The area is in high demand due to its proximity to the Highway 401 corridor and growing industrial hubs such as the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Greater Toronto Area and there are lessons to learn as Ontario urban areas continue to grow into farmland.

WHY IT MATTERS: Significant pressure to grow housing and industrial areas comes into conflict with the need to maintain high-quality farmland.

In February 2024, the County of Wellington launched an urban boundary expansion review and received settlement area boundary expansion requests totalling more than 973 hectares.

One of the most affected municipalities within the county is Centre Wellington, home to the communities of Fergus, Elora, Belwood and Salem.

According to Township of Centre Wellington data, the municipality is expected to grow to a population of 58,200 by 2051, with total employment reaching 25,100. The majority of this growth will take place in the Fergus and Elora–Salem urban centres.

Under the More Homes Built Faster Act, the government of Ontario has mandated a residential construction acceleration of 1.5 million new homes in 10 years across the province.

The province has stated that, to accommodate the land needs assessment for this area, a settlement area boundary expansion of 398 hectares of residential and employment lands will be required in Centre Wellington.

In a community with a strong history of opposing rural development, farmers and politicians are making their concerns known to the province. A social media campaign has been launched to raise awareness of the risks of expanding into prime agricultural lands.

Land on the brink of development

Janet Harrop owns Harrcroft Acres with her husband, Ian, and their family just north of Fergus. She is also the past president of the Wellington Federation of Agriculture.

Harrop was among the participants in videos shared on Facebook. She believes that once land is rezoned for future development, investment in that land declines significantly.

“When farmers are unsure how long they will be able to rent land, they are less likely to invest in drainage or other improvements that would increase the land’s agronomic value,” she said.

She is concerned that land around the edge of Centre Wellington already approved for inclusion within the urban boundary, along with several parcels developers are seeking to include through the Ontario Land Tribunal, consists largely of prime agricultural land.

Harrop notes that only 0.5 per cent of Canada’s total land base comprises Class 1 soil, the highest quality classification. She adds that Wellington County accounts for three per cent of Ontario’s prime agricultural land.

She fears the expansion will affect more than access to farmland, driving up both land costs and rental prices.

“If farmers have a long-term lease with certainty, they are more willing to pay more for the land. Parcels next to the urban boundary will be viewed by the development community as long-term investments for future development and will inflate farmland values,” she said, adding that municipalities must plan a “buffer” when expanding urban boundaries.

Harrop believes the plan will not only fragment farmland but also introduce non-farming residences through surplus farm dwelling severances or additional severances on secondary agricultural land. She said this can disrupt farm equipment movement, limit future expansion due to minimum distance separation (MDS) requirements and increase conflicts with non-farm neighbours.

Also, she says, this type of expansion places strain on communities that lack infrastructure to support large-scale development.

The value of Wellington County’s soil must be recognized to keep farmers in the area, she says, noting the loss of quality farmland will drive up prices and threaten generational farming.

Harrop said growth can instead be managed through intensification.

“For example, a four-storey apartment building with 40 units versus 40 homes built on 0.5-acre lots would save 20 acres of farmland,” she said. “There also needs to be weighting based on the type of farmland being developed. Prime agricultural land should not be used to grow homes; it should be used to grow food.”

Protecting land a “societal responsibility”

Bronwynne Wilton is the Ward 5 councillor in Centre Wellington and a rural-urban planning consultant. Her ward includes one of the largest areas of farmland in the township.

She says protecting farmland should be a societal responsibility, noting residents in mixed urban-rural communities may not fully understand the impact of expansion.

Wilton acknowledges farmers face moral and financial pressure from developers.

“To ask a farmer to turn down a fairly lucrative offer is difficult,” she said, noting much farm equity is tied to land rather than the operating business. “I think a lot of farmers struggle with it, but on the other hand, that’s probably their retirement income — something passed down to their children and grandchildren.”

Wilton notes municipalities’ hands are often tied because urban boundary expansion guidelines are set by the province, including farmland classification systems that may not align with local priorities.

In a community known for civic engagement, Wilton believes awareness of farmland risks is strong.

