Strength of Farmland Protection in Canada

Although Canada is among the top countries exporting agricultural products, the national agricultural land base is both limited and diverse.  First, only about 7% of the land base is used for agriculture.^[1]  Second, agricultural land is not distributed equally across all regions of Canada, with vast differences among provinces.^[2]  Saskatchewan has about 40% of the national agricultural land base; Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) has only 0.05 percent.  Furthermore, we must consider not only the quantity of agricultural land but also its quality, as measured by agricultural capability (Appendix A).  As shown in Table 1, Saskatchewan also has the greatest amount of the most capable agricultural land (Canada Land Inventory Classes 1, 2, and 3), followed by Alberta, Ontario, and Manitoba.  We can also see extremes when we look at agricultural land as a percentage of a provincial land base.  Over 70% of Prince Edward Island’s land base is agricultural; only 0.7% of British Columbia’s land base is agricultural.

 

Table 1. Amount of Dependable Agricultural Land (km²), Canada and Provinces

The information in this table is adapted from two Rural and Small Town Analysis Bulletins published by Statistics Canada in 2001 and 2005.^[3]

						Prime Agricultural Land
Province/Territory	Class 1	Class 2	Class 3	Prime Agricultural Land	Total Land Area of Province	…as Percent of Total Land within each Province	…as Percent of Canada’s Total Agricultural Land
Newfoundland Labrador	–	–	67	67	405,720	0.0	0.0
Prince Edward Island	–	2,626	1,422	4,048	5,660	71.5	0.8
Nova Scotia	–	1,700	10,219	11,919	55,490	21.5	2.4
New Brunswick	–	2,056	13,823	15,879	73,440	21.6	3.2
Quebec	223	10,713	13,625	24,561	1,540,680	1.6	5.0
Ontario	27,635	23,335	25,567	76,537	1,068,580	7.2	15.5
Manitoba	2,111	29,617	24,499	56,227	649,950	8.7	11.4
Saskatchewan	12,282	73,341	104,482	190,105	652,330	29.1	38.6
Alberta	6,719	38,701	61,039	106,459	661,190	16.1	21.6
British Columbia	78	1,574	5,270	6,922	947,800	0.7	1.4
Yukon	–	–	–	–	483,450	0.0	0.0
Northwest Territories	–	–	–	–	3,426,320	0.0	0.0
Canada	49,048	183,663	260,013	492,724	9,997,610	4.9	100.0

The combination of unequal amounts of agricultural land among provinces and varying degrees of urban pressure on the agricultural land base means that each province faces different circumstances regarding both the significance of agricultural land and the need to protect it.  Correspondingly, provincial policy to protect agricultural land also varies, reflecting a mix of interests and efforts by all levels of government.

The most common way to evaluate how well agricultural land is being protected is to measure the amount of farmland is converted to other uses, usually to residential, commercial, or industrial uses.  Unfortunately, the record across Canada is poor.  All urbanised areas have experienced significant losses of its agricultural land base, especially the loss of some of Canada’s best quality farmland.^[4]

In addition to measuring changes in the agricultural land base, it is also important to know about the quality of the policy used to protect this land base.  Protecting agricultural land is primarily a concern of land use planning.  Altogether, and across jurisdictions, a legislative framework for agricultural land use planning includes laws, policies, regulations, codes of practice, guidelines, bylaws, strategies, plans, and governance structures.  Many forms of government statements, at all levels of government, make up a legislative framework.   A local legislative framework includes a statutory plan as well as the related regulations, policies, and strategies that frame the plan, and extend both vertically to other levels of government and horizontally to neighbouring jurisdictions.  A legislative framework to protect agricultural land defines the context and constraints for what a government can and must do.

It is possible to measure the quality of a legislative framework by measuring its strength of policy focus.^[5]  Within the field of plan evaluation, this method is concerned with efficacy, which is the power to produce effects (rather a measure of the effects or outcomes themselves).  The aim is to evaluate the content of all the elements that make up the legislative framework.  In this module, we look at the strength of farmland protection policy for all provinces in Canada.

• Maximise stability
  A stable legislative framework for protecting farmland is one that is not easily changed at the whim of shifting political interests; it is well-entrenched in acts of legislation, policy, and governance structures that are based on clear, concise language, and can hold up to court challenge.
• Integrate public priorities across jurisdictions
  The aim of integrating public priorities across jurisdictions is to ensure that lower-level policies are set within the context of broader, provincial public priorities.

• Minimise uncertainty
  The aim of minimising uncertainty is to ensure that rules and regulations will be applied consistently and to know how it will be applied consistently under different circumstances.

