage capital investment more than the currently banned products themselves.

    Key Comments:

    1. The 2025 baseline is accurate, but causation needs qualification

    Canada’s 2025 merchandise exports declined 0.2% to approximately C$779 billion, while imports increased 2.8% to C$789 billion. Canada’s merchandise surplus with the United States fell from C$101.3 billion to C$81.6 billion. Global Affairs Canada, Statistics Canada

    However, “2025 already showed the hit” is slightly too definitive. The data show the outcome, but the decline also reflected commodity prices, exchange rates, inventory movements and changing U.S. demand. Better wording:

    “The 2025 trade data already showed the deterioration that tariffs and weaker U.S. demand subsequently intensified.”

    Non-U.S. export growth is encouraging, but the comparison is asymmetric: a 17% increase from a smaller base cannot quickly replace even a modest decline in the much larger U.S. market.

    2. The latest escalation is correctly characterized as narrow

    The bans announced September 8 and effective September 29 cover selected alcohol, dairy products—including whey and some molasses—and motorcycles. They are economically small relative to the US$715.5 billion in 2025 bilateral goods trade. Reuters, USTR

    Calling them “Sept. 29 bans” is understandable, but “bans effective Sept. 29” is more precise.

    The claim that craft beer is less exposed than spirits is plausible, but it should be tied to actual export volumes. Without that evidence, describe exposure as likely smaller, not established.

    3. Currency and inflation require correction

    Counter tariffs raise Canadian prices for affected U.S. imports.

    A weaker CAD makes most imported goods more expensive and therefore amplifies imported inflation.

    The weaker currency may help some Canadian exporters regain price competitiveness, but this benefit depends on foreign demand and imported-input content.

    The Bank of Canada therefore faces a trade-off: weaker growth supports easing, while tariff-related price increases and CAD depreciation limit its room to cut.

    “Dovish bias” and “stays on hold” are not necessarily contradictory, but the distinction should be clear: dovish guidance can precede rate cuts without implying an immediate move.

    4. The investment channel is the strongest part

    The central argument is persuasive:

    Stable tariffs can be incorporated into prices and supply-chain decisions; repeatedly changing product lists, rates and implementation dates raise the required return on investment and delay capital spending.

    That channel can become larger than the direct loss of exports. It particularly affects automotive plants, integrated steel and aluminum users, machinery producers and firms deciding where to place their next North American facility.

    The GSA exclusion is better described as a potentially cumulative sector-level drag. Its eventual impact depends on how many Canadian suppliers use the affected schedules, the value of their contracts and whether exclusions apply. Calling it definitively “not a 2026 GDP event” goes beyond the available evidence.

    What Would Disprove the Thesis

    Canadian manufacturing investment remains firm despite policy uncertainty.

    Export volumes to Europe and Asia replace lost U.S. sales faster than expected.

    Autos continue receiving effective tariff exemptions.

    Canadian firms rapidly substitute domestic or non-U.S. inputs without significant cost increases.

    Trade negotiations produce a durable agreement before January 1, 2027.

    Bottom Line

    The conclusion is sound after one material correction: CAD weakness increases imported inflation while potentially supporting export competitiveness. The newest bans are more politically significant than macroeconomically large. The decisive variables remain autos, energy, metals, lumber, tariff duration and whether policy uncertainty begins freezing Canadian business investment.

    Educational analysis only; figures and policy measures remain subject to revision.

  • Canada merchandise trade, calendar 2025 (CAD).

    otals from Global Affairs / StatCan year-end wrap; partner lines mixed BOP and customs sources — UK jump is largely gold.

    PartnerExportsImportsBalanceNotes
    All countries779.0789.0−10.0GAC Highlights; StatCan BOP deficit cited as −31.3 on a different compilation
    United States~558 (71.7% of exports)~464 (58.8% of imports)+81.6Exports −5.8%; imports −2.9%; surplus down from +101.3 in 2024
    United Kingdom46.6–49.5~10.8+36 to +39Gold-driven; exports +62% to +68%
    China34.4–34.965.2−30 to −31Exports +15%
    European Union~42.8~78.2−35Exports +23%
    Mexico8.9–9.435.0–53.4−25 to −44Imports +12% to +20% depending on series
    Japan14.616.0−1.3Exports −3%
    Germany9.2~19–20deficitExports +35%
    Netherlands9.5n/a in same cut—Exports +34%
    South Korea7.116.0−8.9Exports −7%
    Rest of world (ex-US)+17.2% y/y+12.4% y/y−112.9Non-US two-way trade +14.3% to $553B

    Read-through

    • U.S. still dominates, but export share fell to the lowest since the early 1980s (71.7–72.5% vs ~76% in 2024).
    • Diversification in 2025 was real on the export side (Europe/UK/China) and was not enough to offset the U.S. drop.
    • Canada ran a goods surplus with the U.S. and a large deficit with everyone else — same structure as prior years, wider gap.

