THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 7, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 8:04 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to agriculture and forestry; and, in camera, to examine and report on the role of the agriculture and agri-food sector with regard to food security in Canada and in consideration of a draft budget.
Senator Mary Robinson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. My name is Mary Robinson, and I’m the chair of this committee.
Welcome to members of the committee, our witnesses, as well as those watching this meeting online. I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Peoples.
Before we hear from our witnesses for today, I would like to start by asking the senators around the table to introduce themselves. I will start on my left with our deputy chair.
Senator McNair: Welcome. I’m John McNair from New Brunswick.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Black: Robert Black, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, all.
I would ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. I would also like to remind all those participating to refrain from switching languages mid-sentence and to not speak too quickly. Clear audio supports accurate interpretation, transcription and captioning.
Today the committee is continuing its Ag 101 spotlight series under its general order of reference. These spotlight briefings are meant to inform Canadians and committee members about select topics of interest in agriculture. Today, we’ll be hearing about the disappearance of agriculture land in Canada.
We have the pleasure of welcoming, in person, Rachel Brooks, Farmer and co-chair of Clearview ROAR; and joining us online, we have Lindsay Steele, Agriculturalist, Farm Owner at Hustle Farms Ltd. Thank you very much for joining us.
We will begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will each have five minutes, and I will catch your eye when you are running out of time — when you have about one minute left.
We will begin with Ms. Brooks. The floor is now yours.
Rachel Brooks, Farmer and co-chair, Clearview ROAR, as an individual: Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the matter of the disappearance of farmland in Canada.
Across the country, farmers are facing increasing pressure from multiple sectors competing for the same land for housing, infrastructure, energy and now national defence. Farmland is seen as available and easy to repurpose; however, that land is neither surplus nor replaceable.
My name is Rachel Brooks. I am a sheep farmer, the wife of a grain farmer, and my family has been farming for 45 years or more in the Township of Clearview, Ontario.
In our community, the pressure is imminently real. Thousands of acres of highly productive farmland are at risk of disappearing due to the Department of National Defence’s Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar project.
As only one of the dozens of impacted parties, my family farms 1,500 of those acres in one block, where we grow grain crops and raise over 600 lambs per year. One of the things that we contribute to is working to increase domestic supply from an existing 35% to 50% by 2040. That growth, of course, depends on farmland, which is a finite resource that is disappearing at an alarming rate. Only 4% of Canada’s land mass is arable land, 25% of that is in Ontario, and that land is disappearing at a rate of approximately 300 acres per day.
While Canada is often seen as land rich, the amount of Class 1 through 3 farmland is limited. The land farmed here today exists because of decades of stewardship, responsible farming practices and generational knowledge.
Today’s world demands that agriculture do more with less, while the land base we work with continues to shrink. Ontario alone has lost 20% of its farmland over the last 50 years, and if we continue along this trajectory, what does that mean for food security? It means reduced long-term production capacity, and that affects every Canadian every day. Food security equals national security. A country that cannot feed itself cannot defend itself.
Agriculture contributes approximately $150 billion to Canada’s GDP and supports over 2 million jobs. In rural communities, it is the backbone of the local economy. If Clearview Township loses 4,000 acres to the Department of National Defence, it would mean losing approximately $4.1 million of its local GDP and nearly 80 jobs.
For my family, the impact hits on a few levels. If even half the land we farm disappears, how do we replace that quality ground, acre for acre? Where do we go with our business? How do we continue farming without the benefit of economies of scale while continuing to raise the next generation of farmers? When farmland disappears, rural economies suffer.
The Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar project requires major land alterations on thousands of acres of prime farmland within the interconnected watershed of the Minesing Wetlands. The wetlands are a sensitive ecosystem and one that is dedicated to the Ramsar Convention as a wetland of international significance.
This system of farmland, drainage, creeks, rivers and wetlands works together to manage water and control flooding. Disrupting one part risks affecting the whole. When farmland disappears, environmental stability is impacted.
Clearview Township and its farmers are not opposed to national defence. We understand Canada’s role on the global stage is evolving, particularly through its obligations through NORAD. What we are looking for is balance.
The DND project should not be placed on prime farmland when other options exist, including already-owned federal land. In fact, there are two nearby defence bases, each boasting nearly 20,000 acres in land.
We have a responsibility to make decisions that do not solve one problem by creating another. If federal projects require land, agriculture must be part of the discussion from the outset and not as an afterthought. If we continue to treat farmland as abundant, we will steadily erode our ability to produce food in this country.
Considering that Canada is relied upon both domestically and globally as a stable supplier of food, maintaining production at home is essential. From my perspective as a farmer, land is not just an asset. It is my home, my livelihood and my contribution to society. It is something we are meant to steward, not treat as disposable.
In closing, I would ask this committee to consider three things: First, we need to recognize agricultural land as a national asset; second, we need to require that federal decision making avoids prime farmland where alternatives exist; third, we need to ensure the voice of Canadian agriculture is included in land-use decisions from the outset. When farmland disappears, we are far more than just acres.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions with respect to the radar project or our community.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Brooks. Next we’re going to go online and invite Ms. Steele to take the floor. I understand you’re joining us from Nova Scotia.
Lindsay Steele, Agriculturalist, Farm Owner, Hustle Farms Ltd.: Hi. Thank you for having me. I am honoured to speak to the senators in the room about this important topic.
My name is Lindsay Steele. I am a fifth-generation farmer from Scots Bay, Nova Scotia. I own a diversified farm that includes broiler chicken production and high-performance horse breeding. I hold a diploma and a degree in agriculture. Our farm produces between 60,000 and 90,000 broilers every eight weeks, maintains a specialized equine, high-performance breeding program, and our lands grow corn, soybeans and wheat. Like many modern farms, our operation depends on stability, low disturbance and strong biosecurity.
My family went through a three-year battle against a development that literally tore our community apart, pinned neighbours against one other and cost well over six figures to fight, not to mention the mental and emotional impacts.
A proposal was approved by our municipal council to build a 100-site campground adjacent to our farm on lands sharing 3.5 kilometres of border and removing 93 acres of agriculture from our community. The council approved this after a five-hour public meeting and years of protest. It was approved in the agricultural zone on land that is supposed to prioritize farming and was removed from agriculture utilizing a development agreement.
The campground was classified as “visitor-oriented development.” But under the municipality’s own planning strategy, campgrounds are considered high-impact land uses, known to create noise, disruption and land-use conflict. This distinction matters because agriculture is always supposed to have priority, especially in conflict, according to our county MPs.
This was a risk to our operation and our biosecurity. It would create stress and injury to our horses. There would be increased interaction with tourists, noise, et cetera, but it also predetermined land loss from agriculture in our community.
The heart of the issue was simple: the Council did not prioritize agriculture. They treated a high-impact campground like a low-impact tourism opportunity. They ignored the clear policy that agriculture must take priority in conflicts. They relied on weak mitigation measures with no evidence behind them. They overlooked expert evidence on safety and operational impacts. Staff misled the council in its interactions with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the county set out a five-year plan to remove land from agriculture instead of preserving it. Most importantly, they failed to apply their own municipal planning strategy, and that matters because the policies were not suggestions; they were a framework meant to protect farmland.
The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board ultimately overturned the approval. They found the decision did not, ultimately, align with the municipal planning strategy, and it failed to prioritize agriculture. The outcome confirmed what farmers knew already: When policy is not properly applied, farmland is put at risk. This reflects a broader national problem.
Across Canada, farmland is not typically lost all at once. It is lost incrementally: one development at a time, one exception at a time and one small discretion that doesn’t seem to matter on its own but collectively has a big impact. Farmland begins to fragment, farms are pushed out and there is a reduced long-term viability of agriculture.