• Accommodate flexibility
  The aim of this principle is to enable decision-makers to accommodate anticipated, specific interests for non-farm development without compromising the primary functions of the legislative framework to provide stability and reduce uncertainty.

The above four principles are used as criteria to evaluate the strength of legislative frameworks.  The method involves analysing the content of all relevant laws, regulations, and policies that make up each provincial legislative framework for protecting agricultural land.  The scoring is based on the presence and strength of specified items (see Appendix C).  Each principle is scored on a scale from very weak (1) to very strong (5), based on the results of the content analysis.

The method can be applied not only to provinces but also to regions within a province.  In Canada, there are substantial differences within the provincial legislative frameworks of BC and Ontario that warrant special attention.  In BC, one zone is covered by the ALC Act; the other zone is the northeast region of the province, which includes a substantial portion (about 31%) of the province’s agricultural lands.  This northeast region has very high levels of oil and gas activities, which are governed by the Oil and Gas Commission (OGC).  The ALC has a delegation agreement with the OGC, such that the OGC is responsible for carrying out the mandate of the ALC—while also being responsible for oil and gas development in agricultural areas.  The delegation agreement views oil and gas developments as temporary uses of agricultural land and includes conditions for mitigating impacts of permitted activities.  We denote these two zones as BC.ALC and BC.OGC.  In Ontario, all agricultural land in the province is covered by the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), with higher priorities for prime agricultural land and specialty crop areas.  In the Greater Golden Horseshoe area, which surrounds and includes the metropolitan area of the City of Toronto, a package of additional legislation applies, including the Greenbelt Act, Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, and Places to Grow Act.  We treat this “Greenbelt” area with an enhanced legislative framework as separate from the rest of the province.  The effect of this additional legislation is to create two agricultural areas, one area of agricultural land covered by only the PPS (denoted as ON.PPS) and the agricultural land within the Greenbelt (denoted at ON.GB).  Thus, to measure the strength of policy to protect agricultural land, each province of BC and Ontario is treated as having two legislative frameworks.

Across Canada, results show that provincial legislative frameworks to protect agricultural land range from strong to weak (Table 2).  Québec has the strongest policy focus followed by BC (ALC) and Ontario (GB).  The provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan have somewhat weak legislative frameworks.  PEI, NL, and Alberta have weak frameworks (with the caveat that PEI recently amended its legislative framework and may yet adopt farmland protection policy).  The diversity of all the results indicate that no two provinces have the same scores for all four principles.

 

Table 2. Provincial Legislative Frameworks: Assessment of Strength

Province	Overall strength		Stability	Integration	Uncertainty	Flexibility
QC	Strong		5	4	4	3
BC.ALC	Somewhat Strong		5	3	4	4
ON.GB	Somewhat Strong		4	4	3	4
ON.PPS	Moderate		3	4	3	4
BC.OGC	Moderate		4	2	3	4
NS	Somewhat Weak		3	3	3	3
NB	Somewhat Weak		3	4	1	2
MB	Somewhat Weak		3	3	2	2
SK	Somewhat Weak		2	4	3	2
PE	Weak		2	4	2	2
NL	Weak		2	3	2	3
AB	Weak		2	3	2	1

 

For the following, we describe the most important aspects of each provincial legislative framework, in order from strongest to weakest.

 

Québec

The policy focus of Québec’s legislative framework is strong overall, and the strongest among all provinces in Canada.  Regarding stability, the most important element of Québec’s legislative framework is the Loi sur la protection du territoire et des activités agricoles (LPTAA), which was enacted in 1978.  The purpose of the LPTAA (c. P-41.1 c. 1 1.1) is to “secure a lasting territorial basis for the practice of agriculture, and to promote, in keeping with the concept of sustainable development, the preservation and development of agricultural activities and enterprises in the agricultural zones established by the regime.”  For this purpose, the LPTAA establishes a province-wide agricultural land reserve, a land use zone within which agriculture is a priority use, farming and ranching are encouraged, and non-farm uses are restricted.  The LPTAA has priority over all other general or special laws.

Strong requirements for integrating public priorities for protecting agricultural lands in local land use plans are included in both the LPTAA (c. 3 s. 79.1) and Loi sur l’aménagement et l’urbanisme (LAU c. 1. s. 5).  Both acts require local governments to promote agricultural purposes as the priority use of agricultural land.  The LAU, which governs land use planning by local governments, includes the Orientations gouvernementales (or Guidelines).  Land use plans of municipalities, metropolitan areas, and regional county municipalities (MRCs) must be consistent with the Guidelines.