“I think people are recognizing that we do have really good farmland, and many feel a connection to the farm community in one way or another,” she said. “People are realizing that we can’t just keep paving over farmland.”

Mike Schreiner, leader of the Green Party of Ontario, has been closely monitoring expansion plans in Wellington County. He has lived in Guelph for many years and says municipalities are pushing back against what he calls “the Ford government’s sprawl agenda” because of costs and farmland loss.

He argues the province has increasingly intervened to force boundary expansions that benefit developers.

“Wellington County is one of the Ford government’s targets despite strong local pushback,” he said. “I’ve spoken with planners, farmers and residents who want to see farms and the agricultural sector protected from expensive sprawl.”

Schreiner added that amid global trade instability, protecting rural economies is essential to safeguarding jobs and food security.

“As I developed the Protect Our Food Act, experts, planners and farmers all agreed that loss of farmland is more than just loss of land. It threatens food sovereignty, jobs, prosperity and access to fresh local food,” he said. “We need to build more affordable homes in the communities people love — and it is more affordable to do so without paving over farmland.”

He noted previous rules required comprehensive reviews before settlement boundaries could be expanded, but said the provincial government has weakened those safeguards and overridden local decisions.

“To protect Ontario’s precious farmland, this government needs to reintroduce stronger checks and balances, make it easier to build within existing urban boundaries and allow public servants to do their jobs without ministerial interference,” he said.

Schreiner added that his bill has already received support from the Township of Centre Wellington, which he says demonstrates municipalities “do not want to see their farmland paved over for expensive, low-density sprawl.”

The post Wellington County farmers push back as urban expansion threatens prime farmland appeared first on Farmtario.

Electoral maps for 2018, 2022, and 2025 show the majority of constituencies outside major urban centres voted for the Progressive Conservatives, with individual PC candidates winning their seats with healthy leads more often than not.

The proportion of the total share of provincial votes was 2.4 per cent and 2.7 per cent higher in 2025 than in 2022 and 2018, respectively.

Setting aside the abysmal voter turnout rates characteristic of these elections, the continued preference for blue in farm country comes as the Ford government has pursued policies likely to exacerbate urban sprawl.

There have, for example, been efforts to increase severance allowances, which would add significant pressure on farmers contending with minimum distance requirements.

There’s also the proposed Highway 413, the scandals surrounding the opening of Greenbelt lands, expropriation of land for large scale manufacturing and the overriding of local government decision-making and planning processes.

We’ve also seen the suspension of conservation authority powers to limit or even advise on development, and scrapping of environmental restrictions and local planning assessments in “special economic zones.”

What will come of agricultural programming and other community-led initiatives as the province moves to consolidate conservation authorities could be another potential blow to farmers.

To give credit where it’s due, the Ford government has done some good things as well. My local area, for example, was granted significant funding for a major (and long sought) water infrastructure project to serve a growing greenhouse and industrial zone.

More broadly, farm organizations like the Ontario Federation of Agriculture welcomed the 2025 provincial budget for it’s support of the Risk Management Program, as well as rural economic development and infrastructure.

Anecdotally, too, individuals in local governance have told me they find Ford and members of his cabinet to be accessible and receptive to their concerns.

That’s not been my experience, but I’m happy it was theirs.

The underlying problem, from my own perspective, is the current provincial government’s vision for the future appears to be more of the same — more urban sprawl, more automobiles, more factories, more highways.

To steal the government’s own catch-phrase, is that really building a better Ontario if steps are not also taken to safeguard farmland and agriculture?

To me, it sounds more like building a bigger problem.

Maybe rural Ontario keeps voting blue because of a lack of vigour from the opposition parties. Maybe it’s residual resentment of those same parties. The Wynne and McGuinty Liberal governments had their fair share of faceplants, after all.

Maybe it’s a demographics question with comparatively few younger voters participating in the electoral process, or broader cultural issues.

We all have motivations for voting the way we do, and those can change.

Regardless of the reason(s) for voting blue provincially, at the next go-round, it might be a good idea to scrutinize whether those reasons matter more than the negative impact the Ford government is having on our small towns, farming communities, and remaining natural spaces.