Even when strong policies exist, there’s often a gap between policy and implementation. Nova Scotia is losing farmland at an alarming rate. Since 1971, we have lost 200,000 acres in the last decade alone.
Even with the provincial statement of interest that came into effect in 2001, Nova Scotia’s total agricultural land base fell by 28%. The best soils in Nova Scotia are Class 2 and 3. We do not have any Class 1 soils, but land values are up 42%, especially where I farm, and development is affecting this land base as people decide to build houses on valuable farmland.
Agriculture depends more on land, but it also depends on compatible uses surrounding it. High-impact developments that are introduced in agricultural areas affect farms and make it so that they cannot adapt or expand, and this eventually results in the leaving of agricultural production.
There is an increased interest and awareness in Nova Scotia and across Canada in using farm trusts as an important tool to help reduce the loss of acreage and valuable agricultural land in Canada. If farmland trusts fell under the same tax brackets as the Ecological Gifts Program, this would go a long way in helping private landowners decide to put their lands in farm trusts.
My case sets a precedent for our county and really the province, as rarely are decisions overturned at the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, or NSUARB. Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean it will stop the next decision from happening and removing agricultural land. Farmers might not have the ability to fight their own tax dollars, or have the mental strength to literally put everything — economically and mentally — into fighting for their farms. As history has shown, rules only work if you follow them. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Steele. We will now proceed to questions from senators. Senators, you will each have five minutes in the first round for your questions, and that includes the answer. I have a long list.
Your opening remarks, ladies, have certainly piqued everyone’s interest.
We will start with our deputy chair, Senator McNair.
Senator McNair: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
My question is for Ms. Brooks. I want to thank you for reminding us in your opening statement that farmland is a finite resource. It’s something we have to keep front and centre. Also that food security, in your opinion and likely everyone in this room, means national security at the same time.
I understand that the Department of National Defence, or DND, conducted public consultations on the Arctic Over-the-Horizon program in late 2025. How did those public consultations go? Have you had any discussions with DND since then?
Ms. Brooks: The public consultation was run in our community. I believe it was on September 9, which happened to be in and around the bean harvest. They were conducted on one day. There was a daytime session and an evening session. In my opinion, there was very little notice given of these sessions.
The information we had up to that point was merely a letter from the Department of National Defence asking if we, as landowners, were interested in selling our land, for how much and on what timeline. However, the public session pertained primarily to the DND’s purchase of a preliminary site nearby, which is on 700 acres. They were talking about the project from its starting point with the preliminary site and its continuation over 15 to 20 years.
There was a lot of information provided. I believe it scared a lot of us because we didn’t know how quickly all of this was going to come about and how it would impact our communities, homes and livelihoods. I felt like it wasn’t transparent enough, and there was a lot of information that was kind of left in the air.
Follow-up to those sessions, the project manager has been quite responsive to phone calls when individuals contact him by phone. I have had a couple of good conversations with him. However, we, as a community, have requested — from the perspective of the landowners who received their letters — a meeting. That has not been granted. We would just like answers as to what their plans are and how we can encourage them to find somewhere else that is not going to destroy our farmland.
Senator McNair: Did you request a meeting with the project manager or with DND?
Ms. Brooks: With the project manager and with the project team. I believe we’ve sent about three or four emails, perhaps five, and we have also made a couple of phone calls. They replied saying that it’s not a suitable time; they haven’t been able to get everybody onside with scheduling that meeting, but they will do their best to accommodate us.
Senator McNair: With respect to DND, you talked about the two bases nearby.
Ms. Brooks: Yes.
Senator McNair: Has there been any discussion or confirmation from DND that those are potential sites?
Ms. Brooks: We have received confirmation that they are indeed not suitable for their needs. However, their reasons are not understood very well.
The base at Borden is a land mass of about 21,000 acres. They are using approximately 6,000 of those acres for active training and buildings. However, they claim it is the busiest training facility in Ontario or Canada and that they need those acres, and it’s not suitable to build the radar on.
The other base nearby is in Meaford, Ontario, which is northwest of us by approximately one and a quarter hours. It’s rockier, hillier, certainly not as level as our area, which is flat. There is a project that is being considered there for, I believe, power. That is ongoing and interfering with being able to consider that site.
Senator McNair: Just to clarify for me, who is the project manager?
Ms. Brooks: Irv Marucelj.
Senator McNair: Who does he represent as a project manager? DND?
Ms. Brooks: He represents DND, yes.
Senator McNair: But he’s not a DND employee? He’s a consultant?
Ms. Brooks: I don’t know that, but I would be glad to get that information for you. I can send the contact information.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you both for being here. Ms. Brooks, I appreciated your comments on recommendations. I particularly heard identifying agricultural land as a national asset. I think that’s an interesting recommendation because we do recognize other areas as national assets.
My question is for both of you, asking if either of you know successful models, either within Canada or internationally, that effectively do protect agricultural land; and your thoughts on options for Canada, being should Canada adopt a national target or framework for farmland preservation, I would say using a model the way they do for marine conservation areas and/or national parklands?
Is establishing a clear no-go threshold for developing Class 1 farmland a reasonable suggestion? Let’s start with Ms. Brooks, and then we’ll go over to Ms. Steele.
Ms. Brooks: I believe that’s a complex question. I am not familiar with how farmland preservation works in other countries, although I should have prepared with that. I believe in our own country, there are Class 1 farms and Class 1 lands that absolutely should be maintained and protected. I believe there should be some framework put in place there, but I think it needs to go beyond that because there are also farms that are Class 2 and Class 3 that are highly productive and are found in many of the other provinces where there is not as high-quality land necessarily.
In Ontario, of course, we are challenged by population density and the movement north, where there is a lot of quality land, certainly in our area and in the Holland Marsh area. I believe there needs to be a standard put in place, whereby certain agricultural lands in certain areas that are high producing and high yielding could be protected.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much. Ms. Steele, I appreciate the question might be a bit hard to answer, but maybe just elaborate on what ideas you would have — I suggested a couple — that could preserve agricultural land almost under regulation.
Ms. Steele: Nova Scotia does not have any Class 1 soils. Obviously, they’re very valuable on a national level.
From my perspective as a farmer, I would like to see that there be some type of regulation, whether it’s guided by a national program and implemented by provinces that protects the setbacks from developments and existing farms, particularly in Nova Scotia, where we’re so compact and you’ll see dairy farms in the middle of towns.
The other aspect is, as I had mentioned, farm trusts. There’s a national program called the Ecological Gifts Program that protects wildlife sanctuaries and such. There’s a tax exemption within this that is zero for capital gains. But for farm trusts, it’s 50% for capital gains. I think if that were reduced to zero, similar to the Ecological Gifts Program, that would go a long way for people to put their land into farm trusts, which would protect it from development here.
I just got involved in land trusts, so I’m not super up on the complete workings of them, but that is a main aspect.
For us, consultation is big. In our province, development agreements allow for there to be no consultation with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. If it were rezoning, then they have to consult the department of agriculture, and, perhaps, development agreements should have a specific aspect, such that when farmland involved that there be consultation, so that situations like this do not keep happening.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much.
Senator Black: Ms. Brooks and Ms. Steele, thank you very much for joining us today. I have a question to both of you, and then I have a second one. What do you think government officials or policy-makers most often misunderstand when considering agriculture land for future development?
We’ll start with Ms. Steele first.
Ms. Steele: I have to speak to Nova Scotia, because that is what I’m familiar with. There is a law in Nova Scotia that protects farmers from litigation, but it is misunderstood.
It basically says that if you are in a lawsuit with a farmer, as long as they are practising appropriate farm practices, they are not liable, but that farm still has to prove that they are doing it, and they still have to go through all the legal costs, et cetera.
