The Caquista government has just adopted Bill 103 amending some fifteen laws to reduce the administrative burden on businesses. The intention is commendable. However, the vehicle of an omnibus bill has come under heavy criticism in the case of the Law on the protection of land and agricultural activities (LPTAA). Indeed, this intervention modifies its scope and long-term perverse effects are to be feared.
By its reluctance to authorize the fragmentation of agricultural land, the Commission for the Protection of Agricultural Territory (CPTAQ) is perceived as an obstacle by the next generation interested in a new model of farm in intensive production on small areas. The remedy appears simple: a modification to the LPTAA encouraging commissioners to be more flexible. In environments weakened by urban pressures, the lack of markers could, however, worsen the problem of access to land.
The government has been widely criticized for ignoring the context prevailing in agricultural land: land grabbing by non-farmers and financial groups, speculation and the meteoric rise in the price of land, difficult access to land for succession, urban pressures and the growing number of unused plots.
On the government side, we recognize the existence of these problems, but we do not take into account the fact that these phenomena are interrelated and interdependent. They contribute to a dizzying rise in prices for agricultural land, in particular by selling per square foot rather than per hectare. Recently broadcast by Radio-Canada, the documentary Quebec, asphalt land eloquently illustrates these realities.
The fragmentation is generally irreversible and the small size of the plots limits their versatility. Beautiful agricultural projects do not all have a happy fate: what will happen to small areas if production ceases?
A multitude of abandoned plots already dot the agricultural zone, causing losses for agriculture. Indeed, this dormant capital is often left fallow and generates pressure for non-agricultural uses.
Nevertheless, it is possible to minimize the use of fragmentation. An accessible directory of “forgotten” plots kept up to date by the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPAQ) could help meet the needs of certain agricultural projects. The CPTAQ has already carried out a partial inventory, widely cited in parliamentary committee. This tool could be accompanied by support from MAPAQ for the re-cultivation of infested plots. Leasing land with an option to buy is also an option: by spreading out its investments, a start-up could more easily ensure its long-term viability.
In addition to the government’s underestimation of the problems of agricultural land, there is a certain lack of concern. Minister Lamontagne showed little interest in the aforementioned solutions to avoid fragmentation as well as in strengthening the role of MAPAQ for increased development of agricultural land.
In addition, it should be noted that the Law on the acquisition of agricultural land by non-residents does not apply to plots of less than four hectares. These areas often correspond to the needs of emerging agricultural models. Market competition could then deprive the succession of plots for small farms.
Faced with so much clumsiness and inconsistency, there is really cause for concern.
In addition to the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) and, in certain respects, the Union paysanne, there are several civil society actors among the worried: Équiterre, Vivre en Ville, the Center québécois du droit de l’environnement, Nature Quebec, Protec-Terre, the Ordre des urbanistes du Québec and the Regroupement des councils regional de l’environnement.
Many specialists share this concern, including those who have not yet spoken. At the UPA congress, the leaders of the three opposition parties also addressed the subject of fragmentation and referred to the issues raised here. Wherever they come from, the findings overlap and concerns add up.
But the government remains relatively calm. This is the most worrying.
With the emerging climate and environmental crises, the vagaries of an endless pandemic and weakened market supply, our food security is becoming more precarious.
Are we forgetting, as in the 1960s, that the earth is the essential link in our diet? Does the gravity of this situation not require a national chore? Let us imagine a non-partisan approach, to which civil society and various institutions would be grafted to bring together what is best in Quebec to avoid the worst.