Decriminalizing “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) in 2016 apparently confirmed a powerful social bias in favour of personal freedom. Presented as a free choice – affecting no one else – euthanasia seemed acceptable to most Canadians.

However, this tells only part of the story, for euthanasia is not only about death by choice; it is also defined as high-priority medical care. Unfortunately, like a new organism released in an established ecosystem, the arrival of euthanasia could not fail to affect every detail of the medical environment.

First of all, it is an ethical requirement for doctors to inform patients of all available treatment options. This means informing each patient of their “right” to access euthanasia (MAiDs). The typical non-suicidal patient is thus immediately confronted with the possibility of assisted death, in the same way that one is confronted by an open elevator shaft or a missing guardrail. Suddenly a danger exists which must be consciously avoided.

Nor does the threat end there. Doctors are expected to proactively prescribe optimal treatment (to which the patient normally consents), but some doctors are very partial to euthanasia. It is thus to be expected that many patients will succumb to the suggestion of these “professionals,” even though they would never have spontaneously thought, themselves, to request assisted death.

Indeed, it is not easy to fix a clear boundary between the legitimate professional duty to convince recalcitrant patients of what is truly best for them, and the abusive application of “undue influence” in proposing death as treatment. Certainly, this is a slippery slope!

Roger Foley, for example, eloquently describes being offered euthanasia on multiple occasions during a prolonged hospital stay caused by his inability to obtain adequate care at home. Eventually, hospital staff informed Foley that he would either have to pay an exorbitant daily fee or be discharged without the care he needed to survive. Accounts of this situation were naturally greeted with outrage by the press. But there also remains a sort of perverse logic in defence of the hospital based on the medical definition of MAiD. By refusing euthanasia, Foley had effectively refused the proposition of a perfectly legitimate medical treatment, which would normally lessen the hospital’s responsibility towards him considerably.

Similarly, in the now-famous scandal of Canadian veterans being offered MAiD for PTSD, we must remember that Bill C-7 authorizes euthanasia for mental illness without any physical issues. Therefore, while many Canadians might agree that the offending caseworker behaved misguidedly, no one in authority has affirmed that veterans will not be euthanized for PTSD. Quite the contrary: in today’s legal and medical setting, it is a virtual certainty that they will be offered MAiD.

To suggest that human life should be ended according to medical criteria is an entirely different proposition from saying that people might be allowed to seek assistance in death of their own free will. As euthanasia is increasingly institutionalized, and as a younger generation of professionals becomes fully adjusted to its “medical” use, we must expect that typical patients will face an increasingly hostile clinical environment if they do not accept the recommended treatment. We are witnessing the transition of our entire health-care system to a new utilitarian model that is totally at odds with traditional assumptions of life-affirming care.

This is not what Canadians thought they were getting. And more importantly, there has been no serious debate about making such a radical change.

Happily, one glimmer of hope is to be found in the fact that health is a provincial responsibility; that just as Quebec was able to define euthanasia as medical care, so other provinces can revisit their decision. And without being able to prohibit euthanasia entirely (an exclusively federal power), each province and territory can permit or forbid euthanasia in any institution under its authority. They are free to decide whether their funds will support euthanasia, and free to regulate the behaviour of health professionals.

These are very serious concerns. Health care consumes nearly a full third of all government spending. Do Canadians wish to pay for a system that will care for us when needed? Or do we want to pay for a system designed to bury us at the lowest possible cost?

Gordon Friesen has been following the assisted death question closely since the early nineteen-nineties and is currently President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

We all know what’s happening to real estate these days. Everything got more expensive in a hurry, fueled by rock-bottom interest rates. But farming has also been impacted by lower interest rates and investors looking for safety and better yields.
 
The increase in farmland value in Canada has been nothing short of spectacular. The value per acre of farmland in Canada has skyrocketed by 334 per cent since 2001, but most of the increases have occurred within the last few years. Since 2016, the increase has been 213 per cent. According to Statistics Canada, the average acre in Canada is now worth almost $3,800, compared to $862 back in 2001.
 
The value of an acre of farmland in Saskatchewan has increased by 391 per cent since 2001, the highest in the country. The highest increase since 2016 is in Manitoba, by 266 per cent. Depending on what is produced, some farmland valuations have increased more than others due to various factors such as location, soil quality, and potential revenues.
 
The Atlantic region, though, is not seeing much change compared with other regions. Increases in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island have been more modest. Farming in the Atlantic region remains affordable compared to other provinces, not due to protectionist policies but more because farming is not as profitable and options to market are limited for many farmers. With lower value increases, building capacity when land is barely worth more year after year is more challenging.
 
In contrast, since 2016, the average farm real estate value in the United States has increased by 27 per cent, according to the latest report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But an acre of farmland on average in the U.S. is now worth about US$3,800, so Canada has somewhat caught up to the U.S. in recent years.
 
Farmland values are being pushed higher in Canada by a series of economic forces. The includes high prices for commodity crops, a robust housing market, an extended period where interest rates were extremely low until recently, and a profusion of government subsidies supporting certain sectors. Compensation, which exceeded $5 billion, linked to trade agreements and given to supply-managed sectors like dairy, poultry, and eggs, has overcapitalized many farm operations out there, compelling many to buy land. That’s a problem few are talking about.
 
In Canada, barely seven per cent of all our land is devoted to agriculture. It’s not a lot, and that amount of land where farming occurs is shrinking. In 2011, 166 million acres of land were devoted to farming to support over 245,000 farms. Today, this amount is about 150 million acres for about 188,000 farms. Farms are bigger, more resourceful, and more efficient.
 
Yes, farmland in Canada is getting more expensive, but farmers in Canada are also making more money. In 2021, cash receipts exceeded $83 billion, a record, and 2022 is likely to be another record year. Last year was also a record year for agri-food exports; if you’re a hedge fund or an investor, these numbers will catch your attention, and they have. Fewer barriers, including the end of the Wheat Board’s single desk on wheat and barley, have brought a slew of new possibilities for the farming community.
 
As a result, we have seen more farmers renting land instead of owning. Close to 50 per cent of farmers in Canada now rent land instead of owning. Some may see this as a threat to normal ways of producing food and supporting agriculture, but it’s not necessarily a terrible strategy.
 
In fact, the largest farmland owner in the country is not even a farmer. Alberta’s own Robert Andjelic has bought over 225,500 acres of land, a portfolio worth somewhere between $500 and $700 million. At the root of this investor’s move into agriculture is the will to produce more food and address our global food security crunch. Along with his capital, his team brought knowledge of sound soil management practices, helping over 250 farmer-tenants to benefit from such expertise. Andjelic’s job is to make sure his tenants make money. Otherwise, he’s not getting paid – simple as that. This new way of thinking can make Canadian agriculture more profitable.
 
Canada’s agri-food potential is immense, and farmland has always been a good investment. A growing number of groups and investors who understand how to make capital work are making a difference. The intent of investors from outside the agriculture sector is to make our agriculture stronger.
 
Farmers who have been in the system for decades still have a lot to offer. But producing and investing simultaneously is getting harder, which is slowly getting agricultural pundits to specialize. Capital markets and the investment community worldwide have changed dramatically over the last five years. This is why more than half of younger farmers in Canada are leasing land now in order to operate.
 
The correlation between land prices, rental rates, and farm revenues is quite strong. All three tend to move synchronously higher over time, according to a report from Farm Credit Canada last year. With more specialization, everyone wins. Younger farmers also see value in renting and partnering with investors. It’s just a different way of seeing farming.
 
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.