    Figures differ slightly by BOP vs customs, total vs domestic exports, and whether gold is booked to the UK. Use StatCan table 12-10-0171-01 for a full country list.

  • Canada’s retaliatory tariffs worth $27.6 billion take effect as trade rift with U.S. deepens

    • Canada has introduced and raised tariffs on $27.6 billion worth of U.S. goods, including dairy, agricultural equipment, paper, household appliances and electronics.
    • U.S. steel, aluminum and iron products, furniture and clothing were hit with the highest rate of 50%.
    • Officials from Ottawa and Washington continue to publicly trade barbs, blaming one another for the failure to reach a trade deal.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/08/canada-retaliatory-tariffs.html

  • Altria Is Spending More on Capex Than Any Other Consumer Staples Name. It’s a Calculated Sign of Strength.

      Today’s insights and analysis to help you find the best stocks for income investing. Altria Is Spending More on Capex Than Any Other Consumer Staples Name. It’s a Calculated Sign of Strength. Dividend Investor for September 07, 2026 With the second-quarter earnings season mostly over, investors are watching how consumer staples companies are spending their cash. Capital expenditures serve as one useful clue, and Altria (MO) stands out. The tobacco company reportedly leads all consumer staples stocks with a 100% increase in capital expenditures, ahead of Kimberly-Clark (KMB) at 96.49% and Darling Ingredients (DAR) at 71.17%. In its Q2 report on July 30, Altria raised its 2026 capex forecast to between $375 million and $450 million, from a prior range of $300 million to $375 million. The company tied the increase to its manufacturing-consolidation plans. That makes the higher spending worth watching, especially after Altria’s Q2 results sent MO stock down 9.3% in one session. Adjusted EPS still rose almost 3% year-over-year (YOY) to $1.48, while the company returned nearly $3.9 billion to shareholders through dividends and buybacks in the first half of 2026.  Is Altria spending from a position of strength? Or is protecting its cash flow becoming more expensive? Let’s take a closer look. The Numbers Behind the Investment Altria makes most of its money from U.S. cigarettes, although it is also investing in smoke-free nicotine products. MO stock has gained more than 3% over the past 52 weeks and more than 19% year-to-date (YTD). www.barchart.com Even after that run, MO stock trades at 12.2 times forward earnings, which is below the consumer staples sector average of roughly 15 times. The dividend is still a major reason investors own Altria. Its annual dividend is $4.24 per share, giving the stock a 6.1% yield. The latest quarterly payment was $1.06 per share, paid on July 10. Altria has raised its dividend for 57-straight years and pays it every quarter. Still, the 76.15% forward payout ratio means a large share of earnings already goes to the dividend, leaving less room when spending needs rise. Q2 results showed why Altria can still afford to invest. Revenue rose 0.1% year-over-year (YOY) to $6.11 billion, while revenue excluding excise taxes increased 1.2% to $5.36 billion. Reported diluted EPS fell 2.8% to $1.37, but adjusted EPS rose 2.8% to $1.48. Meanwhile, first-half adjusted EPS climbed 4.9% to $2.80. Smokeable-products revenue excluding excise taxes rose 2% to $4.66 billion during Q2, while adjusted operating income increased 2.4% to about $3.02 billion. Altria’s 64.8% margin helped offset a 3.2% drop in domestic cigarette shipments, or about 4.5% after adjusting for inventory. Altria paid $1.8 billion in dividends during the quarter and $3.6 billion in the first half of the year. The company also spent $335 million on buybacks, bringing total first-half shareholder returns to nearly $3.9 billion. At the same time, the company raised its 2026 capex forecast to $375 million to $450 million from $300 million to $375 million, mainly to consolidate U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company (USSTC) manufacturing operations. Management still expects 2026 adjusted EPS of $5.61 to $5.72, up 3.5% to 5.5% YOY. Why Altria’s Capex Surge Signals Strength Altria has seen its capex rise faster than any other consumer staples stock. Data shows capex rose about 100% YOY. Still, the actual dollar amount is not huge for a company of Altria’s size. Capital expenditures increased 52% to $216 million in 2025 from $142 million in 2024. For 2026, management first guided for $300 million to $375 million in capex, then