2, 2004: Ontario’s countryside has a park-like
quality and our provincial government wants to protect 600,000
acres of it as the Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt. Economic benefits
and enhanced quality of life for millions are the expected
results. A greenbelt will make communities stronger and more
livable. It fits in with my desire for better stewardship
of creation. I don’t doubt that our government and its
Greenbelt Task Force have their hearts in the right place.
The proposal is steeped in the language of agricultural protection,
calling up images of an agriculture frozen in time. The agriculture
I know is a dynamic entrepreneurial sector that constantly
adopts –- and adapts -- new technology. A mindset of
protection for agriculture is a mistake. We plan for housing,
for commercial uses and for industrial uses. A greenbelt needs
to plan for agriculture, not as it is, but as it can be.
Farmers wear two hats. They run entrepreneurial businesses
and they are landowners. A greenbelt will impact both. The
public consultations heard lots of eloquent landowner voices.
For decades Toronto, Hamilton and the surrounding smaller
cities have been sprawling across some of our best farmland.
The price of farmland in much of the proposed greenbelt has
soared to speculative levels. Expectations for financial gain
are rampant. Now society is changing its mind: that last crop
of houses may never come -- shattering expectations.
In the shadow of those articulate voices it is easy to underestimate
the impact of a greenbelt on the business of farming. Farming
in a park will dramatically shift business opportunities.
The history of Ontario agriculture is low cost production
for the markets of the world. We drained low lands, tore out
fence rows, buried stone piles, built ever bigger barns and
used technology to develop intensive production. In a park,
farmers will be challenged to rethink the investments and
management systems developed over generations. Some technologies
will be unwelcome. Some production opportunities will be incompatible.
Farmers face the new and the untried in a setting that emphasizes
the environmental health of scenic landscapes.
Will the millions who get the economic benefits and enhanced
quality of life be willing to pay for these improvements?
The group of farm businesses and rural landowners that will
be asked to deliver these greenbelt services is small. If
this park is to be permanent, farmers and landowners must
be paid for the benefits they deliver.
A greenbelt should be pleasant place. Can it be permanent
if it is a place of frustrated farmers and angry landowners?
The Greenbelt Task Force needs a strong recommendation in
its final report – the proposed greenbelt services need
to be paid for by the millions who will benefit.
Bill 27, Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004 can be found at www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/
The Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper can be found at
Corner Post can be heard weekly on CFCO Radio, Chatham and
CKNX Radio, Wingham, Ontario. Corner Post has an email subscriber
list of more than 3,000 and appears regularly on Ag Worldwide
Correspondents at www.agriculture.com/worldwide/correspondents/index.html.
Corner Post is archived at www.christianfarmers.org/commentary/Corner-Post.htm.
To be added to the electronic distribution list of Corner
Post, send email to email@example.com with SUBSCRIBE
as the message. To remove your name, send email with UNSUBSCRIBE
as the message.