County of Peterborough I…

County of Peterborough

I applaud you and your ministry to find a solution for housing developments. I am a farmer in Peterborough County and I may have a different view outside the commodity farm groups that have lobbied to pause Bill 97 “3 lot severance” legislation.

The use of farm land isn’t an easy topic to breach especially with older generational farmers and the groups that support them.

The solution requires a wholistic analysis of our past, present and future and the move forward is one that needs to be mostly on a case by case or region by region basis as soils, weather and farm operations change throughout Ontario.

My family has generationally farmed since the loyalist established themselves in Ontario. My family has run grain farms, dairy operations and supported farmers by working in farm industries. My family have operated farms from Stratford, Niagara escarpment and now in Peterborough. I personally have seen how farming is affected by classification of farm, location of the farm and economics of today.

Simply, farming is a difficult lifestyle and the youth are not as quick to fall in love with the profession and I strongly believe the Conservative government can save this industry and solve the housing shortage.

As we all know people resist change and fear is the biggest driver to resist this new proposal of bill 97. Those farmers and support groups who are opposing the bill are from such a small but loud group they are stubborn to listen from those of us that are experiencing current farming frictions.

Let me break this down by a time line of past, present and future.

In the past my grandfather was allowed one severance per child to allow the youth to live close to the farm and to support the farm operation as the farmer ages. Even though the argument was these severances were not staying in the farm families that lead to the creation of prime ag designations and restrictions on land use. My grandfathers farm is still in our family and is still being farmed today, the 3 acres that were severed did not change the success of farming regardless of who owned the 3 lots. As a matter of fact one lot was a retirement lot for my grandparents as my one uncle took over the farmhouse, second was for my family where I was raised working on the farm, and the third allowed my other uncle to sell and use as a deposit on his own dairy farm in Stratford. So even though the lots didn’t stay in the family they allowed my family to run 2 more farms outside our homestead farm where they originated.

To look at the recent times, with the official plans directing local governments to designate prime ag areas, it became an all or nothing choice of the farmer. This meant that to modernize the farm, change farming commodity or to simply pass the farm to the next generation the farmer was held hostage to the reality that the farmer may be forced to sell and without the ability to sever a small portion to generate funds or to keep family close, the farmer is forced to sell the farm in its entirety. With prime ag designation being closely boarded to larger cities the farms were being purchased by developers.

So the “spirit” behind the official plan and prime ag designation to save farmland actually accelerated its demise.

Specifically my farm in Peterborough, and farms like it, may shed a different view than those groups that opposed the bill.

My family was able to purchase our current farm because the previous family was unable to sever lots so their next generation could continue farming.

Our farm was purchased in 2010 for $400,000. The farm house was nearing a tear down status. I was able to renovate and re-established the homestead to its former grandeur. This brought the value up and with the recent demographic and economic conditions over the past 8 years we saw our property value increase to 2.4 million.

In Peterborough, the farms in my immediate area have acidic soil. This causes a nutrient disruption for the plants and therefore results in low crop yields. Also our weather heat units prevent certain crops from reaching full maturity and therefore again low yields. Peterborough county farms should not be classed as the same as pristine farmland in southern Ontario.

For example my farm in Peterborough averages 27-30 bushels per acre of soybeans,whereas, my grandfathers farm on the Niagara escarpment produces closer to 100 bushels per acre.

In Peterborough we switched our crop type to garlic. Garlic will not only use the high ph soil for flavouring it also balances the soil (slowly if we continue for the next 20 yrs). The ph, even though, it gives good flavour it still causes a smaller bulb. We began to dehydrate our garlic into powder as grocery stores were not interested in a smaller bulb. Our powder is unique and superior to anything out on the market.

As a matter of fact we ran a booth in the Weston Farmer Market in Toronto in 2022 (same riding as Michael Ford) and sold our famous powder to Kathy Ford, Michael’s mom and the Premier’s sister. The Ford family knows personally what our farm is capable of by listening to the land and working with the land to develop a food program that is otherwise imported into Canada.

This crop change to accommodate our soil issue and further processing into powder causes huge infrastructure inputs. Specialized equipment, high labour costs and the marketing of product to consumers.
This combined with the disruption of covid and now into high inflationary conditions is causing business frictions that will cause our operation to cease if legislation isn’t changed.

To play this scenario out; our soil requires specialization of cropping, the specialized crop requires new infrastructure and our farm is valued over $2,000,000. Without the ability to make a small severance to afford these expenses now that inflation has dramatically increased operating costs we will be forced to sell the entire farm. Due to the value of the farm and the productivity of our soil no new farmer will ever farm the land for a profit and no farmer will rent the land due to lower yields and low commodity prices. Our farm is within 4km of the Peterborough City limits and growth of the city with the proposed annexation will cause our farm to eventually be consumed by a developer. So a new property owner will be focused on an investment opportunity to sell and develop the entire land as opposed to feeding our communities.

So for an unchanged future, to those that oppose the 3 lot severance, I hope I’ve shown how this will continue the same current destruction of farmland at a faster rate. The “all or nothing” scenario that will continue to destroy prime ag land as cities grow with our immigration mandates. This will further increase land values and we are in a shortage of supply and increasingly higher demand.

To refute the arguments presented by those opposed to bill 97;

Severances will not affect farm production as the lots that are severed are along the road frontage and these acres typically produce lower crop yields that the acres deeper in to the interior of the farm.

Severances will not increase the farm land values. This is ludicrous to say. With a continued shortage of all types of houses units will continue to increase land values, not the creation of smaller lots.

Even though new lots may prevent livestock operations from expanding under current environmental regulations and use of such operations, not all farms are livestock farms.

The severances approval does not force farmers to create them, it allows the farmer to react to his current situation and allows options.

There are several reasons why a farmer may want to sever. To allow family to live on the farm to continue to farm, to pay down debt, modernize operations, change commodity type. It allows for monies to be generated so the farm operation can pay the capital gains on generation ownership change.

There are several reasons for a case by case or region by region solution especially with the diverse soil, weather and commodity type across our province.

My proposal to solve all concerns of those opposed to bill 97 in relation to farm operations is as follows;

The farmer must provide the “need” to legislators to justify the request and show how it relates to a benefit to farming. The land owner must be a registered farmer working the land not just renting to a neighbouring farmer. The farmer must own the land for certain time periods between severance lots being granted (ie 10yrs ownership first lot, 15yrs second lot etc) Also put a limit on how much land can be severed (ie 10% total over the period of ownership).

Simply the “cookie cutter” technique to regulate our provincial farm land will never work as the land and style of farming is so diverse over our province. To loose or too strict will cause farming to be reduced as history has shown. Providing a platform for a case by case justification to request will appease all sides of the “for and against”.

I would be open to an interactive dialogue and discussion with your staff if you so request.