Canada Grows a Lot of Food. So Why Does Our Food System Still Feel Fragile?

Do Canadians have a skewed understanding of agriculture, subsidies and how these systems work internationally? Do Canadian farms produce what Canadians eat?

When I talk about supporting small and mid-scale farms, someone inevitably says:

“Well, farms survive in Europe because they’re heavily subsidized.”

It’s true that European farmers receive more direct public support than Canadian farmers. The OECD, which tracks agricultural policy among wealthy countries, shows the European Union provides a higher share of farm income through public programs than Canada does.

But that comparison leaves out something crucial: European and Canadian farm systems evolved for very different purposes.

Different Continents, Different Goals

Europe’s farm policy — the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — developed in densely populated regions where food was primarily grown for nearby people. Over time, Europe’s subsidies came to support not just production, but rural employment, environmental stewardship, and keeping farming present across the landscape. Much of Europe’s food is consumed within the region, and farm support is designed around feeding Europeans first. And in fairness, one can understand why when you take even a cursory glance at history. Europeans have learned the hard way what happens when unfriendly forces decide to disrupt supply chains. Through two world wars, Europeans have confronted food scarcity in ways that many Canadians can’t imagine. For many of us, food has never not been available. The empty shelves of France in 1942 or the strict rationing of England in 1948 or the empty Soviet-era shelves of Eastern Europe in 1984 are curiosities to us.

For us, our farm system took a different path, largely dictated not by history but by geography. With small population centres spread across huge distances and access to global trade routes off both coasts and to the south, Canada became a major exporter of bulk commodities — wheat, canola, pulses, and more. The federal government openly describes export growth as a central goal of the sector.

So when people say “Europe subsidizes farms more,” they’re right — but it’s important to recognize that European subsidies are based on bitter experience and focus on local food for local people, while Canadian subsidies are often focused on supporting export trade.

Those are different objectives. And they shape different food systems.

Canada Absolutely Subsidizes Agriculture — Same. . . but Different

There’s a common myth that Canadian farms aren’t subsidized. In reality, we — as in Canadian taxpayers — invest billions of dollars each year in farm support.

Statistics Canada reports that in 2024, Canadian farmers received $5.9 billion in direct government payments. The single largest piece was crop insurance, which accounted for nearly three-fifths of all payments. That matters because crop insurance payments are closely tied to large-scale field crops, and the biggest swings in payments tend to show up in the Prairie provinces — Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular.

Other major supports include:

AgriStability, which pays when farm income drops sharply
AgriInvest, a matching savings program
Supply management in dairy, eggs, and poultry, which stabilizes domestic production and prices, largely focused in Eastern Canada
Crop insurance, largely concentrated in Saskatchewan and Alberta

Together, these programs make up Canada’s Business Risk Management (BRM) system. They are not occasional emergency cheques — they are a permanent feature of agricultural policy.

But here’s the key point: most of this support is tied to production risk — think hailstorms and drought — and sales volume — think warehouses filled with corn, soybeans, barley or canola. It is not tied to where food is consumed.

Export Strength is Not the Same as Food Security

Canada is a food-exporting powerhouse when it comes to commodity crops that often get shipped overseas for animal feed or biofuel. However, Canada is vulnerable when it comes to the food items we purchase to feed our families every day.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada note that Canada has a high dependence on imported fruit, and our trade deficit in fruit products continues to grow. Fresh vegetables show a similar pattern, with large volumes arriving from the United States and Mexico, especially outside the growing season.

So while Canada exports massive volumes of grains and oilseeds that other countries turn into fuel and animal protein, Canadians rely on imports for much of the fresh produce that fills grocery carts, particularly in winter.

This isn’t a failure. It’s a reflection of how the system was designed. But it does mean that supporting farms and protecting domestic food resilience are not identical goals.

In Europe, subsidies support local food for local people. In Canada, subsidies are designed to support the agricultural industry — instead of car parts or LNG exports, it’s corn or wheat. One system focuses on local production and consumption. The other has the global market in mind.

Before Global Trade, Diets Were Local and Seasonal

And in all this, it’s easy to forget how recently our current food system developed.

Before refrigerated transport and global supply chains, people ate what grew nearby and what they could preserve. Winter diets leaned on root vegetables, grains, dried beans, stored apples, preserved meats, and dairy products. Fresh berries in January and lettuce in February simply weren’t options.

That older system was more locally resilient — disruptions overseas didn’t empty local shelves — but it was also vulnerable to local crop failures and had less variety.

We traded seasonal limits for global dependence.

Modern trade brought abundance and year-round choice. But it also tied our diets to long supply chains and distant risks. It’s a trade-off that has become top-of-mind for many Canadians, particularly as grocery prices and actual food costs seem to drift further apart. To the everyday consumer at SaveOn or Zehrs, Foodland or Food Basics, more food should mean lower prices — but clearly, that’s not happening. And increasingly, people want to know why.

The answer is simple: Canada’s agricultural policy supports food that leaves the country. Other jurisdictions — like the EU — support producers who grow the food that stays. For Canada to achieve a truly resilient local food supply, a rebalance is in order.