Also, because a lot of officials are not familiar with agriculture, there is a real loss of understanding of what is acceptable on farms and what happens on farms. There needs to be more education for policy-makers who are affecting farmland.
The other thing is that because farming is such a small percentage of the economy nationally, there seems to be a priority of putting other industries ahead of ours — like tourism — particularly in Nova Scotia. There is a lack of recognition — vineyards are becoming very popular in Nova Scotia, and they use soils that aren’t necessarily used for prime agriculture, but they are still important to agriculture.
There is a major hole in the education of what agriculture is and what is important and why land needs to be protected when it comes to educating people who are in decision-making positions.
Ms. Brooks: I believe there are a couple of things that are misunderstood. First off, farming is a business dissimilar to others in that it is not a storefront. We have been working on that land, often for generations, and there is a lot of knowledge that is passed from one generation to the next about the land, the area and how it all works.
I also believe that the community connections we have in farming are very difficult and time-consuming to re-establish somewhere else. It is also a family operation, so often you uproot families if there is a development involved, and someone has to move, and that can lead to other challenges, for sure.
I think heritage and culture are a big piece of it. You’re losing a piece of a rural town and that heritage and culture.
Senator Black: My next question is to both of you, and it can be quick. Can you share what you would want policy-makers to understand about the personal side of the situation? I expect you could speak for hours, but just very quickly, the personal side.
We will start with you, Ms. Brooks.
Ms. Brooks: On the personal side, my family and village and nearest friends are close to where I live. The land is what we have grown up on and lived on for however many years. My children go to school. They are part of 4-H. They are a part of their sports teams and have their equestrian barns, and we are all very involved. I’m a 4-H leader. I am a district chair for Ontario Sheep Farmers, and I’m very involved in our community. Losing those ties would be ruinous to our lives.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Ms. Steele?
Ms. Steele: Similarly, agriculture land and farms are the hearts of the community. To me, it is almost another appendage of my body. The land that we farm on, I’m the fifth generation, and it is part of my very soul. To see it taken away or affected cripples me emotionally and mentally. It is a part of my family’s being and the community because we employ a lot of our neighbours.
Senator Muggli: Thank you, Senator Black. I was also going to pursue that line because I have a mental health background. I was just imagining what it must mean to lose your place in the community and what impact that would have on you and your children and your families. Thank you for sharing that. I appreciate that.
I am wondering if either of you has seen agricultural land purchased and used for non-agricultural purposes as a result of there being no family succession plan for the agricultural land? I will start with Ms. Brooks.
Ms. Brooks: Well, in this DND circumstance, that seems to be part of what has happened. The farm owner had listed the property on the open market, and that’s how it was acquired by the Department of National Defence. That is a case in point, right there. I believe the owner of that land has more land down south, so it wasn’t necessarily a succession planning piece, but it was a business planning piece on his part.
In our area, often if there is a farm available without succession planning, it typically is bought by a local farmer to continue in agriculture.
Senator Muggli: So not necessarily the next generation of children in the family?
Ms. Brooks: Yes.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Ms. Steele?
Ms. Steele: Yes, that definitely happens here. There have been some great success stories where people have been put together with a retiring farmer who doesn’t have anybody to take over, and those are great stories. There are certainly more stories of people retiring, and their kids don’t want to farm, so they sell their land off for development, or the land is worth more to put under a subdivision than it is to another farmer. Those things happen.
I know of a situation where their farm is in the middle of town, and their land is worth millions and millions of dollars to develop, and they have been fighting for years to have it rezoned so that they can sell it for that and move their farm out of town. It happens.
The other thing that happens is when farmers do not do succession planning, and something happens to them, then there is no plan in place. You have siblings fighting, and it just gets sold.
Senator Muggli: Yes. Do you think that the trust idea is an opportunity, then, when there is no succession opportunity?
Ms. Steele: I think trusts are a valuable tool for the toolbox. For instance, if somebody was selling their farm, by not having that capital gains implication, it would allow them to put that land into a trust and still see a benefit for selling the quota, or whatever, if there was no one to take over the farming in that specific location, but there may be somebody who can still use that land in that location.
If you are fighting a developer who wants to buy a field, usually the farmer doesn’t have pockets as deep to try to compete for that; whereas, the person selling the land may consider a trust if there is a better tool for them to do it and have some benefits.
Senator Muggli: The capital gains issue would be the primary one?
Ms. Steele: Yes.
Senator Muggli: You mentioned that you are the fifth generation. Is there a sixth generation in the offing?
Ms. Steele: Yes. I have three children. My oldest is actually already farming, and she partnered with her father and her grandfather and is farming and working off farm. And I have two small children who are coming up, and I have nieces and nephews who are also farming.
Senator Muggli: Excellent. Thank you.
Senator McBean: One of the problems with going further down in the order of questions is that all of the questions that I came prepared with and all of the questions that you have flagged with me have been answered.
I want to tell you how much we appreciate your testimony here. You’re farmers, and you have become advocates, and this is such great information for us. You are doing wonderful jobs for your community and industry.
It strikes us on things, right? Ms. Steele, I heard you say how this ripped your community apart, and I imagine it is the same for you, Ms. Brooks. I was going to go into the succession question and how it divides communities. You have already answered the question, but I will give you both a little more time from the other side of it.
There is the willingness and desire to sell from the farm side, but do you think there are any tools that the federal government could be creating or bolstering that would make the transfer of farms to farmers more appealing than when, obviously, as you were saying, Ms. Steele, a developer comes along — and I imagine, as well, the Department of National Defence — with deep pockets? How do you battle that?
I will ask Ms. Brooks first.
Ms. Brooks: There is an element of that that is in place right now, and that is if farmland is purchased by someone who continues to farm it, then there is that benefit of the HST or whatever it is — the tax benefit.
In order to maintain farmland as farmland, it really needs to be zoned that way and for that zoning to be held for as long a period of time as possible. Whether it be Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 soils, they are maintained as farmland indefinitely, and then that transfer to other farmers becomes easier in the sense that — like, in our community, farms are often bought before they are even listed. Other farmers want to grow their businesses, or young farmers want to come in. Although, it is quite expensive, they want to come in and start their own operation. The desire is there to buy farmland and maintain farmland.
As for the cash cow of investing in a property and selling it to developers — which is what happens more so in Ontario than in Nova Scotia — but if someone sees a piece of farmland for sale, and they say, “Oh, it is abutting that local community. Let’s buy it, and maybe a developer is going to want to buy it from us one day for 50 times its value.” To reduce the likelihood of that happening, those pieces need to be in place to maintain it as farmland.
Senator McBean: Firmness on zoning, okay. Thank you.
Ms. Steele?
Ms. Steele: Yes. There needs to be a mechanism in place to protect your A1 zonings so they do not move out. In Nova Scotia, historically, A1 is godly and never comes out. In our county, we do see — I don’t want to say “sneaky things,” but sneaky things happen, like town limits move, and all of a sudden, five acres of that A1 land is in a subdivision now instead of being part of that field.
The other thing that can really go a long way to keeping farms going is national programs for young farmers, whether it is through Farm Credit Canada or another program that allows them to buy into these farms and that reduces interest rates or has tax benefits so that they can afford to buy.
Not all farmers can retire and basically hand their farms over to their kids. There needs to be some type of ability for those people to continue on, and that is an issue that a lot of farmers face.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Steele, I want to say that I appreciate your point there. It is my experience that a lot of farmers have to find a way to fund their retirement, and when it comes time for them to exit as an active farmer, they look at the next generation. Some people have to find a way to fund that.
