Fred Steele
For the past few years, we have been spreading the positive message about the tree fruit industry and its resurgence.
At the time of this writing - early May - the good news is born out by significant facts. The latest census figures show tree fruit acreage grew by six percent over the past five years and farm gate sales jumped by fifty percent. With growth come growing pains. Growers face many hurdles in expanding and intensifying their production. One of the challenges was getting adequate numbers of workers, but the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) has largely solved this challenge. However, the on-farm housing of farm workers is being challenged by some neighbours, and a balance must be achieved by local government regulators. Growers are accepting and working with all of the challenges to their growth and success. Otherwise, the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) as we know it will vanish.
The message about optimism and hope is gaining momentum. Coupled with a proposed program to rejuvenate the industry with bare ground planting, this new found optimism has lifted the spirits of farmers.
But, as with all things. progress comes with its own set of challenges. With the expansion and intensification of the tree fruit sector, obtaining adequate labour can be a problem. This was foreseen more than a decade ago, when berry and tree fruit associations made the case for bringing the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP) to BC. SAWP actually started 50 years in Ontario, coinciding with post-war industrial development in Upper Canada and the start of the ‘inverted pyramid’ of an aging population.
In BC, our demographics led to a shortage of labour later than Ontario, so the SAWP program was only introduced in 2004. In the Okanagan, a total of four Mexican workers came in 2004, and in 2016 the Okanagan agricultural sector hosted 2,085 Mexico and 707 Caribbean Commonwealth farm workers. Today, if the workers were all in one place that would count as one of the largest private employers in the Okanagan!
The change and increase in the agricultural workforce has resulted in some unusual claims from neighbours. For example, we have heard more than once that the workers are ‘slaves’. This is very offensive to the industry, which has long been community-based and workers are considered part of the extended family. Workers are not indentured. Their work visas allow them to work for a particular employer, as one would expect, but the workers are free to leave the farm and stay in Canada for the duration of their visa. If a farm is not achieving the high standards of the program, then workers have been transferred to another farm that does meet the standards, despite the claims of activists that say this does not happen. Growers often provide for workers in ways that no other workplace would contemplate.
For example, the original employer of those four Mexican workers is still in contact with two of the workers living in Mexico.
One grower paid for the airfare for a worker to return home for his father’s funeral.
Farmers are invited to visit with workers in their home country, to see directly the benefits of the farm work for the Mexican and Caribbean families.
Several growers have sponsored the landed immigration applications for some of their workers.
The agriculture sector supports landed immigrant status for foreign farm workers that help with our harvest, as seen in the successive waves of immigrants since Confederation that take on the long work hours, tough manual labour, risks, wide-ranging skills and incredible determination it takes to farm in Canada.
SAWP has many safeguards to protect workers, unlike other temporary worker programs. For one thing this program has oversight by the Canadian and foreign governments of Mexico and the Caribbean. There is a lot of regulation, which is a good thing though sometimes cumbersome. First, foreign workers get all of the rights, protections and benefits of Canadian workers. The international agreement on SAWP then additionally regulates hours of work, transportation, housing and most importantly recruitment (done by the foreign government’s Ministry of Labour, not a ‘people smuggler’).
Having solved one problem, another emerges - the one sticking point with some in the local communities is another level of regulation, on worker housing. Worker housing originally consisted of picker’s cabins in orchards. Over time many cabins became sub-standard, and there were not enough of them for the larger contingent of workers needed in a modern, intensive orchard. The city and industry have in recent years come to an agreement that housing for temporary workers must be temporary, not permanent. Thus the advent of work camps and Atco-type trailers. Temporary housing ensures that, if ownership of the ALR property changes and the new owner does not require the housing, it can be removed (rather than creating an unauthorized rental headache for the local government).
With the growth of the industry, especially the acreage of cherries and apples, challenges to meet the new growth have occurred. With more and more crops maturing the tree fruit sector will need people to thin, prune and pick the fruit from ever increasing yields. Many of these workers will be local and not require housing, but housing must be provided for foreign workers and work camps are being constructed.
So where does worker housing fit into the equation? Farms in the Okanagan are integrated into the urban landscape. They provide a backdrop for recreation such as cycling and tourism. There is a disconnect between the farm life and the urban understanding of what a farm does. Here is a prime reason. One hundred years ago fifty percent of Canadians were in some way directly or indirectly connected to agriculture. Today that number has decreased to two percent.
With new technology and farm size increasing, things are changing. Farm consolidation over the past several decades has resulted today in a situation where the largest 6.2% of farms account for fifty percent of farm acreage.
Employment is even more concentrated, with the largest 25 percent of farms accounting for about fifty-five percent of the industry payroll. Many small operations and young people entering the industry are buying up small farms and amalgamating them into larger operations. Medium size operations are shrinking.
One can see how these changes are presenting a concern for local government, neighbours and farmers alike. Fortunately we have the Agriculture Land Reserve to ensure we have farmland to feed people locally and elsewhere. With the preservation of farmland comes the responsibility to ensure that the farmland is used productively and that agricultural producers do not face undue barriers and hurdles to remain competitive.
Enter the age of urban expansion. Many thought this was a wonderful place to retire and bask in the sun and be part of a bucolic local agrarian lifestyle complete with the memories of an industry that was based more on subsistence than on feeding the other 98% of humanity. Without the ALR, we could chop up the agricultural land into country estates that are not productive but valued for their idyllic beauty. With the ALR, we need to ensure that the agricultural parcels are viable in the sense of a modern, competitive world. We were promised a productive, viable ALR when it was instituted in 1973. Public support for the ALR has not waned, and associations of growers now support the ALR as well.
Retirees, urban escapees and others have entered the equation and purchased lands both at the edge of the farms or on the surrounding hills and they are perplexed as to how this industry reinvented itself. What most do not understand is the tree fruit industry is over 128 years old, has survived many challenges, and continues to evolve.
We can dispute the meaning of consultation until the cows come home; the fact of the matter is there has been a disconnect between the wishes of the rural urbanite transplants, the simple solutions of local governance and the farmers that need the workers to pick the ever-increasing volume of fruit. A balance needs to be achieved, but the lowest common denominator is a viable, productive ALR. We cannot accept less, or the foundation of the ALR will crumble.
Permanent housing is not going to prevail so what is the answer? Workers are needed in the thousands, spread over the valley. Non-permanent housing is the solution, with the possibility of decommissioning worker housing on acreage that is not going to be farmed.
So what’s the problem?
Municipal governments have proposed limiting the number of worker beds to 40 for a single farmer. It doesn’t work, because that would include 40 workers for all the farmers operations when the farmer may need 100.
Some residents don't want any housing in their neighborhood, which is impractical. Farmers want to make use of their land in the most efficient way and are frustrated by what they feel is a lack of input.
There is a solution out there. Communities need to lay out some rules and find a balance that works best for all citizens.
Listening to the discussion and being a part of it, I believe a solution is close. For example, a farmer could build to a formula of one foreign worker per acre with a cap of 60 beds per farm. In exchange the farmer would be granted the right to have additional camps on other non-adjoining farm parcels he or she owns. This would both decrease the footprint in any one location and at the same time allow the farmer to conduct his or her business without being overly limited in the amount of on-farm housing.
The economic input of the orchard industry is important to us all. This is borne out by the latest census which suggests 776 million dollars in economic activity is generated for the Okanagan Valley. Economically and health-wise, as well as food sustainability-wise, agriculture contributes to the well being of us all. It is paramount that a solution to the issue of worker housing is found soon.