So What Would a More Balanced Food System Look Like?

Well first, it doesn’t mean abandoning exports. Export agriculture is a major economic engine and supports rural communities.

But it does mean being clearer about goals.

If we want a system that is:

more resilient to shocks
less dependent on distant supply chains for everyday foods
better able to feed Canadians excellent-quality, high-nutrition food year-round

then policy needs to support more than just export-scale production.

That could include:

Investing in greenhouses and controlled-environment agriculture to expand year-round domestic vegetable supply
Supporting regional processing, storage, and distribution infrastructure so food grown here can reach nearby markets
Designing risk programs that don’t only scale with acreage or sales, but also recognize the role of diversified, regional producers, often small-and-mid-sized farms
**Using public institutions — schools, hospitals, care homes — to create stable demand for Canadian-grown food

None of this replaces global trade. It complements it.

Who Can Act?

Both levels of government have tools.

The federal government can:

adjust national farm risk programs (like crop insurance and AgriStability) so support doesn’t only grow with size
fund major food infrastructure initiatives
use tax and succession policy to shape land access and farm transitions

Provinces can:

invest in regional processing, storage, and food hubs
shape land policy and property tax rules that affect farm scale
use public procurement to support local food
expand rural health and financial support services for farmers

Working together, they can make resilience an explicit goal of food policy, not just an assumption — or worse, an afterthought.

The Bottom Line

Canada grows a lot of food. But the food we grow best and the food we depend on daily aren’t the same thing.

Our current farm support system is very good at protecting export production and stabilizing some farm incomes. It is less focused on strengthening the regional food systems that make communities resilient and keep actual people fed.

If we want both a strong farm economy and a more secure domestic food supply, we don’t have to choose between local and global.

We just have to be intentional about supporting both.

Policy Changes That Would Make a Difference to Small Farms, Local Food, and Resilient Supply Chains

Here are policy ideas that could materially improve the outlook for small and mid-scale farms, local food systems, and community resilience — all relying on Canada’s domestic policy levers.

1. Tiered Risk-Management Support with Support Caps

Concept:
Introduce graduated risk-management support for AgriInsurance and AgriStability, where per-farm support tapers after a threshold of acreage or revenue, and smaller operations receive proportionally higher support rates.

Why it matters:
Currently, larger farms capture the largest share because payouts scale with liability. Tiered structures would reduce concentration and make risk support more accessible to smaller and mid-scale farms that are structurally more vulnerable.

Domestic precedent:
Other Canadian programs already use tiers (e.g., tax brackets, income supports). Risk-management could adopt a similar structure.

2. Local Food & Processing Incentive Payments

Concept:
Create a dedicated suite of payments tied specifically to local food production, processing, and distribution — including incentives for diversified crops, regional slaughter capacity, community markets, storage hubs, and food hubs.

Why it matters:
Small and mid-scale farms often struggle to make ends meet because they lack processing capacity and market access. Targeted payments would reduce barriers and strengthen regional food networks.

Domestic tools:
Could be administered through existing federal/provincial frameworks, with criteria based on geography and supply-chain impact.

3. Farmland Access & Affordability Supports

Concept:
Establish tax incentives or public revolving loan funds that reduce the entry cost of farmland for new and beginning farmers — e.g., property tax rebates, land-trust backed purchase programs, and matching investment tools.

Why it matters:
Rising land prices — driven in part by scale expansion — are one of the biggest barriers for new and mid-career farmers. A suite of affordability tools would help keep farmland productive and accessible.

Policy anchor:
Similar models exist in other Canadian sectors (e.g., affordable housing programs) and could be adapted for agricultural land.

4. Rural Community Food System Grants

Concept:
Direct federal/provincial grants to rural municipalities and Indigenous communities for food system infrastructure — such as regional processing, cold chains, farmers’ markets, and community distribution networks.

Why it matters:
Resilience isn’t just on the farm — it’s in the connections between production and consumption. Building these connections strengthens rural economies and keeps food dollars local.

Domestic leverage:
Municipal and provincial partnerships could deliver these funds with measurable outcomes for community food access.

5. Integrated Rural Livelihood & Health Supports

Concept:
Recognize farming as a high-risk livelihood and integrate mental-health, financial counseling, and community support into agricultural services, including risk-management program access points.

Why it matters:
Farming involves isolation, market volatility, weather risk, debt pressure and workload stress. Embedded support could reduce the burden on individuals and communities without relying on external systems.

Domestic precedent:
Other Canada-wide professions (e.g., first responders) already receive tailored mental health and peer-support frameworks.

Conclusion

Shifting Canada’s support system isn’t about simply giving more money to small farms, nor is it about importing European policy wholesale. It’s about realigning policy tools to match Canadian public goals, strengthen local food systems, and build resilience from the ground up.Canadian farmers already support thousands of communities with high-quality food and stewardship of the land. What’s needed now is a policy framework that rewards those contributions, not just the scale of production.