What we see in Prince Edward Island is that they might sever off a parcel and sell that for development at that high rate, and that allows 95% of the farm to stay in production, and it allows them to move on and retire. It is certainly a challenge when we look at how we help seed that succession.
Senator Black: I asked this question the other night, and I was told I put a downer on the group, but I want to ask these two witnesses: I have this fear that there is going to come a time when we can’t feed ourselves, let alone the province or the world. We are today asked to feed the world. What are your thoughts?
We will start with Ms. Steele.
Ms. Steele: I think we are already at a crossroads of Canada being able to feed and protect itself and its agricultural lands.
It needs to be more important in the political view in order for that to take priority. There are so many other sectors that lead in the news and in the media, et cetera, and everybody quietly forgets about how important agriculture is and how important it is for us to maintain the ability to feed ourselves.
I think meetings like this and grassroots town halls and things where there is an agricultural representative on panels help to keep it in front and make it a priority nationally.
Ms. Brooks: Through my process of defending this Department of National Defence thing — if you want to call it that — I have noticed that the ministries work very much in a siloed environment. They are all very individual and unique. There needs to be more work, in my opinion, between those ministries and better communication to safeguard agriculture as an industry.
As Ms. Steele said, I think having representatives from the public provide discussions such as this or provide opportunities for discussion like this helps. I think education, as well, needs to happen from a very young age and all the way through as to where our food comes from, and there needs to be those hands‑on experiences for children so they can recognize the reality of it.
Yes, I’m very afraid of that idea because when you consider geopolitics, and you consider drought, and you consider all of the weather patterns going on and the loss of farmland to boot, that is going to create a bit of a maelstrom, and we need to do as much as possible to avoid that.
Senator Black: Thank you very much. I have one final comment to both of you: I’m so very proud of you, for what it is worth. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Once again, I wish to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us and for answering our questions. We appreciate that you have put a lot of effort in preparing your remarks and in doing some research. We look forward to follow-ups from you on some of those questions that were asked where you might be able to find content and send it back to us. We appreciate you making the time for us on this incredibly important topic.
For the second panel today, we have the pleasure of welcoming in person Tyler Heppell, Farmer, Heppell’s Potato Corp., and joining us online is Murray Driediger, Chairman, BCfresh, BCfresh Vegetables Inc. Thank you, all, for joining us.
We will begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members. You will each have five minutes. I will try to catch your eye if you are getting a little skinny on time.
With that, the floor is now yours, Mr. Heppell.
Tyler Heppell, Farmer, Heppell’s Potato Corp.: Thank you for having me, senators. I’m excited to be here talking about one of my favourite topics, and that is protecting farmland.
I am a fifth-generation potato farmer from Vancouver, British Columbia, and I’m here speaking to you through the viewpoint of the next-generation farmer, who right now is trying to decide if this is a viable career and an industry to still be in.
In agriculture, there have always been headwinds — changing markets, rising costs and Mother Nature. Now my generation faces a new cost, and that is the cost of losing our best farmland. If we can’t trust that the best farmland in Canada will stay farmland, it raises the real question: Why would my generation continue to invest in agriculture?
The big picture is that Canada relies on over 50% of its imports for vegetables and fruit. In the early season, this goes up to 80% to 90%. We are heavily reliant on long, fragile supply chains, especially at the exact time local production is the lowest.
I’m here today speaking to you about our 300-acre parcel of land. This land is very special and important for food security here in Canada. This land produces 25% to 50% of the Lower Mainland’s fresh fruit from May until the end of July, when Canadian production is otherwise extremely limited. This land produces 30 to 50 million servings of vegetables annually. That is enough to put a serving on everyone’s plate who lives in Vancouver for two to three weeks. However, this land could get lost to development.
What makes this farmland so unique and so special? This is not typical farmland. It cannot be replaced. It is extremely sandy and well drained. It is elevated by 10 metres, compared to any other lands around it. It gets more sunlight than Abbotsford land, and it has a unique microclimate. We call this land “A Little Piece of California.”
It is also known as “Communications.” During World War II, it was used for telecommunications land, which is why it was not included in the agricultural land reserve, which I can go into more during the question-and-answer session. We started to farm the land in 1974, and we rent it from the federal government right now.
After rain, most fields cannot be worked for days or sometimes even weeks. Because of how sandy this field is, it can be farmed within hours. This is what allows us to plant early, harvest early and provide vegetables when no other farm is producing.
This year we were planting potatoes in February. We’ll harvest the first potatoes this year in May — the first potatoes in all of Canada. Last year, carrots were coming off this land in December. What other farmland is there where we can be farming 12 months a year?
Losing this farmland would have a bigger impact than just the ramifications for our farm. This land creates continuity of supply. Grocery stores need continuity of supply to start pulling from local. This farmland is the backboard for our food security in the early season, because when it rains a lot, we can still get our tractors on this land when other farmers can’t. Dozens of other farms rely on this land because grocery stores need consistent supply before they turn off their reliance on Mexican and Californian produce. Grocery chains do not just buy from one farm. They buy from a reliable system, and this land creates that reliability.
Additionally, this land supports our community. Our farm donates to a dozen food banks every single week, and we started something called “Ugly Potato Day.” This is a day when we give out produce absolutely free to our community. Last year we had 20,000 people come out over six hours, and we gave away almost half a million pounds of produce — 140,000 pounds of potatoes came off this land.
It also has the climate change aspect, where every truck that is imported adds 3.7 tonnes of CO2, so per year, this land saves 1,100 to 1,200 tonnes of CO2.
This land is currently owned by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED. It is not protected by the Agricultural Land Commission, and a few years ago, it was added to a disposal list, and it is in the process of being transferred over to the Canada Lands Company.
Canada Lands Company has a mandate to divest this land in accordance with the highest and best-use case to Canadians. Senators, I’m here today to say that this land’s highest and best use is keeping it in agriculture, and over 90,000 people agree with me. We’ve gotten over 90,000 signatures on a petition to save this farmland. To my recollection and knowledge, this is the most public support Canada has ever seen on saving farmland. However, its likely outcome is that it will be developed. Senators, we are at risk of replacing food-producing land with warehouses at the exact time we are most dependent on imported food.
In closing, as a young farmer, I want to invest. I want to grow food, and I want to build something long term. We are being asked to innovate and feed Canadians while watching our most valuable farmland disappear. If Canada cannot protect its farmland — not the marginal farmland but the best farmland — it puts the future of farming at risk for generations to come.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Heppell.
Next, we will go to Mr. Driediger.
Murray Driediger, Chairman, BCfresh, BCfresh Vegetables Inc.: Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the future of the federal lands located in Surrey, that Mr. Heppell has just been speaking to.
My name is Murray Driediger, and I am currently the Chairman of BCfresh. BCfresh is 100% owned by 31 B.C. farm families located throughout the Lower Mainland. In addition to our shareholders, we also market the produce from another 30 B.C. farm families. We are the largest marketer of B.C. grown potatoes and vegetables, with approximately 200 million pounds of produce annually to every major retailer, food service company and wholesaler located in Western Canada.
For the past 30 years, we have been selling the produce that has been grown on these lands, and we are in a unique position to attest to their value to our local food supply.
I would first like to speak to some big picture issues so we can put the importance of this unique property in perspective. There is a lot of public discussion today regarding the term “food security.” Our company is on the front lines of this challenge, and we deal with it daily. There was a time when land in B.C. was plentiful and crop rotation was not an issue. Weather and crop productivity were more reliable, and produce from competing regions was available year-round, all within a 48-hour delivery window of the B.C. market. That is no longer the case.