lifted that range to $375 million to $450 million. The spending has a clear purpose. Altria is putting money into contract manufacturing with Philip Morris International (PM), as well as import and export operations. The arrangement could help Altria capture duty-drawback benefits and support future product plans. The bigger reason for the higher capital expenditures, though, is USSTC’s plan to move work from its older Nashville, Tennessee facility to a new site at its Hopkinsville, Kentucky campus. The company expects Nashville production to end in early 2028. By putting more processing, production, and packaging in one place, Altria aims to cut costs and simplify operations. For now, this looks more like planned spending than a sign of trouble. Altria still produces roughly $9 billion in annual operating cash flow and continues to return billions of dollars through dividends and buybacks. The real test is whether the spending leads to lower costs and stronger growth in oral tobacco over time. Analysts Debate Altria’s Upside Altria is set to report Q3 results before the market opens on Oct. 29. Analysts expect earnings of $1.50 per share for the September quarter, up more than 3% from $1.45 a year ago. For full-year 2026, the average estimate is $5.67 per share, which would be roughly 5% higher than the $5.42 reported in fiscal 2025. UBS analyst Faham Baig is bullish on MO stock. On July 7, Baig kept a “Buy” rating on Altria and raised his price target to $79 from $76. Barclays sees less upside, however; analyst Pallav Mittal kept an “Underweight” rating while lowered the price target to $58 from $64 on Aug. 11. Overall, Altria stock has a consensus “Moderate Buy” rating on Wall Street. The average price target of $69.58 points to potential upside of just 1% from current levels. www.barchart.comwww.barchart.com Conclusion Altria’s higher capex looks more like a calculated sign of strength than a warning, at least for now. The investment is targeted at modernizing smokeless-tobacco manufacturing rather than a broad, speculative spending push, while the core cigarette business still produces the margins and cash flow needed to fund dividends, buybacks, and growth initiatives. The caution is that cigarette volumes continue to decline and next-generation nicotine competition is intensifying, so the payoff must show up in better efficiency and smoke-free growth. With MO stock near analysts’ average target, shares will most likely trade sideways in the near term, with dividend income providing the main support. Enjoying this content? Want more? Explore all of Barchart’s FREE newsletters     Like what you are reading? Check out the full family of Barchart Newsletters, designed for every type of investor and trader. Psst.. Don’t forget to stay connected with Barchart across the social media platforms we ❤️ the most! Here’s where you can find us. Twitter Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Facebook
  • Two provinces seek a billion-dollar investment to make Canadian food easier to move, cheaper to access

    Food industry associations in British Columbia and Manitoba are seeking close-to $1-billion from government and private business to build regional food terminals as trade tensions with the U.S. continue to expose the risks of relying on north-south trade.

    BC Food & Beverage, which represents provincial food processors and manufacturers, is readying a proposal for a massive facility with an estimated cost of $700-million.

    The proposed space would be the first in the province and loosely modelled on the Ontario Food Terminal, the only one of its kind, which distributes two billion pounds of food each year across Canada. The western anchor would be part of a network of terminals that move food along interprovincial routes already running from the port to Alberta, the Prairies and Northern Canada.

    Manitoba’s industry association is looking to build its own terminal with a price tag between approximately $150-million and $200-million.

    “What Donald Trump has done is, he’s made us realize, ‘Wow, we’re vulnerable – we have a lot of eggs in one basket,’” said Michael Mikulak, executive director of Food & Beverage Manitoba.

    Here’s how Canada’s countertariffs could hit your wallet

    Food terminals, which function as independent wholesale food marketplaces, offer a more efficient way for Canadian supply to meet Canadian demand, he said.

    By concentrating multiple producers at one facility, these operations can cut the cost of shipping product orders to stores.

