theQuestion: Is food security a valid goal for the Agricultural Land Reserve?*
People tend to hear what they want to hear when listening to a debate, or for that matter when reading The Duel. Last month, as Laila and I debated the Agricultural Land Reserve, I argued ALR boundaries should be reviewed, with an easy path provided for the removal of all lands not capable or suitable for agricultural use. If you read carefully, you will notice I do not call for the abolition of the ALR. But I do not believe food security is a valid goal for the ALR.
Proponents of food security have hijacked the ALR debate and are being duplicitous in their advocacy on behalf of the farmer. Food security is not what you think and proponents are in no hurry to clear up their well-crafted misconception. You may think that at the heart of the food security movement is the protection of B.C. against a worldwide food shortage, importation of diseased food or the impact of climate change. If you do, you are wrong. While proponents do address these concerns, they dissemble their real motivations, which are political. Food security, as practiced in B.C., is a left-wing social movement.
The primary mission of organizations advocating for food security and the ALR, such as the B.C. Food Systems Network, is not the protection of the food supply. According to this group’s website, food security is defined as assuring that everyone has “access to adequate, appropriate and personally acceptable food in a way that does not damage self-respect” and is “culturally appropriate.”
How is the ALR supposed to ensure locally grown produce doesn’t damage my self-respect or offend my cultural sensibilities? And what does that even mean? The mission to find food security also includes the complete elimination of hunger by providing locally grown food to everyone and “not just those who can afford to pay for it.” So, who pays the farmer for growing the food? The obvious answer is the taxpayer.
Advocates of food security are calling for a moratorium on ALR exclusions, tax penalties to force landowners to farm their land, and more money from the government to run the Agricultural Land Commission. But in calling for these things, I don’t believe these advocates are being upfront with British Columbians. They should be clear their advocacy for the ALR is predicated on free food for everyone, funded by the taxpayer. The interests of the farmer come second.