Because when they’re looking at your fields and forests, they appear to see urban and industrial development potential — not your farm.

The post Why does farm country keep voting blue? appeared first on Farmtario.

Brendan Byrne, Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO) chair, and CEO Crosby Devitt fielded questions on what measures the organization was taking toward agricultural land protection and intensification planning to address increasing housing pressure during the organization’s annual meeting on Sept. 12 near Woodstock.

Why it matters: Amid the increasing cost of farming, concerns around losing farming’s greatest asset — land — are increasing in the face of recent provincial planning strategy changes.

Byrne said there are regional differences and strong opinions on either side regarding the Greenbelt and planning strategy issue.

“At this time, we don’t have a set stance on the Greenbelt protection,” he said.

“There are others talking about expanding it and wanting more Greenbelt protection, and that comes with a whole other list of concerns.”

One member challenged Byrne’s statement, saying regardless of which side the organization fell on the Greenbelt issue, there should be a solid position that protecting agricultural lands must be a priority within a workable provincial planning strategy.

“Planners in the GTA area, or any city, within the city limits, said they have lots of space that could be built on – that transitional housing or the affordable housing they need,” she said. “As long as there is land within the urban centre that could be built on, that’s where you should be doing it. Where the people want to live, where the people are.”

In response, Devitt told members fulsome conversations are happening behind the scenes with the government.

“(There’s) a realization that regardless of how this planning, how this development happens, we’re going to see more people living in rural Ontario,” said Devitt.

“And small communities are growing.”

GFO’s pushed for investment into farm-friendly infrastructure, road access, and the need to address existing traffic issues for producers as residential builds encroach on farmland. Devitt said the tax burden shouldn’t shift to farmers with these increased tax bases but lower the tax rate instead.

“We’ve got strong Right to Farm legislation that protects farmers in their operations and their ability to do things,” he explained, adding robust rural trespassing regulations, biosecurity standards, and education opportunities to inform new rural residents could assist in creating farm advocates instead of adversaries.

“They’re (issues) not directly related to planning but understanding that, whatever happens here,” Devitt said. “We’re seeing hundreds of thousands of people coming into Ontario every year, and they’ve got to live somewhere.”

Throughout 2023, GFO pushed for a total carbon tax exemption, supporting Bill C-234’s progression to the Senate for review, fertilizer tariff rebates, and science-based government policy decision-making.

Attaining a full carbon tax exemption relies on the Senate committee and additional conversations with MPs from all parties to gain support.

Additionally, GFO representatives have threaded discussions on the importance of biofuels as a clean energy source as the transition to embrace electric vehicles continues into the meetings.

On the fertilizer front, Byrne said the end goal remains the same:

• No barriers to access.
• Rebates on tariffs paid.
• No regulated restrictions on use.

“We brought fertilizer into food security conversations,” he said. “Some tariff dollars did find their way back into farmers’ pockets.”

“The Stone-X (GFO commissioned report) gave really good data to bring to the government to show them the usage, show them why it’s important to our economy as a whole, and try to have some of those conversations around trade,” he said. “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage to not be able to source from nations because the other nations then know they can overcharge.”

Byrne explained adding sustainability to agriculture is one thing, but ensuring farming is sustainable and building a robust agricultural sector is critical.

“The number one priority for us is that the farmers in Ontario can keep growing,” said Byrne. “That’s growing the seed on your farms, but also keeping in mind that legacy group coming up behind you that’s going to work the land.”

The post GFO members bring land planning and protection concerns to annual meeting appeared first on Farmtario.

The Greenbelt was established in 2005 to protect environmentally sensitive lands and farmland from urban development but the recently announced act, known as Bill 23, will remove 7,400 acres from protection. 

Wayne Caldwell, professor of rural planning and development at the University of Guelph, said he can’t recall a time when the government moved so powerfully to override the wants and desires of communities regarding their growth trajectory.

[RELATED] Calls for farmland protection intensify amid daily land losses

Why it matters: The Ontario government plans to allow more homes on protected lands, which concerns farm groups and conservation authorities.

