Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss the current state of civic resilience in Canada, an issue that is both timely and fundamental to the health of our democracy.
I appear before you as a researcher specializing in food systems, supply chains and consumer behaviour. While my work focuses on agri-food, the insights extend far beyond it. Food is one of the most immediate and tangible ways Canadians experience economic pressure, institutional performance and, importantly, trust.
Over the past several years, Canada has faced a series of shocks, pandemic disruptions, geopolitical instability and sustained food inflation. These events have tested not only our supply chains but also public confidence in institutions. Civic resilience at its core depends on that confidence.
Allow me to offer three examples that illustrate the challenges we are facing.
First is the role of media and open discourse. Earlier this month, my 25-year collaboration with La Presse, during which I wrote over 1,000 columns for free, came to an end. This followed concerns I had publicly expressed as a citizen on social media about how public funding for private sector media could potentially influence editorial decisions. What is important here is not disagreement. Debate is essential in a healthy democracy, but the reaction was surprising. No other media organization responded in the same way. This raises broader questions about how comfortable we are collectively with the challenging of prevailing narratives. Civic resilience depends on our ability to sustain open, pluralistic dialogue without disproportionate consequences.
Second is the issue of industrial carbon pricing and its indirect effects on Canadians. While the consumer carbon charge has been removed, the industrial carbon price continues to rise, now reaching $110 per tonne. In the agri-food sector, these costs do not disappear: They are embedded across supply chains, from processing to transportation to distribution. Many businesses are adjusting quietly, often through surcharges or contract changes, yet very few media outlets are examining these dynamics closely. We have. This gap matters. When citizens sense that real economic pressures are not being fully acknowledged or explained, it can erode trust in both institutions and the information ecosystem meant to inform them.
Third is the Loblaw boycott and countertariffs by Ottawa. I can go on and on with many examples.
Taken together, these examples point to a common thread: Civic resilience is about not only how institutions perform but also how they are perceived, understood and trusted.
From my perspective, strengthening civic resilience in Canada requires action in three key areas.
First is transparency. Canadians need clearer, more accessible information, whether about public policy, pricing mechanisms or institutional decision-making.
Second is accountability. Institutions must not only act fairly but also be seen to act fairly. Perception is critical, and trust is difficult to rebuild once lost.
Third is engagement. Canadians must feel that their voices matter and that open dialogue is encouraged. Civic resilience depends on participation, not just compliance.
In closing, civic resilience is not a fixed condition. It is dynamic and must be actively maintained. If Canadians begin to lose confidence in the institutions that shape their daily lives—whether governments, markets or media—then resilience weakens, but with transparency, accountability and open dialogue, it can be strengthened.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.