Fanning the flames
Dear Editor:
RE: Fiscal fire, April 2.
Last week’s letter certainly fanned some flames, but completely misstates the nature and purposes of Bill 21 the “Protect Our Food Act.”
The bill is co-sponsored by Independent Haldimand – Norfolk MPP Bobbi Ann Brady and Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner. Its goal is to ensure the preservation and enhancement of southern Ontario’s farmland. It would amend the Planning Act to provide that the land cannot be rezoned, and permitted uses on the land cannot be changed, unless an agricultural impact assessment has been carried out. The restriction applies to zoning bylaws and Minister’s Zoning Orders.
Gary De Bock’s letter says the bill is targeting a fly. In fact, it responds to the average loss of 319 acres of farmland per day in Ontario, calculated by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture using data from the May 2022 agriculture census.
The provincial agriculture minister noted last year that “agri-food industry in Ontario contributes nearly $51 billion to the province’s GDP and employs over 871,000 people, representing one in nine jobs.” Ontario farms produce more than 200 different commodities, provide 54% of the food consumed in Ontario and shipped $28 billion worth of products to markets around the world in 2024.
The letter writer claims that without aggregate mining, municipal taxes will go up, families will have less money to spend on food, including chicken, and chicken farmers will lose out. That’s a stretch. By contrast, losing 319 acres of farmland every day will inevitably result in less Ontario-produced food and fewer people employed by the sector.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, National Farmers Union of Ontario and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario support the initiative. And the Ontario Dietitians in Public Health strongly endorses the bill for its focus on food security and land stewardship. Over 10 municipalities, including Hamilton, Centre Wellington, Prince Edward County and Halton Hills have endorsed the bill to prevent urban sprawl on prime agricultural lands.
Bill 21 addresses a province-wide concern about the health of an important export and employment sector, and our food security in this time of climate change and unstable relations with the U.S. It is not intended to, and does not, stop responsible development projects.
It seems the author of “Fiscal fire” thinks the Nanticoke MZO would not pass a reasonable “agricultural impact assessment.” Nanticoke MZO is not the “surgical goal” of Bill 21.
However, if the author is correct that the project would not pass an impact assessment, it provides a helpful illustration of the need to protect farmland if we’re going to have any hope of feeding our future.
Ailsa Kay,
Fergus