The primary governance mechanism to accommodate flexibility is the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (CPTAQ), an autonomous, quasi-judicial body whose only function is to protect agricultural land.  Central to the land management process are applications to CPTAQ, which cover including or excluding land from the agricultural land reserve, subdivision, and non-farm uses.  A local government must fully substantiate an application to CPTAQ (LPTAA c.2 s.26).  When rendering a decision (LPTAA c. 2 s. 62), CPTAQ must take a range of factors into consideration, including local conditions.

 

British Columbia

British Columbia and Québec are very similar, although BC has a lower rating of overall strength at somewhat strong.  The primary element of the legislative framework is the Agricultural Land Commission Act (ALC Act), enacted in 1973 to establish the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and the quasi-judicial Agricultural Land Commission (ALC).  The ALC Act uses restrictive land zoning to protect agricultural land, plays a critical role in land use policies, and takes precedence over other legislation, including land use bylaws of local governments.  The ALC Act and ALR contribute to a very strong level of stability.  Strong language in the ALC Act and the Local Government Act (LGA) supports a strong level of integration between provincial interests in protecting farmland and local governments.  However, the provincial government does not approve statutory plans.  Instead, the LGA requires local governments only to consult with the ALC (s. 475(4)) and refer to the ALC for comment (s. 477(3)(b)), which undermine the strength of integration.  Like the CPTAQ, the ALC is a quasi-judicial tribunal with a mandate (s. 6) to protect the ALR.

 

Ontario

The policy focus of Ontario’s legislative framework for the Greenbelt area (ON.GB) is somewhat strong overall.  The strong stability of the legislative framework resides in the Planning Act, which sets goals for protecting farmland.  The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), which is an enforceable policy subject to review every five years, provides direction to local planning authorities for matters of provincial interest.  All agricultural land in the province is covered by the PPS, with higher priorities for prime agricultural land and specialty crop areas.  Integration across jurisdictions is strong.  Decisions of local planning authorities “shall be consistent with” the PPS and “shall conform with” provincial plans (Planning Act s. 3(5)).  The identification of agricultural lands contributes to uncertainty.  Local governments have the option to define “prime” agricultural lands, most often using a method that combines CLI ratings with ratings of suitability (e.g., parcel size, nearby conflicting land uses).  The standard method is Land Evaluation and Area Rating (LEAR).

 

New Brunswick

The overall strength of New Brunswick’s framework is somewhat weak.  The most important source of strength is the Agricultural Land Policy (ALP), adopted in 2017 “to provide a framework to guide government decision making relative to the protection and development of agricultural lands in the Province of New Brunswick” (p. 3).  The ALP is an enforceable policy.  The Agricultural Land Protection and Development Act (ALPDA) (s. 4(a)) establishes agricultural land owner associations, which have the legislated purpose “to promote and facilitate the stewardship, protection and improvement of agricultural land.”  A strength of the framework is strong integration of priorities across jurisdictions, primarily through ministerial approval of statutory plans. Importantly, the ALP states that land use planning in the province “shall reflect the importance of agriculture” (p. 6).  The Community Planning Act (CPA) states that local government plans shall be consistent with provincial policy. However, the CPA has no specific references to the protection of agricultural land.

 

Manitoba

The policy focus of Manitoba’s legislative framework is somewhat weak overall, with a moderate rating for stability.  A provincial interest in protecting agricultural land is part of the Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUP), under the Provincial Planning Regulation (R.M. 81/2011).  The PLUP (Policy Area 3) states, “Planning for the agricultural use of these lands and protecting them from conversion to non-farm use is vital to the future of Manitoba’s agricultural sector.”  The legislative framework has a moderate level of integration.  As required in The Planning Act (s.41), all local statutory land use plans must be submitted to the minister for approval.  However, whereas most provinces use the term, “must be consistent with,” The Planning Act uses the term “must be generally consistent.”  The Provincial Planning Regulation (Part 4) states that “generally consistent” means that statutory plans “will embody” and “reflect the spirit and intent” of the PLUP.  To accommodate flexibility, the PLUP explains that the provincial interests, by their nature, are general and cannot account for all local situations, special circumstances, and exceptions; they are intended to accommodate local needs.

 

Saskatchewan

The policy focus of Saskatchewan’s legislative framework is somewhat weak overall.  The key elements of the provincial legislative framework are the Planning and Development Act (PDA) and The Statements of Provincial Interest Regulations (SPI).  The rating for stability is weak because neither the PDA nor the SPI has a direct statement about farmland protection.  The SPI states the province has an interest in supporting an agricultural sector that “optimizes the use of agricultural land for growth opportunities and diversification in primary agricultural production and value-added agribusiness.” (Chapter P-13.2 Reg 3).  The strong rating for integration reflects an emphasis on consistency between local land use planning with provincial interests, which is supported by the PDA and SPI.  The Ministry reviews and approves all bylaws and subdivisions in rural municipalities.

