What If We Subsidized Food Like We Subsidize Fossil Fuels?
Canada spends tens of billions propping up the fossil fuel industry through tax breaks, direct financing, infrastructure support, and loan guarantees. Meanwhile, our food system receives comparatively modest support, despite agriculture being fundamental to survival, national food security, and the health of millions of Canadians in ways that petroleum never will be. What would happen if we flipped that priority? What if governments subsidized fresh, nutritious food production with the same enthusiasm they currently reserve for oil and gas?
The Current State of Play
Canadian fossil fuel subsidies are substantial. In 2024, the federal government provided at least $29.6 billion in direct subsidies and public financing to the oil and gas sector — including over $21 billion tied to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and billions more through Export Development Canada. Over the past five years, total federal support has reached approximately $74.6 billion. These figures include grants, tax concessions, loans, and guarantees that help keep fossil fuel production and infrastructure viable.
Agriculture does receive government support — through programs like the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (SCAP), disaster relief during droughts and floods, and research funding. The OECD estimates average annual producer support at around US$5.88 billion (roughly CAD $8 billion) in recent years. However, this support is often focused on export competitiveness, crisis response, and specific sectors rather than making fresh, nutritious food more affordable at the grocery store for everyday Canadians.
The result is a system where a litre of gasoline can sometimes feel more accessible than a litre of fresh milk or a basket of local vegetables. Our subsidy structure treats fossil fuels as essential infrastructure deserving ongoing support, while treating food — especially fresh produce, grains, and proteins from family farms — largely as a commodity left to pure market forces.
What Would Food Subsidies Look Like in Canada?
Redirecting even a fraction of fossil fuel subsidies toward food production could transform Canadian agriculture and deliver real value for families, farmers, and communities:
- Direct support for producers — Payments or incentives to fruit and vegetable growers, grain farmers on the Prairies, or livestock operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan could lower farm-gate prices, making fresh food more affordable for retailers and consumers from coast to coast.
- Infrastructure investment — Subsidised cold-chain logistics, local processing facilities, and storage could reduce waste (currently, large volumes of perfectly good produce are lost due to harvesting and transport costs) and bring down prices, especially in remote and northern regions.
- Transition to regenerative practices — Funding for soil health, carbon sequestration, and sustainable methods on Canadian farms would improve long-term productivity while enhancing environmental resilience — creating a double benefit for climate goals and food security.
- Targeted affordability — Making nutritious staples like vegetables, legumes, berries from British Columbia, or apples from Ontario orchards dramatically more accessible could improve diets nationwide.
At IIF, we see the power of this kind of partnership every day: everyday Canadians investing directly in real farming programs, sharing risks and rewards with producers, and creating meaningful impact without relying solely on government subsidies.
The Return on Investment
The ROI on food subsidies goes far beyond immediate fiscal returns and delivers broad value for Canadians:
- Healthcare savings — Diet-related diseases, including obesity and type 2 diabetes, carry enormous costs. Obesity alone costs Canada approximately $27.6 billion annually (including $5.9 billion in direct healthcare costs and $21.7 billion in indirect productivity losses). Better access to affordable, nutritious food could reduce chronic disease rates, generating billions in savings that could offset subsidy costs within years.
- Productivity and economic gains — A healthier population means fewer sick days, higher workforce participation, and better educational outcomes for children. Agriculture already supports rural economies across the Prairies, Ontario, and beyond; stronger support would sustain family farms and prevent rural decline.
- Food security and resilience — In 2024, 25.5% of people in the ten provinces (about 10 million Canadians, including 2.5 million children) lived in food-insecure households — a record high. Robust domestic production provides a buffer against supply chain disruptions, climate events, and economic shocks.
- Environmental and regional benefits — Supporting regenerative practices on Canadian farms improves soil health, sequesters carbon, protects water systems, and sustains biodiversity — delivering long-term economic value that markets often overlook. It also keeps jobs and knowledge in rural communities.
Feasibility and Challenges
Large-scale food subsidies would face hurdles, including international trade rules and political resistance from entrenched interests. Implementation would require careful design to avoid market distortions, with a gradual phase-in to support workers in transitioning sectors.
Yet many countries already subsidize food production effectively. Canada has unique advantages: vast arable land, diverse growing regions from Alberta’s grain fields to Quebec’s maple groves and British Columbia’s orchards, and a strong base of innovative family farms. Strategic investment could position Canada as a leader in sustainable, nutritious food while strengthening domestic resilience.
The COVID-19 pandemic and recent climate events showed how fragile supply chains can be. As extreme weather intensifies, investing in robust, locally supported food production is not just good policy — it’s essential insurance for the future.
The Bigger Picture — And the Opportunity for Canadians
Subsidising food instead of fossil fuels is ultimately a statement of values. It says we prioritise accessible nutrition, healthy families, and resilient communities over industries that contribute heavily to climate change. Current priorities suggest the opposite: we spend tens of billions supporting oil and gas while food insecurity affects one in four Canadians.
At IIF Canada, we don’t wait for perfect policy — we create direct impact today. Through our regulated share farming platform, members of the IIF community can invest in real Canadian farming opportunities (grains, livestock, horticulture, and more). Your support provides farmers with seasonal working capital, shares risks and rewards, and helps build a more connected, sustainable food system — all while offering potential returns tied to actual agricultural outcomes.
Food subsidies needn’t replace fossil fuel support overnight, but shifting priorities incrementally makes sense. The return — measured in healthier Canadians, stronger rural economies, greater food security, and long-term environmental value — likely far exceeds what we currently receive from propping up coal, oil, and gas.
The question isn’t whether Canada can afford to support food production more boldly. It’s whether we can afford not to.
Ready to make a direct impact on Canadian agriculture? Join the waitlist for the IIF community today, explore share farming opportunities, and put a real Canadian farm in your pocket. Together, we can back family farms, improve food systems, and create lasting value — one season at a time.
