New Foodbelt to Protect Ontario Farmland

Summary#

Bill 21, the Protect Our Food Act, 2025, would create an advisory committee and amend Ontario’s Planning Act. Its stated goal is to protect agricultural land. It would require an Agricultural Impact Assessment before certain zoning changes, but it would not itself create a Foodbelt Protection Plan or require the government to adopt the committee’s recommendations.

  • The Lieutenant Governor in Council would appoint committee members from five groups: farmers, agricultural experts, soil scientists, professional planners, and food and agricultural organizations.
  • The committee must consult broadly with the agricultural community and publish recommendations for a geographically continuous agricultural land base within 12 months of Royal Assent.
  • The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness must report to the Legislature on the government’s progress in implementing the recommendations within 60 days after receiving them. The bill does not require the government to implement them.
  • For land zoned for prescribed agricultural uses when the Act comes into force, a municipal council or the Minister could not change the zoning or permitted uses unless an Agricultural Impact Assessment had been carried out under regulations.
  • The bill allows regulations to prescribe which agricultural uses are covered and set rules for the assessments. It would come into force on Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

  • Municipalities and the Minister: Before changing zoning or permitted uses on covered land, they would have to ensure an Agricultural Impact Assessment was carried out under the regulations.
  • Owners of potentially covered land: The bill would not itself ban development or change the land’s zoning. It would make an assessment a condition of certain zoning changes; it does not say who must arrange or pay for one.
  • Farmers and the wider agricultural community: The committee must consult broadly with the agricultural community. The bill does not create a process for individual farmers to apply for protection or require the committee to adopt any particular view.
  • General public: The bill does not directly change food prices, agricultural benefits, or existing land-use permissions. The current Planning Act was not supplied, so existing rules and how this requirement would interact with them could not be verified.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill requires appointments, a committee report, and a ministerial report, but gives no cost estimate or staffing amount.
  • It does not specify who would pay for Agricultural Impact Assessments or how much they would cost.

What is unclear#

  • Which agricultural uses would be covered depends on regulations that are not included.
  • The bill does not explain what an Agricultural Impact Assessment must contain, who conducts it, who pays, or how long it may take.
  • It does not say whether an assessment must reach a particular conclusion, only that one must have been carried out.
  • The committee can recommend protections and possible exceptions, but the bill does not say whether or when the government would adopt them.
  • The bill does not define the proposed Foodbelt’s boundaries; the committee is to recommend how farmland for it should be identified.

Case for#

  • The assessment requirement could bring agricultural impacts into consideration before certain changes to the zoning of covered farmland.
  • A committee with farmers, agricultural experts, soil scientists, planners, and relevant organizations could draw on different kinds of knowledge.
  • Requiring consultation and a public report could give the public and government a basis for considering possible protections, including soil health and limits on aggregate extraction.

Case against#

  • The bill does not establish the Foodbelt or put the committee’s proposed protections into force. The government must report on progress, but is not required to implement the recommendations.
  • The assessment requirement could delay or add costs to zoning changes, but the bill leaves the assessment process and who pays to future regulations.
  • Because key details depend on regulations, the practical reach of the zoning restriction is not clear from the bill alone.