Under pressure from farmers, Premier Doug Ford’s government is considering backing off from proposals that would allow more housing to be built on Ontario’s dwindling farmland, CBC News has learned.
Leaders of a range of farming and agricultural groups met with senior government officials last week to raise their concerns about proposed changes to provincial land-use policy that Ford and his ministers have said will spur new home construction.
The contentious proposals are part of the government’s overhaul of Ontario’s land-use guidelines, floated last month by Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark. At the time, Clark called his plan “housing-focused” and said it would create more homes in both urban and rural communities.
On Monday, Clark told the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in a letter obtained by CBC News that he “clearly heard the concerns” and promised “to look at alternatives” to the changes he’d proposed.
Farmers say the proposals as they currently stand have the potential to lead to hundreds of thousands of homes on prime farmland.
Mark Reusser is a turkey farmer in the township of Wilmot, southwest of Kitchener. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)
“That is an awful lot of urban people moving to the countryside and having to deal with the issues of farming that they’re not used to,” said Mark Reusser, a turkey farmer in Wilmot Township, less than a 10-minute drive from the western edge of Kitchener.
Reusser says farmers are concerned that putting more homes on and adjacent to farms would lead to conflict with new non-farming residents over the odour, dust and noise that comes with raising livestock or growing crops.
“Agriculture works better when it is somewhat distanced from people, especially people who are from an urban setting originally and who are not used to those things,” Reusser said in an interview on his farm.
“We’re also concerned that (building housing) is probably not the best use of farmland,” he said. “It will never be farmland again once there’s a house on it.”
Concerns homes won’t stay in farming families
The most contentious change would allow the owners of agricultural land to carve out up to three housing lots on each farm parcel, a policy known as severance.
Ford and Clark indicated their intent is to make it easier for farmers to build homes for their adult children on their land.
Steve Clark, Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing speaks in the Legislature on May 18, 2023. (Chris Young/The Canadian Press)
“The number one complaint that I get when I go to the farms is, ‘I want my kids to stay on the farm,’ and there are certain jurisdictions that won’t allow you to build an additional residence,” Ford told the legislature on Monday.
“It has never been our intention for severed lots to be transferred or sold to non-family/farm owners,” Clark said in his letter Monday. “Any ambiguity regarding our intentions will be clarified, eliminated and resolved.”
People in the agriculture sector say the trouble with the policy as proposed is there’s no way to ensure such homes stay in the farming family. They also say it would have the ripple effects of pushing up the market value of farmland, enticing more farmers to sell off housing lots to profit and shrinking the amount of land available for agriculture.
“I don’t think it’s a really smart plan,” said Zac Cohoon, who grows corn, soybean and wheat on his family farm near Port Perry in Durham Region.
“It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me – when we have urban centres that are well serviced, that can handle public transit, sewage disposal and water – to move [housing] into a rural area,” Cohoon said in an interview.
Cohoon says current planning policies are already “destroying some of the best farmland in Ontario and Canada for housing.”
Putting more homes in agricultural areas would put pressure on farm ecology because of new wells and septic systems, he says.
The reforms to Ontario’s land-use policy coming from Premier Doug Ford’s government would allow the owners of agricultural land to sever three lots from each parcel of their farmland for housing. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)
Quarter of Ontario’s farmland could be gone in 25 years
Ontario lost more than 580,000 acres of farmland in the five year period from 2016 to 2021, according to Statistics Canada. If that pace continues, 25 per cent of the province’s existing farmland will be gone in 25 years.
Cohoon says a far better solution is to put housing on marginal land near cities, closer to the services that can handle an increase in population.
“Moving into agricultural land with [housing] lots doesn’t solve the problem. All it does is spread it out,” he said.
The Ford government has set a target for 1.5 million new homes to be built in Ontario by 2032. The proposals that have drawn the ire of farmers are currently out for public feedback. On Monday, Clark said he will extend the consultation period, which was due to end next week, until early August.
The proposals prompted an uncommon show of unity from the major farming organizations in the province. The associations representing beef, chicken, dairy, egg, pork, sheep, turkey and veal producers joined with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the National Farmers Union in condemning the planned changes to land-use policy.
Zac Cohoon climbs up to the cab of his sprayer on a field of soybean at his farm near Port Perry, Ont. (Mike Crawley/CBC)
“We do not support policies that will increase residential lot creation in prime agricultural areas or in rural areas that are actively farmed,” said their joint statement, issued on May 19.
“Ontario boasts some of Canada’s richest and most fertile farmland and these policy changes put the sustainability of that land and the food system it provides at great risk.”
While that statement came from the organizations representing farmers, individual farmers like Cohoon and Reusser wanted to speak out too.
“Farmers, like everyone, recognize that there’s a need to find places for people to live,” said Reusser. “It shouldn’t be on farmland, it should be somewhere else. The ability of a country to feed itself is incredibly important.”
Still, Reusser says he’s encouraged by the signs that the Ford government is willing to reconsider its plan.
“I’m looking forward to working with the government … and finding a way to accommodate a place for people to live and protect the business of agriculture at the same time,” he said. “I think that’s a doable thing.”
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Mountain West Conference Commissioner Gloria Nevarez said Thursday the forfeitures that volleyball teams are willing to take to avoid playing San Jose State is “not what we celebrate in college athletics” and that she is heartbroken over what has transpired this season surrounding the Spartans and their opponents.