 

Nova Scotia

The overall strength of Nova Scotia’s legislative framework is somewhat weak.  Although all principles rated as moderate, the weighting rubric lowers the overall rating.  The most important contribution to stability is the SPI, which is part of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), and includes the following:  “To protect agricultural land for the development of a viable and sustainable agriculture and food industry.”  To support integration, a rural municipality must address all of the SPI and give agricultural lands specific zoning with the intention to protect it.  The MGA (s. 196) states, “Development undertaken by the Province and municipalities should be reasonably consistent with the statements.”  The Provincial Director of Planning must approve all statutory plans (MGA s. 208).  Accommodating flexibility is an important factor when implementing the SPI. As the MGA (Schedule B, Introduction) states, the SPI statements “reflect the diversity found in the Province and do not take into account all local situations.”  As such, they are “general in nature” and provide guidance that “must be applied with common sense.”

 

Newfoundland and Labrador

The overall strength of NL’s legislative framework is weak.  The primary elements of the provincial framework are the Urban and Rural Planning Act (URPA) and Lands Act.  Notably, NL does not have a PLUP or SPI to protect farmland directly.  Notwithstanding this weakness, several mechanisms contribute to stability.  The Lands Act (s. 59) enables the creation of Agricultural Development Areas (ADAs), which are protected agricultural zones to control development and topsoil removal. However, only two zone have been established.  The Forestry and Agrifoods Agency has a mandate to oversee all matters relating to, among other things, the use, protection, and development of agricultural land.  The Agency’s Land Use Program includes purchasing agricultural land in ADAs to protect the agricultural land base and provide land to farmers.  Regarding integration, the URPA (s. 15) requires statutory plans to be reviewed by the province.

 

Prince Edward Island

The overall strength of PEI’s legislative framework is weak.  The primary elements of the provincial legislative framework are the Planning Act and Subdivision and Development Regulations.  Due to the relatively small size of the province, the function of land use planning is more like of that a local government than other provinces.  Notably, only 11 percent of PEI’s land base is covered by municipal statutory plans and zoning bylaws. In 2017, new legislation for land use planning was enacted and, as of 2022, all municipalities will be required to develop statutory plans and zoning bylaws. Some of the approved amendments are not yet in force, including provisions that focus on the importance of protecting natural resources, including agricultural land.  There are no statements in the legislative framework that provide a direct, clear commitment to protect agricultural land.  The Subdivision and Development Regulation includes Special Planning Areas (SPAs) for which one of the objectives for development is to “minimize the loss of primary industry lands” (3 (b)).

 

Alberta

Overall, Alberta’s legislative framework for protecting farmland is weak.  The primary elements are the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA), Municipal Government Act (MGA), and Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUP).  The PLUP is an enforceable policy.  The framework is designed to assert provincial land use priorities while respecting the land use authority of local governments; however, it does so without a clear commitment to protecting agricultural land.  Regional plans developed under ALSA are the most important mechanisms for asserting provincial interests because the plans are approved by the provincial Cabinet, treated as provincial regulations, and take precedence over the PLUP priorities.  However, only two of seven plans have been completed.  Regarding agricultural land under PLUP, the stated goal is to “contribute to the maintenance and diversification of Alberta’s agricultural industry” (s. 6.1).  Municipalities are encouraged to identify land for primary agricultural use and to limit fragmentation and premature conversion.  Under ALSA, the strongest statements aim to support the agricultural industry and operations, rather than the land base.  The MGA (Pt. 17 s. 622(3)) states that every statutory plan and land use bylaw “must be consistent with the [provincial] land use policies.”

 

Appendix A.  Canada Land Inventory (CLI):  Agricultural Capability Classes

Source:  Agricultural Land Commission

Class 1 land either has no or only very slight limitations that restrict its use for the production of common agricultural crops.

Class 2 land has minor restrictions that require good on-going management practices or slightly restrict the range of crops, or both.

Class 3 land has limitations that require moderately intensive management practices or moderately restrict the range of crops, or both.

Class 4 land has limitations that require special management practices or severely restrict the range of crops, or both.

Class 5 land has limitations that restrict its capability to producing perennial forage crops or other specially adapted crops.

Class 6 land is non-arable but is capable of producing native and or uncultivated perennial forage crops.

Class 7 land has no capability for arable or sustained natural grazing.

