The most egregious legacy of successive federal and provincial governments is the failure to properly protect and expand Canada’s agricultural land base and with it, a viable and expanding primary and value-added food production industry.
For me, the most disturbing part of this failure is the complacency shown by so many British Columbians who at best think of agricultural land as “pretty green space”, and at worst don’t think about it at all.
This indifference is hardly surprising when one considers the growing number of people for whom city living is their life experience. They don’t have a clue where their food comes from, and seem to think that as long as they have money they will always be able to buy food. I use the term “food” loosely to include plastic-covered processed frozen food that is heated in a microwave and considered dinner.
I read in a local urban living magazine a few years back that studio apartments and small condos are becoming the most preferred purchase by the young urban dweller. These apartments are small, often less than 850 sq ft, and in order to accommodate the maximum living area, are built without a formal kitchen. A small fridge, stove top and microwave are all that is provided.
The reason for this trend, according to the writer in the magazine, is because most young urban types eat out or buy microwavable and prepared food. Few prepare meals from healthy, fresh, raw materials. Those frozen and prepped fast foods could be made in China in very poor production facilities for all these consumers care, and many are.
Historians tell us that throughout history the sovereignty and strength of a nation depends upon its ability to feed its population. Despite globalization and worldwide food distribution systems, that fact is no less true today.
Sadly, many politicians, economists, community planners and members of the general public have dismissed food production as a key indicator in measuring the economic health of our nation. Witness the last federal and provincial budgets. Agriculture barely warranted a mention, and in British Columbia the agricultural ministry had its budget slashed, which will result in significant program reductions, again.
Agriculture, or business directly connected to agriculture, is frequently put far down the list of priorities in economic development planning at the community level. The net result of this has been to permit large-scale residential developments on land adjacent to farms without any serious regard for obvious consequences such as competition for water or residential complaints from the sound and smell of farming.
There is no shortage of studies undertaken to measure water supply for residential or industrial expansion, as in most cases approving authorities require that developers supply them. Only recently, however, have we started to take into account the impact of water demand by those developments on operating farms. This is especially true when one takes into account climate change, which will not only reduce the source and supply of water, but cause farms to require more water for irrigation.
The semi-arid Okanagan, for example, has become a bit of a Mecca for Canadian retirees. The result has been massive residential growth which has put considerable demand upon the local water supply. The Okanagan valley is also home to many growers who not only supply apples, plums, cherries, peaches and pears, but also grow a multiplicity of grape varieties that support the value-added wine industry. In a drought, it is the farmer who loses out in the battle over scarce water supply while the permitted subdivisions, hotels and recreational complexes are well supplied with water.
Where decision makers at all levels should be building in food production as part of the economic development picture, instead, for decades, it has been taken out. Taking food production and the agricultural industry out of the analysis of the economic health of our nation creates a flawed picture of Canada’s economic sustainability.
Two of the more common reasons cited for this short-sighted approach are:
First, economists point to the price of agricultural product available in Canada from agricultural jurisdictions such as California or Mexico and tell us that due to farm practices, the scarcity and cost of labour here, and domestic transportation costs, imported food is less expensive. What’s more, Canada has a limited growing season, and Canadians have come to expect fresh produce year round.
Second, planners point to the growing urban populations with associated suburban demand upon land that, while zoned agricultural, are not actively farmed and contribute very limited revenue to the municipal or provincial tax base. They argue that better use of the land can be found through rezoning to permit residential, commercial or light industrial development.
There is some truth to both arguments; however, by accepting the premise that Canadians cannot compete with cheap imported food removes any incentive for Canadians to invest their time and money into building a strong, innovative agricultural sector which can challenge the price structure of imported food in the market place.
In the same way that we have seen bottled water remove concern for watershed protection and farmed salmon diminish the concern for the preservation and maintenance of the wild fishery, reliance upon imported food will lessen the demand to protect our farmland and farmers along with it.
Suggesting that we cannot meet domestic demand for many products during the winter through hothouse, hydroponic and other technologies creates a self-fulfilling prophesy, and a gradual decline in Canadian food production will be the result.
The success of B.C. Hot House Foods Inc is a testament to what can be done through innovative hydroponic production. It is unfortunate that government has not seen fit to protect winter employment by finding creative ways to provide an agricultural gas rate to make the source of heat energy through the colder months more affordable and thus eliminate the need for a Mexican partnership.
The number of farms in Canada has been declining for the last three decades, although the rate of decline is slowing. A fact worth noting is that in three provinces the number of farms has marginally increased: Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia.
Ontario leads the country with just under one million hectares of farmland lost over the last decade. The slight rise in number of farms reported is due to the increasing number of small-scale, family-owned farms where income is heavily supplemented from off-farm sources. Only British Columbia has managed to maintain roughly the same amount of farmland in aggregate, largely due to the implementation of the Agricultural Land Reserve in the 1970’s.
Unfortunately those of us who live in British Columbia cannot feel too smug about that statistic because it has been maintained by a “no net loss” policy, allowing some of the best land to be taken out of the reserve with equivalent amounts of less suitable land being put in.
When the political leaders we elect come from an urban-based experience, never having to actually create a dollar by growing anything, there is little wonder that they look at agricultural land preservation as an accountant looks at a corporate bottom line.
Gordon Campbell, for example, has lived off public tax dollars for the last twenty-six years, excluding the three years he worked for Vancouver Mayor Art Phillips. He cannot know what it is like to run a farm, and farmers are the ultimate entrepreneurs, taking seeds to plants to harvest or growing a herd of cattle, passel of pigs, flock of sheep or clutch of chickens. The weather to the urban dweller is only important when selecting their wardrobe, or planning their weekend. Sadly, you never know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone, and despite the growing interest in local food production through movements like the hundred mile diet, with current government regulations creating barriers to the marketplace, the family farm will soon be a thing of the past.

1. Suanne Aavang Says:
   July 6th, 2010 at 2:21 pm

   I can relate, although as a 10th generation farmer in the states, I had to give it up and eke out a living elsewhere. Large scale farming caused it, but big farming is more efficient so it has less carbon output, and efficient farming means more healthy CO2 eating vegetation per acre of land. Either way it is a great spin that makes a lot of sense. agriculture weigh scales help make it all more efficient.

2. Nilda Kuypers Says:
   July 15th, 2010 at 6:25 am

   Great stuff here.