Caldwell said Bill 23 diminishes the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens to engage in the planning process and influence policy, and it modifies a decades-old balance of accommodating urban development.

“That was a balance of trying to accommodate urban development in the context of appropriate growth, into appropriate locations, at appropriate densities, with appropriate timing,” he said.

The omnibus legislation would roll back the powers of Conservation Authorities (CAs) and eliminate permits for development projects approved under the planning act. It prevents CAs from entering agreements with municipalities regarding planning proposals or applications and requires them to identify CA-owned or controlled lands to support housing development.

Bill 23 would overhaul the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, making fewer wetlands designated as significant, and would override CA’s ability to regulate or prohibit development that negatively affects wetlands, rivers and streams.

Caldwell tipped his hat to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s evolving farmland protection policy, which ensures decisions made to protect farmland are in the interests of the farm community, livelihoods and agriculture.

Drew Spoelstra, OFA vice-president and Hamilton-area farmer, said Hamilton city planners put forward a plan that could meet growth targets through denser development while maintaining a healthy, productive farmland base around the urban boundary.

The province’s rejection and subsequent amendments will force Hamilton to open land for development, most of which is prime agricultural land that produces food, fibre and fuel. In addition, the proposed changes remove Greenbelt acres, including a market garden operation that produces local foods for consumers around Ancaster.

Spoelstra said everyone has witnessed higher costs and demand for diversity in housing. The OFA supports the need for housing, but said building and growth must happen responsibly.

“The bottom line is that most of these plans aren’t good for agriculture. They’re not good for future planning of the farm business in these areas and around the GTA,” Spoelstra said. “We think there are better ways to get there than just gobbling up more prime ag land.”

Amendments to the current plan would see development on Whitebelt land earmarked for future growth past 2050. The Whitebelt is not currently developed, but is not protected from future development. It’s comprised of lands between the outer edge of approved urban development areas surrounding the Greater Toronto Area, Hamilton, and the Greenbelt.

“Do you want to grow your urbanized area and make it as best it can be? Then in 2051, you have these Whitebelt lands, if we need them, and you can plan as responsibly as possible to utilize that land to its best use.”

When protected areas like the Greenbelt are opened to investors and developers, it can trigger land speculation, inflate land values and reduce emphasis on densification and preserving farmland, said Caldwell.

“There’s a risk there. If you’re putting more people into smaller confirmed spaces, you tend to create better quality urban spaces, but you’re also protecting farmland somewhere.”

He noted the planning process can be slow but for a good reason. It allows time to conduct studies on the short- and long-term impacts of development that could result in liabilities for the municipality.

“We need to address housing, (but) we need to do that rationally, and sometimes planning decisions do honestly take too long,” he said. “But often, it’s for a reason, and it’s about making sure that we don’t jeopardize the future with fixed or term decisions that may undervalue some of those historical things we’ve done pretty well in this province.”

[RELATED] Farmland at risk with new housing initiative

The Greater Golden Horseshoe is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. Janet Horner, executive director of the Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance, said the government must carefully manage expansion and land use there to protect agricultural production.

“With a temperate climate, fertile soils and proximity to local and North American markets, farmers and food businesses in the area have an unmatched opportunity to meet the growing demand for food,” said Horner in a news release.

“Protection of the land base through sound land-use planning and intensification policies will help ensure that Canada’s food supply chain remains strong.”

In 2020, the agri-food sector within the 7,200 square kilometres of Greenbelt generated approximately $4.1 billion in GDP. It provided 59,000 jobs and generated $900 million in farm purchases of goods and services in 2017, according to a Greenbelt Foundation report released in February 2022.

Spoelstra said not all government officials grasp the rapid disappearance of farmland from the landscape. He hopes commodity groups will present a united front in lobbying the province to protect agricultural lands.

The pandemic highlighted the importance of domestic food security and Ontario’s ability to produce food, he added.

“The OFA is not the authority on planning in the province, but I think we can safely say we are one of the authorities when it comes to agriculture,” said Spoelstra. “This will have long-term negative effects on farming. That’s not something we want to see happen.”

The post Ontario government’s Bill 23 accelerates concern about loss of farmland appeared first on Farmtario.