The world’s population, along with our local population, has continued to grow. At the same time, farmland around the world is being lost at alarming levels. California was our traditional supplier when B.C. was out of season, and it is clear we can no longer rely on them, as we have in the past. Climate change and other world events are wreaking havoc on the food chain supply. These are not just news headlines that we are reading daily and becoming immune to. As a country, we need to wake up and take food security very seriously.
This brings us to the lands at the core of the discussion here today that Mr. Heppell has been referring to. While there’s a shortage of farmland in B.C. that is capable of producing outdoor crops economically, there is a severe shortage of land that can produce reliably when faced with a changing climate. The well‑drained sandy loam soils at the Heppell family farms can produce most outdoor vegetable crops for almost ten months of the year. This is very rare land that annually produces enough early crops to supply the B.C. and Western Canadian markets with commodities to reduce our reliance on imports. Its importance to our food security and the local food supply is essential. Let me give you an example.
In September 2010, severe rains wiped out production throughout the Lower Mainland. Many farms lost their entire crops. In 2020-21, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted our entire supply chain, and in 2021 the Sumas floods wiped out production from Abbotsford to Chilliwack. Throughout all of these catastrophic disruptions, we were able to continue harvesting on these lands and maintain our supply chain for B.C. consumers during these critical periods.
No one will argue with developers that there is a shortage of land for warehouses in B.C. We are well aware of that, and we take no issue with their argument. If these federal lands are allowed to be taken out of food production, though, within a few short years, they will be paved over, and they will be lost forever. The same developers will then move on to their next projects. This is what they do, and they are a valuable part of our economy.
Surely, there is enough collective wisdom and political will left in this country to protect our most valuable farmland and find other unproductive lands on which to construct warehousing and homes or to be used as First Nation reconciliation tools. You simply cannot compare the value of agricultural land against the high dollar value of warehouse-zoned property.
You cannot put a price on this particular parcel of land when it comes to food security in B.C. It is priceless. Removing this parcel of highly productive farmland from agricultural production would be a complete travesty. To do so would be short-sighted, and it will cause irreparable damage to local food security in B.C.
There have been far too many parcels like this location that have been permanently destroyed to accommodate industrial, commercial, residential and political interests. With pandemics, trade disruptions, droughts, heat domes, floods and climate change creating havoc throughout the food supply chain in North America, we must do everything we can to secure our highly productive local farmlands.
Our ongoing reliance on food supply from production areas like California is a dangerous bet, as California continues to struggle with an array of production issues and limitations as well. They, too, are losing land and farming operations at an alarming rate. In the event of supply disruptions in California, Canadian consumers are not their strategic priority. We must start thinking long term about our own food security and maintaining these federal lands for agriculture, as they should be viewed as a strategic security asset rather than a development opportunity.
Our company strongly supports maintaining this unique farmland for agriculture so that fresh, nutritious, affordable produce can be grown for B.C. and Western Canadian consumers. This land should be preserved for agriculture in perpetuity and be protected for generations to come.
Thank you for your time this morning. I’m hopeful that any influence that your committee has could assist with keeping this unique federal property in agricultural production in perpetuity.
Thank you again, and I’m prepared to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Driediger.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Senators, you will each have five minutes for your questions, including your answers. We will start with our deputy chair, Senator McNair.
Senator McNair: Thank you. I’m going to cede my time so Senator Black can speak, and I’ll come on at the end if I could.
Senator Black: Thank you, Senator McNair.
On March 26, the Senate passed Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement. It’s now over in the House of Commons for their consideration.
At the same time, Minister MacDonald and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced that they would be moving forward without the bill on developing a national agricultural soil strategy.
To both of you, how do you think a national strategy on soil health might benefit the issue at hand?
Mr. Heppell: From a farmer’s perspective, there needs to be more education on soil health. Ultimately, farmers want to have good soil health. It is an investment in their future to have crop rotation, to do cover crops and to make sure that the microclimate of the soil is healthy. It makes sense profitability-wise, too. I think it could be greatly adopted.
The issues we see are some gaps. There’s a lot of generational knowledge that is passed down. I’m lucky enough to have my grandpa, who is 88 years old and who is a walking textbook. He gives a lot of unsolicited 20-minute stories, but there is a lot of knowledge in that, and I’ve been able to glean that. I know a lot of other farmers don’t have that, or maybe they’re taking it over from a distant dad or relative.
I think having some understanding of how soil health works and teaching sessions would go a long way.
Senator Black: Mr. Driediger?
Mr. Driediger: Yes, I’ve been on the receiving end of Mr. Heppell’s grandpa’s stories, so I can attest that 20 minutes is probably short.
I think one of the things that people really need to understand in this country is that farmers’ entire futures depend on the strength of their soil and the long-term production ability of that soil. Maintaining and taking care of that soil is incredibly important to them. It’s the base of what they do. Anything we can do in this country that puts focus on that and on the importance of that and agriculture, we would be in total support of.
Senator Black: Thank you. Mr. Heppell, can you share with us, as policy-makers and the government, anything you have to say about the personal side of this issue from your perspective as a young farmer but as a generational farmer, please?
Mr. Heppell: As a young farmer, speaking to other farmers, 30 years ago, it felt like there were a lot of tailwinds. There were a lot of things going well for farmers and a lot of easy success. Land was more affordable than now. Now it feels, as a young farmer, we have so many headwinds. To be blunt, losing our best farmland would be a big blow to my confidence in agriculture.
I make a lot of content online showing the good, bad and beautiful parts of agriculture. I try to educate the end consumer or that person sitting on the fence about whether they should come back to the family farm or not. Having a plan that protects our best farmland, nationally, I think, would go a long way in encouraging the next generation to come back to the family farm.
Ultimately, Senator Black, I have peace on this land. There is no anxiety around it. There is a good chance it gets developed, but I have a peace in my heart that surpasses understanding that this land will be protected in some way. Part of that is the support we’ve gotten in our community. So many people have come up to me and ask me questions: where is your farmland at? That’s where I’m known in the community, as the guy trying to save farmland. I’m proud to be known as that.
Senator Black: Thank you for what you’re doing.
Mr. Driediger, would you be able to comment? I know you’ve likely heard similar issues from your membership.
Mr. Driediger: One of the key strategies of our company over the last 25 years has been bringing the next generation into the business. One of the greatest difficulties we have, not just in Canada but across the western world, is attracting the next generation into agriculture. It’s a high-risk business. It’s highly capitalized and it’s a lifestyle. It’s six to seven days a week. A lot of the generations coming into the workplace today have no interest in that type of lifestyle.
We’ve made it a key priority in our company to bring people like Mr. Heppell and other next-generation people into our farming operations and onto the board of directors of our company. To see people like Mr. Heppell discouraged over a key piece of land that’s been in their family for 50 years, quite frankly, is heartbreaking.
I also want to add a personal note to this. I’m not a young man anymore. I’m about to turn 69. I was a teenager when they brought in the Agriculture Land Commission in 1972. It wasn’t very popular among the agricultural community at the time in British Columbia, but I can tell you it’s been a valuable piece of legislation that has helped to preserve a lot of farmland in B.C. that wouldn’t be here today. Unfortunately, there have been thousands of acres of Class 1 and Class 2 highly productive farmland throughout the Lower Mainland that has disappeared. It’s gone into housing. Every municipality has a priority. In agriculture less than 5% of our overall land is arable. It’s so important that we protect what we have left. Throughout the Richmond, Delta, and Langley areas, we have lost so many high‑quality pieces of farmland. They’re now paved over. They’re gone forever. People are so short-sighted. They don’t understand. We’re on the front lines of this and we’re trying to convey to people, we’re at a tipping point here. There’s a sense of urgency about this. Our population continues to grow, and we’re losing farmland. It’s a simple mathematical X plus Y doesn’t equal Z. We need all the help we can get from every level of government to preserve parcels like this. It’s incredible.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Senator McNair: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
Mr. Heppell, you described your land as a unique microclimate. I think that’s an understatement. Very rare land. You’ve driven that point home to us. I also wanted to comment on your grandfather being the walking textbook. You know how lucky you are to have that.