Four teams have canceled games against San Jose State: Boise State, Southern Utah, Utah State and Wyoming, with none of the schools explicitly saying why they were forfeiting.
A group of Nevada players issued a statement saying they will not take the floor when the Wolf Pack are scheduled to host the Spartans on Oct. 26. They cited their “right to safety and fair competition,” though their school reaffirmed Thursday that the match is still planned and that state law bars forfeiture “for reasons related to gender identity or expression.”
All those schools, except Southern Utah, are in the Mountain West. New Mexico, also in the MWC, went ahead with its home match on Thursday night, which was won by the Spartans, 3-1, the team’s first victory since Sept. 24.
“It breaks my heart because they’re human beings, young people, student-athletes on both sides of this issue that are getting a lot of national negative attention,” Nevarez said in an interview with The Associated Press at Mountain West basketball media days. “It just doesn’t feel right to me.”
Republican governors of Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming have made public statements in support of the cancellations, citing a need for fairness in women’s sports. Former President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee in this year’s presidential race, this week referenced an unidentified volleyball match when he was asked during a Fox News town hall about transgender athletes in women’s sports.
“I saw the slam, it was a slam. I never saw a ball hit so hard, hit the girl in the head,” Trump replied before he was asked what can be done. “You just ban it. The president bans it. You just don’t let it happen.”
After Trump’s comment, San Diego State issued a statement that said “it has been incorrectly reported that an San Diego State University student-athlete was hit in the face with a volleyball during match play with San Jose State University. The ball bounced off the shoulder of the student-athlete, and the athlete was uninjured and did not miss a play.”
San Jose State has not made any direct comments about the politicians’ “fairness” references, and Nevarez did not go into details.
“I’m learning a lot about the issue,” Nevarez said. “I don’t know a lot of the language yet or the science or the understanding nationally of how this issue plays out. The external influences are so far on either side. We have an election year. It’s political, so, yeah, it feels like a no-win based on all the external pressure.”
The cancellations could mean some teams will not qualify for the conference tournament Nov. 27-30 in Las Vegas, where the top six schools are slated to compete for the league championship.
“The student-athlete (in question) meets the eligibility standard, so if a team does not play them, it’s a forfeit, meaning they take a loss,” Nevarez said.
Ahead of the Oct. 26 match in Reno. Nevada released a statement acknowledging that “a majority of the Wolf Pack women’s volleyball team” had decided to forfeit against San Jose State. The school said only the university can take that step but any player who decides not to play would face no punishment.
OTTAWA – Travis Green might not have liked the end result, but he’s counting on his team learning from the effort.
Green’s Ottawa Senators were handed a 3-1 loss by the New Jersey Devils Thursday night in a game that highlighted the importance of sticking with things.
“I thought both teams played pretty well,” said Green. “I thought we had a lot of the game that I liked, but I thought there’s a few moments where it got away. We got away from our game, and they stuck with their game a little longer.
“There’s always momentum back and forth for one team to create some chances. It’s a fine line between winning and losing in the league, especially when you’re playing, two good teams are playing.”
Jacob Markstrom’s 30 saves also played a part, with the Devils goaltender only getting beat with 65 seconds left in regulation as the Senators were on the power play with an empty net.
Brady Tkachuk tipped a Claude Giroux shot to spoil Markstrom’s shutout bid.
“Outstanding,” said Devils coach Sheldon Keefe of his goaltender. “Just terrible that he doesn’t get the shutout that he deserves in this one here.
“You feel for him when they make that (penalty) call. You can just kind of feel like it’s going to give them a little extra life. But he was outstanding for us, no question.”
The two teams were scoreless after the first period, where each had to fight for every opportunity. Noah Gregor rang a shot off the crossbar for the Senators, but otherwise, neither team was able to generate much offensively.
The Devils capitalized in the second as a power play expired with Erik Haula redirecting a Johnathan Kovacevic shot past Anton Forsberg, who made 32 saves.
Less than four minutes later, Nathan Bastian took advantage of a Giroux giveaway and beat Forsberg low blocker for his first of the season with the Devils short-handed.
“I liked our second period a lot,” Keefe said. “We took hold of the game and didn’t give up much, and when we did, I thought it was really from the perimeter, only a couple there.”
The Devils tightened up defensively in the third and were able to make it 3-0 when Paul Cotter was left alone in the slot.
“I think for stretches of the game we played the right way and kind of get in on the forecheck and play that way,” said Senators centre Nick Cousins. “It seems like when we get down a couple goals, we kind of change our game, which isn’t a recipe for success in this league.
“I think we’ve just got to keep doing the right things over and over again, even when it’s 2-0.”
With the Senators just four games in and still learning and adjusting to a new system, Green understands there will be growing pains along the way.
“We’re also trying to define our game,” he said. “I think we’re getting there. Both teams play fast. It was a fast skating game. There wasn’t a lot of room to move out there for either team.”
In his short tenure behind the Senators bench, Green has seen his team play very different styles of games and knows there will be nights like this along the way, but learning from them will be key.
“There’s going to be a lot of nights where you kind of got to earn everything you get,” admitted Green. “It’s not going to be freewheeling. Good teams don’t play freewheeling hockey.
“You learn when you win, you learn when you lose games that you don’t play well. You learn when you lose games that you had a pretty good game but you still lose and you’ve got to find a way. Good teams find a way to win those games.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.
