When the CAQ government has concluded the purchase of the lands of Rabaska, east of Lévis, it will indeed have its hands and feet tied. But not in the same way as he recently suggested: Quebec will inherit the contractual obligation to re-include this territory as an agricultural zone.
This is essentially what two agricultural producers, father and daughter, discovered by carefully reading all the documents of the agreement reached between the Union of Agricultural Producers (UPA) and the Rabaska company in 2007. The latter are keen to “lift the veil” on the details “to make it clear to everyone that there is a contract and that it is valid,” says farmer Jean Gosselin.
It was the government of Quebec which — by decree — subtracted the entire 271.7 hectares on October 3, 2007. This rezoning was carried out despite a preliminary orientation and an unfavorable opinion from the body which should have been seized of the case, namely the Commission for the Protection of Agricultural Land (CPTAQ).
A few months before, the UPA had reached an agreement with Rabaska. The document provides on the one hand that the provisions will be “assigned” to any successor. The government of Quebec, which has confirmed that it wants to acquire these lands, will therefore have to “assume all of the commitments made by Rabaska”, it is written in black and white in the 2007 memorandum of understanding.
On the other hand, another document was then signed to specify a “complementary commitment”. In the event of non-realization of the Rabaska project, the company undertook to take steps with the government to “reinclude in the agricultural zone the lots totaling an approximate area of 271.7 hectares”, states this addendum.
The abandonment of the project was confirmed in 2013, but the land has never been returned since, despite repeated requests, including from the UPA. In particular, she turned to the Superior Court to obtain an injunction.
Towards redemption
The Minister of Economy and Energy, Pierre Fitzgibbon, confirmed on September 19 the government’s intentions to purchase these coveted lands. An agreement between his ministry and Rabaska was signed on July 20, according to information from Quebec Journal.
A few days before, the Minister of Agriculture, André Lamontagne, had affirmed at a press conference that the government was powerless in this matter. The land belongs to private interests, he argued.
The power to repatriate land in the agricultural zone in the event of non-completion of a project was only added to the law in 2021 and it is not retroactive, explained Mr. Lamontagne.
However, this is precisely what part of the 2007 UPA agreement contains, the obligation to take steps with Quebec.
But why doesn’t the UPA use this lever? This is what concerns Françoise Legault and her father, Jean Gosselin, who consulted two lawyers to ensure that their interpretation was correct. Their approach is not at odds with the position of the agricultural union, but they are both concerned about a certain “ambiguity” that they detect in the speech.
The contract is very clear and Quebec must comply. The UPA has four aces up its sleeve and must play them.
“The UPA was far-sighted in sealing an agreement with Rabaska in 2007,” says M.me Legault, co-owner of Ferme des Ruisseaux, in Pintendre, very close to Lévis. “It would be appropriate today for the UPA to publicly reaffirm its desire to demand full compliance with the protocol concluded with Rabaska by Quebec, as the future owner of the premises,” said Mr. Gosselin.
“The contract is very clear and Quebec must comply. The UPA has four aces up its sleeve and must play them,” he maintains. Co-founder of this organic market garden farm that he has passed on to his daughter since 2019, he was among the group of agricultural producers who made representations to the CPTAQ at the time.
It is now a “golden opportunity to repair the affront,” they wrote in a letter sent to the Prime Minister. At a time when Quebec launched a consultation on the protection of agricultural land, the two producers wish to raise this issue to capital importance, and ask the Prime Minister “to act in an exemplary manner,” declares Mme Legault.
She adds that the government must not weaken its own laws and the authority of the CPTAQ. “The decree was made for a project in 2007 and we are still using this rezoning for another project, which we do not know about. Is it acceptable to do it like this? » asks Mme Legault.
In the event of the re-inclusion of land in an agricultural zone, projects other than agricultural could simply be submitted and evaluated by the CPTAQ “through the front door and not by a decree,” recalls Mr. Gosselin.