I’m curious to know whether you’ve had any discussions with Canada Lands Company? Is there a person you could be talking or so is it the wall of the corporate entity?
Mr. Heppell: I’ve had good conversations with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. I have not been able to get hold of the Canada Lands Company. I’ve sent them five or six emails and even had a few hundred people from my audience email them with no response.
Senator McNair: The good discussion with ISED. Can you expand on that a little bit, tell us how they’re going and who they’re with?
Mr. Heppell: Her last name is escaping me, but I’ve heard from Julie from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. We’re on a lease with them. We signed a new lease this past year that makes it easier for them to kick us off the land if need be. Every year, we have to submit for farming it next year. We’ve just submitted a few weeks ago, and we will find out at the end of June if we have it for next year. We’re very hopeful that we’re going to have it next year, especially because we’re treating this land like our own. We invest in the dirt. We put down manure. We still treat it like it’s our own, even though we can lose it. We’ve put over $30,000 this last year into irrigation upgrades because we know it’s going to be a hot summer. With ISED, the response has always been right away, and we have a fantastic relationship with them. They are our current landlords, but we know it’s in the process of getting transferred over to the Canada Lands Company.
Senator McNair: It’s not in their care and control yet?
Mr. Heppell: Correct.
Senator McNair: Okay. Mr. Driediger, you mentioned we’re at a tipping point here and how critical it is that this land doesn’t disappear. Can you expand on that just a bit from the perspective of your organization?
Mr. Driediger: Our company leads with B.C. product. We’re a B.C. company selling local produce into B.C. and Western Canada. We’re now having to go as far away as Cache Creek and Kamloops and the interior of B.C., to buy and lease land up there and truck it 200 to 400 kilometres there and back to distribution in the Lower Mainland. That’s something we didn’t have to do 10 years ago. It’s just getting to the point now that land constraints are getting to be such an issue in the Lower Mainland that we’re having to go further afield. More trucks, more pressure on the climate and everything to get the product back to market again.
This particular piece of property — you referenced it earlier in your comment to Mr. Heppell — is an incredibly unique piece of property. I grew up in the agriculture business. I farmed for a long time before becoming president and CEO of BCfresh, eventually the chairman. I can tell you that every farmer across this country would kill to have this piece of property. It is so productive, early, valuable, and unique that to lose it to warehousing would be — I can’t even begin to describe the travesty it would be. It would be sad that, in today’s day and age, we’re not wise enough to protect a piece of property like this.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I just want to say, coming from Prince Edward Island, which is known to grow a couple of acres of potatoes, I’m struck right now to think that you are potentially harvesting, you will be harvesting your 2026 potato crop on this land before many of the potatoes will have been planted for Prince Edward Island’s 2026 potato crop, which is spectacular.
Senator Sorensen: First, a comment to Mr. Driediger. Here in the Senate, we believe that 70 is the new 50, so you’re good.
I have notes all over my page. I wanted to comment on climate change because, when that was first mentioned, your growing season and harvesting season, I thought is it climate change that’s making that available to you. In a further comment, I understand climate change will impact that season.
I don’t know if I missed things, but if you could, for my sake, restate the model for what I will call your lease. I happen to live in Banff and in Banff National Park we lease our land, but not a year at a time. I’m totally intrigued by that.
I also missed who your current landlord is, understanding that you know you’re going to be moved under the heading of Canada Lands Company, and you’re trying to build a relationship there. I’m probably asking you to repeat things you’ve already said, but I need clarity on that model.
Mr. Heppell: With climate change, we are seeing hotter summers, but we’ve always been able to plant our potatoes in February. If there’s a lot of rain, maybe it’s the beginning of March. Funny enough, I was speaking in P.E.I. at the end of February last year to a bunch of potato farmers. It was the first day of planting I was missing, and it had just snowed a foot in P.E.I. I was like, we are actually planting today. Sorry, I don’t mean to make you feel jealous.
Our current landlord is Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Because that land was used for telecommunications land during World War II, that’s why it’s with that government department. I’m not sure about that. We used to have 5- and 10-year leases on this land. However, once it got added to the disposal list, which means ISED had no use for it anymore — which makes sense, it’s agriculture land with them — we went to year-to-year leases. That is why every year we have to apply. We are hopeful that we will get it next year.
We push hard to at least have it written in the contract that we would have a three-year heads-up if they were to divest of the land because we need to make plans. We can’t mitigate the loss of this fully, but there are strategies to at least not cripple the market by getting a left hook from our landlord saying, “Hey, by the way, you can’t plant next year.”
A lot of this is new territory for us. There are a lot of moving poles that we’re trying to figure out about how we save this land because it doesn’t feel like it has been done before. We’re learning as we go. We’ve heard that it’s in the process of moving to the Canada Lands Company, and the Canada Lands Company is the one that divests of surplus land.
Senator Sorensen: So the imminent risk is the annual lease, not necessarily someone coming in with an actual plan. This annual renewal of the lease is risky.
Mr. Heppell: Both, because if someone does have a plan, they can just kick us off. From my knowledge of adding lands to surplus, they go through different municipalities that want it. There is a First Nations group that’s interested in it, and they’re here in Ottawa lobbying for it. Our response to that is we obviously believe in truth and reconciliation; food security and truth and reconciliation shouldn’t come at a cost to each other. There is a lot of marginal farmland out there where house buildings can be built.
Senator Sorensen: The three First Nations that have come forward are not in support of you. They want it as an economic reconciliation for the bands?
Mr. Heppell: Correct, yes. They wanted to partner with the port authority, I believe, to put shipping containers there and pave over the land.
Senator Sorensen: I’m totally intrigued by this story. I have two comments. I’m not sure if anyone here can answer. Can we help them with Canada Lands? Can we help them find out who to talk to? I will say, sometimes when the government gets a lot of emails on a topic, it gets diluted rather than lifted up. I think it’s the case of you trying to get to the right person.
I would suggest, Madam Chair, that we consider either Mr. Heppell or Mr. Driediger for the food security report. In an effort to bring your voice forward, what we’re here doing today is a little bit more of a specific education for us. We are in the midst of a food security report, and this is an amazing case study where we could put the plug in.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Sorensen.
Senator Muggli: Good morning and thank you for being with us.
Mr. Heppell, how many acres exist of this piece of California land?
Mr. Heppell: The parcel is 300 acres. It’s 80 acres of forest and stream to one side of it and then 220 acres of farmable land.
Senator Muggli: There is no other land in British Columbia that has a similar makeup? It’s just this number of acres?
Mr. Heppell: Correct, yes. If you drive around it, you’ll go up one hill to get to it and one hill to go down to it. It’s very elevated, and the combination of that with the sandy soil makes it some of the best farmland. Ultimately, it rained 4 inches one day in March; two days later, we were planting potatoes. Most fields in B.C. are put out of commission for two or three weeks, in Delta maybe a month after it rains 4 inches. It’s very unique.
Senator Muggli: Something interesting happened millions of years ago.
Mr. Heppell: I’m sure someone smarter than me can explain that, something with the mountains sliding.
Senator Muggli: Exactly. You said before that it will likely move into development. Why do you say that?
Mr. Heppell: It’s just the natural course of how things have gone. When there have been a truth and reconciliation claim, it has gone to the First Nations. When people have wanted to develop farmland, it has gone to it. Part of the reason I really wanted Driediger on this call — he’s an expert on this — is he’s seen thousands of acres of good farmland be turned into malls and warehouse buildings. I’ve only been back to the farm for five years; Driediger has been doing it for all of his life, so he can speak to a lot of the best farmland that’s been developed.