There is also a set of sub-classes.

 

Appendix B.  Four principles for a strong legislative framework

Maximise stability Something that is stable is difficult to topple; it stands strong and cannot be easily moved.  Likewise, a stable legislative framework for protecting farmland is one that is not easily changed at the whim of shifting political interests; it is well-entrenched in acts of legislation, policy, and governance structures that are based on clear, concise language, and can hold up to court challenge.  It is something that people can count on to secure the land base for agriculture and to know what the rules are. In this sense, a measure of stability is a measure of the thing itself – the legislative framework – as it is written in its present form.  Thus, stability is a critical measure of the strength of an agricultural land use planning framework.

Integrate public priorities across jurisdictions Integrating policies and priorities across jurisdictions is a foundation for building cohesion across provincial, regional, and local governments.  This principle of integration can be viewed as a “policy thread” that weaves together traditional areas of responsibility.  One can also think of integration as a formal “linkage” between policies that provides consistency among them.  Such formal linkages can come in the form of a provincial policy that requires a lower-level policy “to be consistent with” provincial statements.  The aim of such vertical mechanisms is to ensure that lower-level policies are set within the context of broader public priorities.  The same principle of integration applies horizontally, too, so that plans and strategies are co-ordinated and consistent across local governments.  In order to successfully integrate policies across jurisdictions there must be sufficient details about the legislative context that guides and constrains local government plans and strategies.

Minimise uncertainty In addition to maximizing the stability of a legislative framework through clear rules and regulations we must also consider how the framework will be implemented and applied to land use decisions.  People want to know they can rely on these rules and regulations to be applied consistently and to know how it will be applied under different circumstances.  In this sense, people want not only a stable land base for agriculture but also a legislative framework that provides some certainty about how it will be used to make agricultural land use decisions.  However, what we do not know is boundless so we must accept that we cannot eliminate uncertainty.  What governments can do is to minimize uncertainty by eliminating loop-holes, ambiguous language, and open-ended conditions.  Perhaps more importantly, uncertainty can be minimized through consistent interpretations and applications of the legislative framework.  In this sense, a measure of uncertainty is a future-oriented measure of expectations about how the legislative framework will be applied to land use decisions.  Thus, the presence of uncertainty is a critical measure of the weakness of an agricultural land use planning framework.

Accommodate flexibility Creating an effective legislative framework is an act of balance without being too stable so that it cannot be changed when needed or too strict so that it cannot be applied in a range of circumstances.  Thus, flexibility is necessary in order to moderate the restrictive effects of maximizing stability and minimizing uncertainty.  The principle is to enable decision-makers to accommodate a controlled level of flexibility without compromising the primary functions of the legislative framework to provide stability and reduce uncertainty.  The means to accommodate flexibility is typically done through governance mechanisms, such as quasi-judicial provincial commissions, advisory committees, and application processes.

Appendix C.  Factors for rating each principle, for provincial governments

	Maximize stability	Integrate across jurisdictions	Minimize Uncertainty	Accommodate flexibility
5 = Very strong	Clear, direct commitment to protect farmland entrenched in law; all agricultural lands protected; comprehensive complement of regulations, policies, and guides.	Clear, direct requirements for consistency; upper-level approval authority	Permitted uses clearly articulated and entrenched in law; senior-level targets set for urban growth management to be implemented at lower levels; no loopholes, vague language, or qualifying statements that undermine commitment	Senior level, quasi-judicial governing body (e.g., commission); application process (or equivalent); agricultural impact assessment process that directs development to land of lower agricultural capability
4- Strong	Clear, direct commitment to protect farmland entrenched in law; some key supporting elements, but not a full complement	One of: clear, direct requirements for consistency; upper-level approval authority; or moderate combination of both.	Some elements of ‘very strong’ are missing	Some elements of ‘very strong’ are missing
3- Moderate	Recognition of the importance of preserving farmland; may be in policy statement rather than law	Some general requirements, but not be as clear, direct; one of requirement for consistency or approval authority is missing	A ‘balanced’ approach that seeks to protect agricultural land while recognizing importance of development opportunities	Basic recognition of need to accommodate non-farm development while limiting impacts on agricultural land; no supporting mechanisms
2- Weak	Minimal reference to agriculture beyond minimum requirements	Minimal requirements	Some expressed interest in developing agricultural land; significant exposure to non-farm development	Minimal attempt to minimize impacts (e.g., brief, general statement) ; no supporting mechanisms
1- Very weak	No reference to agriculture	No requirements	Clear interest in developing agricultural land; fully exposed to non-farm development	No attempt to minimize impacts