Why the Greater Golden…

Why the Greater Golden Horseshoe Agricultural System Is Needed – Lessons from Pickering

During the 1970s, two senior levels of government expropriated an immense tract of land in Pickering Township: the federal government for an airport and the Ontario government for a city adjacent to the airport. The land was almost entirely composed of Class 1 farmland, along with other rural lands, rural settlements, and natural habitat, including streams and wetlands. Within a few years, both projects went into limbo, and the farms and rural residences were subsequently rented to tenants on one-year leases. Over the past four decades, the perpetual UNCERTAINTY about the future of these prime farmlands has caused devastating economic and social upheaval and deterioration in the local rural communities. Hundreds of local farm and other rural business jobs disappeared. Rural infrastructure crumbled. Most of the farming tenants today live outside of Pickering. The area has become not only an economic but also a retail desert. Our once-prosperous agricultural economy has been severely damaged.

So we welcome Ontario’s plan to develop a GGH Agricultural System. The plan clearly identifies and protects prime farmland and other rural areas, providing the kind of CERTAINTY about the future use of these lands that will enable municipalities and landowners to plan for a stable and increasingly prosperous agri-food sector. Strong protection of our existing agricultural land base and enhanced support of our agri-food network are both wise investments in Ontario's future economy. In a world already experiencing the devastation of climate disruption, a strong agri-food sector in Ontario can not only provide local food security but also play an important role in carbon sequestration and the exporting of food to countries facing a decline in agricultural output.

Implementation Procedures Comments

1. Emphasize "existing"

It must be made very clear that the agricultural-land-base map is documenting what exists on the ground today. Otherwise, those promoting PLANS to change existing agricultural or rural land use, and who lack only the approval of the authoritative regulatory body or court to proceed with their plan, could perpetuate uncertainty for years with regard to the future of the agricultural or rural lands in the area of interest, essentially undermining the implementation of an effective Agricultural System for that area.

2. Define cut-off dates

When will the province release the final agricultural-land-base map for the GGH? At Mount Albert, we were told that municipalities had a five-year timeframe to "refine" the map. A report from Peterborough claimed that it was two years, not five.

At Mount Albert, we were told that, aside from projects conforming to OMAFRA's permitted uses in prime agricultural areas and rural lands, only those non-agricultural-development plans that had already received approval from municipal councils would be allowed to proceed in agricultural-land-base areas. What is the municipal approval cut-off date? Why is this matter not specifically addressed in the implementation procedures? Without clear direction on this issue, contentious local debate and continued uncertainty about the extent of the local Agricultural System will be inevitable.

3. Correct the inaccurate reference to "airports"

In federal government legislation and regulation, the word "aerodrome" is used. It is defined by the Canadian Aeronautics Act as any area of land, water, or frozen snow/ice used, designed, prepared, equipped, or set apart for use either in whole or in part for the arrival, departure, movement, or servicing of aircraft. There are thousands of aerodromes in Canada, including grass landing strips owned by farmers or used by agricultural-crop aerial services. Only a few aerodromes are certified as "airports", which must be fully compliant with federal aviation safety, operation, and maintenance standards and which are routinely inspected by Transport Canada to ensure compliance. Use of "airports" instead of "aerodromes" in the Agricultural System plan implies that municipalities have land-use jurisdiction over uncertified aerodromes, when in fact, their regulatory role is very limited. Therefore, the existing sentence – "Recognition of certain lands under other jurisdiction (e.g. Indigenous land, airports regulated by the federal government)" – should read: "Recognition of certain existing lands under other jurisdiction (e.g. Indigenous land, or aerodromes under the jurisdiction of the federal government)".

4. Clarify agricultural uses permitted within Natural Heritage Features and Areas outside of Settlement Areas

"3.1.1.3: Agricultural Land Base Refinements Related to Natural Heritage Features and Areas" makes it clear that agricultural uses are permitted to continue within separately designated Natural Heritage Features and Areas outside of Settlement Areas. In the cases where Natural Heritage Features and Areas overlap the Agricultural Land Base, or in linkages between Natural Heritage Features and Areas, the permitted agricultural uses in these areas are not specifically stated. It must be made clear to all readers of the document that the agricultural uses are permitted to continue (i.e., “agriculture receives equivalent policy protection as in prime agricultural areas”) in all three cases: (a) separately designated Natural Heritage Features and Areas, (b) Natural Heritage Features and Areas overlapping the Agricultural Land Base, and (c) linkages between Natural Heritage Features and Areas.

[Original Comment ID: 211117]