Senator Muggli: Mr. Driediger, what can we do to raise the concern around preservation of farmland?
Mr. Driediger: Well, you can start with this particular property here in doing whatever we can politically to not have it disposed of and to keep it within the federal government. That’s critical.
Anything we can do across this country to bring some focus to the fact that food security is a very real issue. The average consumer doesn’t appreciate how much of an issue it is. There is no inventory in the supply chain anymore. The Loblaws and Sobeys of the world used to have warehouses, and they’d warehouse produce for five to seven days, and there was always product in the supply chain. We’re in a situation now in the supply chain in this country and across North America, where there’s literally only a one- to two-day supply of food in the supply chain now. Everything is just-in-time inventory.
Any disruption to supply chains now creates tremendous issues. It doesn’t matter whether it’s climate change. We had with the situation with the Sumas floods in 2021, where it wiped out all three major corridors going out of the Lower Mainland, and the ability to ship goods and services in and out of the Lower Mainland was severely inhibited.
Climate change is real. I won’t get into the argument about what causes climate change, but anyone in the agriculture industry has known for 30 years here in British Columbia that the summers are hotter and more intense. When we get rainfall, it’s more intense. Everything is just more intense now. The ability to manage crops through these climate intensities in today’s world is extremely difficult. We’re always just hovering on the edge at any given time during some of these catastrophic events. The importance of particular pieces of farmland that have productivity that can help get us through these events and bridge these gaps to keep products in the supply chain is incredibly important. The average consumer doesn’t know that, nor does the local municipal government or provincial government or anyone. They don’t understand how sensitive everything is in trying to keep that supply chain together and to keep food on the shelf for Canadian consumers.
There needs to be collective wisdom in this country where we take a good, hard look at that, and we have to prioritize that. In our relationship with the United States recently, we have seen how these global events can impact us. Food security, we’ve never gone through any kind of war in Canada; in Europe, food security is top of the strategy list. It’s right up there. They’ve been through world wars. They understand the importance of food security.
We don’t get that in this country. We think we have this unlimited supply of land and the ability to feed ourselves, and we’re in a bit of la-la land right now. Anything we can do to put a focus on properties like this is absolutely essential.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
I have a question about the cost of food grown domestically or, in your case, on your farms. Is it cheaper on the shelves than imported food, Mr. Heppell?
Mr. Heppell: It can be. It depends what store you are at. I was at a grocery store the other day, and I saw our russet potatoes being sold for $3.50 a pound when we sold them to that store for 45 cents a pound.
Senator Muggli: Do you have any say in the shelf price?
Mr. Heppell: No, we are price takers as farmers. We are at the bottom of the totem pole. With increased competition — Mr. Driediger is the expert to speak to on this. I’m not speaking out of turn here, but is “take this price or we’ll go somewhere else.”
Senator Muggli: Yes. Do you have to pay for preferential shelf placing?
Mr. Heppell: I’m not sure about that. Mr. Driediger, do you know?
Mr. Driediger: No. That is not something that is required yet, as it is in the hard goods industry.
At the same time, if you want to talk about retail margins, I need to be very careful because I do not want to bite the hand that feeds us. But I will say that there was a time 20 or 25 years ago where margins on produce — if you sold something to a retailer for $1, they would sell it for $1.49. It was called a 50% markup, which is a 33% margin. Then it went to 100% markup, so if you sold it for $1, it retailed at $1.99. It is now common to see products that we sell for $1 sell for $2.99 and even higher on the shelves. Those retail margins have gotten much higher over the years.
I understand they have costs, and there have been all kinds of input costs driven into their business, as well, but the unfortunate part, as Mr. Heppell said, is that the farmers are at the bottom of the totem pole, and their piece of the pie has continued to shrink every year.
Senator Muggli: Maybe we should be doing something in relation to what grocers can charge for domestically produced food as a margin versus import food.
The Chair: I love this conversation around consolidation and concentration of power on the grocer side of it. I certainly appreciate that when you are on the selling side of it, there are only a few things you can say about that because you have to continue to be on the selling side.
I’m familiar with vendor numbers and the competition in the fresh produce industry to be able to have the right to sell within some of those grocery chains. There are certainly a number of nuances in there that we probably do not have time to get into right now. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Driediger.
Senator McBean: Thank you for being here and for your time. Senator Sorensen certainly went into a few questions about the relationship with ISED and Canada Lands. You were saying that you have tried to find out who it is you need to be talking with. I agree with Senator Sorensen that maybe we can advance a conversation with Canada Lands and somehow have them here for “Ag 101” and flip the tables on them a little bit.
In our last panel, Ms. Brooks had a third suggestion that agricultural voices should be at the table at the beginning of conversations more often. They also spoke about one of the things that would be helpful. I know it is unique in your situation, but, Mr. Driediger, maybe you can help with this a little bit. They spoke about having zoning protections actually mean something instead of having land being zoned A1 and then that zoning being changed for development.
Do you have any thoughts on the ability of land to be — or the ease that governments can sometimes suddenly rezone land? Do you have a comment on the rezoning process?
Mr. Driediger: In British Columbia, I’m not sure how much Mr. Heppell explained this. We have the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia. Farmland is within the agricultural land reserve. It is there. You have to go make the case to get that land out of the agricultural land reserve. Once that is done, it is then rezoned to residential, industrial or whatever the case may be. It is very difficult to get that land out of the agricultural land reserve, but municipalities wave a pretty big stick. If they need it and it is absolutely essential, they tend to get their way many times.
The municipality of Surrey, in this particular case, is very supportive of keeping this land as agriculture. Unfortunately, this particular piece of land that normally would have been in the agricultural land reserve was not put in for other strategic reasons when the decision was made some 50 years ago. It was prime agriculture land; it was simply a strategic decision at the time.
Should it go back into the agricultural land reserve? Absolutely, 100%, but for that to happen, the federal government would have to transfer the property to the provincial government. I’m not sure of the exact process, but then it would have to go into the agricultural land reserve, and that is definitely what should happen to this particular piece of property.
Senator McBean: I feel like I’m poking at something here a little bit, but, Mr. Heppell, you said it all started with a reconciliation claim. Is there a claim from an Indigenous nation to take this land back, or is there any chance that they would take it back for farming? Is it known that it will go to development?
Mr. Heppell: They made a statement two years ago about how it would bring a certain amount of tax dollars to Surrey, and the only way to do that would be to pave over it. We farmed land around this area that is now warehouse buildings.
Senator McBean: Yes.
Mr. Heppell: In British Columbia, industrial land sells for $5 million an acre, so this 300-acre parcel is worth over $1 billion if sold for industrial land.
However, even at a $1-billion price tag, my belief and our community’s belief is still that this land’s highest value is staying in agriculture, because you can’t put a price on feeding Canadians and combating food insecurity.
I have not been able to connect with the First Nations group. They say it is an issue between them and the federal government. I know they are spending a lot of resources out here because there is a lot at stake for them.
There needs to be some out-of-the-box thinking, and I think it can be a win-win for First Nations and Canadians.
Senator McBean: As long as the land stays in agriculture.
Mr. Heppell: Totally.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: This might be offtrack here, but I’m curious if you have ever heard of the concept of charitable land trusts — if you think that might be an idea where, if there’s not a succession plan for a farm, a farmer could actually donate land to a land trust and get a charitable receipt in exchange versus the risk of selling it to a developer that, then, takes it out of agricultural development.
Do you think that might be an option — a charitable solution?
Mr. Heppell: If the federal government would like to donate that land to the — then we’re all for it.