    Both the B.C. and Manitoba proposals are largely in response to Ottawa’s National Food Security Strategy, launched in June. It pledged $3-billion over 10 years to expand domestic processing and production, make supply chains more efficient and improve grocery competition. The strategy was developed amid rising food costs and trade tensions with the U.S. that threaten decades-old supply routes.

    “The food industry is more than just feeding Canadians – it’s an economic engine with still so much room to grow,” said James Donaldson, chief executive officer at BC Food & Beverage. “To see that level of commitment was really exciting.”

    Opinion: Canada’s new Food Security Strategy won’t end food insecurity

    The B.C. concept, which has been dubbed “the Pacific Gateway,” is even more ambitious than its Ontario counterpart. With the Port of Vancouver and Vancouver International Airport already moving mass quantities of food to and from Asian markets, the B.C. terminal has an opportunity to become a regional export hub, according to Mr. Donaldson.

    More stories below advertisement

    00:00 / 00:06

    In an e-mail, Ron Lemaire, president of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, said what’s particularly interesting about the B.C. proposal is that “it thinks about food distribution as national infrastructure.” It positions British Columbia as a “western anchor” that serves communities across Western Canada while also leveraging international trade, he said.

    Though success will depend on industry buy-in, advocates of the projects say they’re not simply about creating more efficiencies for industry players, but about building out better food distribution to improve Canada’s food security.

    Today, they argue, countless inefficiencies make it hard for retailers, producers and processors to build up domestic supply chains.

    “We keep hearing about a truckload, container load, going out half full,” Mr. Donaldson said. “You’re bearing the whole cost of that truck on half the product.”

    Competition bureau launches study to examine how food supply chain affects grocery prices

    Currently, separate groups are responsible for securing produce, optimizing freight and repacking items that arrive damaged. “Having a centralized facility where all of those things can be consolidated is what we saw as an opportunity,” he said.

    Mr. Donaldson’s team is looking for funding through the National Food Security Strategy’s Food Link Fund, which pledged $1-billion to expand food terminals and start construction on two new ones by the end of 2028, along with provincial and private sources. They’ve already rallied commitment from provincial leaders.

    B.C. Agriculture and Food Minister Lana Popham said in a statement that her ministry is “excited” by the proposal’s potential to “unlock new, long-term food security and supply-chain resistance.”

    “This means more potential for fresher and more affordable food for British Columbians, and more jobs and economic growth for the agriculture and food sectors,” she said.

    Private investment, Mr. Donaldson said, could come from suppliers, distributors and companies that want to become anchor tenants. So far, he said, the response has been “green lights across the board.”

    Food & Beverage Manitoba, for its part, wants to offer full-blown food-processing capacity – such as washing and bagging potatoes – on top of aggregating and distributing food from an estimated 120,000-square-foot Winnipeg facility.

    “Canada is really good at shipping out commodities,” Mr. Mikulak said. “But why are we shipping out wheat when we could be shipping out pasta, bread, crackers?”

    Beyond helping to shore up domestic supply chains, food terminals help boost competition in the grocery sector by improving access for more players, said Gary Sands, senior vice-president with the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers.

    Editorial: A missing link in the Liberals’ food chain plan

    Some of the country’s largest grocers, including Loblaw Cos. Ltd. L-T +1.39%increase
    and Empire Co. Ltd., EMP-A-T +0.25%increase
    also own distributors that their smaller competitors rely on for many of their goods. “If you’re buying goods directly, and not through a wholesaler in Ontario for produce, you’re getting more choice, and you’re containing your costs more,” Mr. Sands said, calling that an advantage for independents.

    Proponents also hope that food terminals can provide a buffer against rising grocery costs, as food-price spikes have outpaced general inflation for 18 straight months.

    “When we talk about affordability, we often focus on the consumer side. But for perishables, infrastructure performance is price policy,” Mr. Lemaire wrote. “When food moves efficiently, waste is reduced, costs are lowered, and consumers benefit.”

    Peter Chapman, founder of retail consulting firm SKUFood, said the success of food terminals will depend on real commitments from both the buying side – retailers, restaurants and others – and the producers who sell goods to commit to doing business there. They will also require sufficient volumes of products.

    “It’s not just building it,” he said. “They really need to have the conversations with the suppliers and the buyers, and are people really going to come together to support it?”