Senator Muggli: I am thinking of any farmer in general who might be ready to retire. Maybe they do not need all of the money for their retirement. Could it be a charitable contribution and held in a land trust?
Mr. Heppell: Yes, I love that idea. I know you are having longer discussions with CFA and BCAC as well. That is something they will bring up, too. I believe that is something that can go across all of Canada. I find it very interesting that each province has their own different ways of protecting farmland, but the federally owned land, even though they are in the provinces, they are not bound to the rules of a province.
A national plan that goes across all provinces — yes, there are some intricacies in each province — but it could bear good fruit, especially as we plan to have such growth here in Canada. There needs to be something rolled out across all provinces to protect our best farmland. That is a great suggestion.
Senator Muggli: Mr. Driediger, do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Driediger: Anything that we can do that preserves farmland for the next generation for people interested in getting into agriculture is a great idea and should be examined, full stop.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
The Chair: I had a thought on that if I could weigh in, not as a witness but as the chair.
I wonder if, in that recognition, wouldn’t it be great if people donated farmland. In order to facilitate that, we could as a nation spend more time driving the profitability of farms. If I owned a McDonald’s, would I want to donate that McDonald’s back to the greater good? I guess if it made sense and I gleaned enough to be able to have a fair return on my work and my assets, and if there were favourable tax planning and all of those things, maybe I would. We need to look at farming as we look at any business and how we have to respect that people can expect a reasonable return on their work and their investments because it is a big investment. What does farmland sell for right now if it sells — I’m not talking about the $1.5 billion parcel we’re talking about here, but generally in your area Mr. Heppell?
Mr. Heppell: In British Columbia, it ranges from about $75,000 per acre to around $125,000 per acre. With potato land, you need it to be flat and have access to water, so it is closer to that $125,000 for premium farmland.
The Chair: What would be a normal or a reasonable size of a farm to be functional in potato production in your area?
Mr. Heppell: There are quite a few different potato growers in British Columbia. We would be one of the larger ones, and we do around 600 acres, but there are ones that are around 100 acres, and they can sustain with that and some other rotational crops. The average field size in British Columbia is under 40 acres.
During COVID we actually bid on some farmland, and we lost out to a turf farmer who was willing to pay over $130,000 an acre on 40 acres.
The Chair: When we talk about succession in potato production in your region, what would it cost someone, let’s say a new entrant with no hereditary opportunities, to establish a farm, like you said, of 100 acres? What would the investment requirement be?
Mr. Heppell: I have a rule of no public math. No, just kidding. It would cost upwards of $5 million or $6 million. I am sure there are better ways of doing it. You could rent the land for, say, $1,500 $2,000 an acre, and you can rent the equipment. Therefore, there are definitely ways of doing that. I am encouraging people to try to get into agriculture, but I definitely tip my hat to the first-generation farmers because that is an insane amount of work and dedication, and that is why I am proud to be a fifth-generation farmer. I stand on the shoulders of giants, and I would not be here if not for the work of my father, my grandfather and his father before him.
The Chair: I hear you. I have the pleasure of being the sixth generation in my family. I get what you are saying.
I want to take a moment with a couple of minutes left and ask you if you could talk to us about how this land we’re talking about today supports the community. You mentioned your ugly potato day. I wonder if you could give us an idea of how it has become important for the Vancouver area. Speak to that for a minute or two.
Mr. Heppell: What is really awesome about this land is that it is so close to the city. It is 45 minutes from Vancouver, so we get a bunch of schools reaching out to us.
We always try to do four, five or six field trips a year to this land to show the kids how potatoes are harvested because they are not really well educated, the next generation. They think that the food just shows up at the grocery store. I love to show them that. I hope it has an impact on how they view farming. Additionally, we really feel like God has blessed our farm, so we always want to give back to our community. That is how the farm was built. I have great examples from my father and grandpa. One year they bought 600 mattresses for an orphanage in Africa with profits from the farm, and ugly potato day was my way of giving back to the community. When I came back to the farm, I was frustrated by the number of potatoes we could not sell because of their looks.
At the time, I had 50,000 followers online. I posted online, saying, “Come out to our farm and grab free potatoes.” Only 12 came out, and I was discouraged, but someone encouraged me to do it again. Since then, we’ve done 19 other events, and it has blossomed. We used to do it on the farm, and it has gotten so big that we have had to move it to the fair grounds. It’s a great way to get people on the farm and understanding how much work goes into growing their food.
Just feeding these people for a day, or a week, really makes a difference, and they feel that their farmers care about them. That is the verbiage around this event. This isn’t the Mexican or American farmers who are supporting you. It is your Canadian farmers. If you can, support Canadian and support local in the grocery stores because when there are hard times, we are going to be the ones supporting you. It will not be the other farmers in different countries.
The Chair: We have a couple of other senators interested in asking questions. We will give an opportunity to our deputy chair and then Senator Ross.
Senator McNair: Mr. Heppell, in the CTV News article published about food security and your efforts to save the family farm, you made a suggestion that the land could be put into a protected covenant. I’m trying to understand the different options here to keep this land in production and in use. What did you mean by that restrictive covenant being put into the chain of title?
Mr. Heppell: Yes, again, with the goal posts. When we started this, we had no idea. This has never been done before. We were trying to find any way of saving it. One of the suggestions we got was that a covenant could be put on the land where it can be used for only agriculture. Ultimately, we would love to be the ones who farm it, but we get the lease every year, and I want to see this land in agriculture. I want to see it being farmed and it being used and not for warehouse buildings. That seemed to be an option. I am not sure if that is the best option or even viable now, but it was suggested to us by a one of our members of Parliament.
Senator McNair: Mr. Driediger, from your perspective, the best option is to get it into the B.C. agricultural land reserve as soon as possible, one way or another?
Mr. Driediger: Absolutely. Once it is in there, there is some type of legislative protection that is going to be given to that land so that it is going to take something pretty difficult to move it out of agriculture land production after that.
Senator Ross: Thanks to both of you for being here today.
I’m not a normal member of this committee. I am sitting in today to learn more. I am doing a bit of research here on the Canada Lands Company and how they are structured. They have a board of directors of seven people. The most recent appointment was on March 6.
One thing that I have learned about folks from agriculture is that you are very good advocates and lobbyists and very good at sharing your stories. I wonder if it might make sense to try to interact with those appointed to the board and/or look at trying to find an individual for a potential future appointment to that board with some agricultural background.
I glanced at all of the board members. They are all either from a legal or real estate back ground, as are all of the senior management team of the organization. It didn’t appear that anybody has any kind of connection with agriculture. Perhaps it would be an opportunity to at least get it on the radar of the organization and to try to go in from that direction from a board perspective.
Mr. Heppell: That is a great suggestion. Thank you so much, senator.
We have had issues with gatekeepers, but I think trying to go around them and reaching out directly to the board members could be a fantastic way of getting in there.
Senator Ross: In particular, the one appointed on March 6 might be open to learning about what is happening and educating themselves on relevant issues. To me, that might be a great person to start with.
Mr. Heppell: Thank you. That is a great suggestion. I will absolutely get on that right away.
The Chair: What a wonderful note to finish this panel on.
Once again, I wish to thank you. Mr. Driediger, I know it is early where you are, and I know that Mr. Heppell got up in a different time zone today to be here with us. We appreciate you taking the time, being prepared and helping us understand this issue better. I suspect there may be some outreach after this meeting between you and some of our committee members.
This concludes the public portion of our meeting. We will now proceed to the in camera portion of our meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: I move that the budget application for $94,081 under the committee’s order of reference to examine and report on the role of the agriculture and agri-food sector with regard to food security in Canada be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Motion carried. That concludes our meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)