What does it mean to protect farmland in Prince Edward County?

A community article on the first question of the October 5, 2026, mayoral debate

The first question at the Prince Edward County mayoral debate sounded straightforward: how should the County balance development with farmland preservation? The three candidates pointed to different parts of the answer: the boundaries we draw, the protections already in place, and the places we choose to grow.

We think the conversation deserves more than 90 seconds apiece. This is a starting point for a community discussion, grounded in what the candidates said and in sources readers can examine for themselves. We also want to hear what the available records have missed.

“Ontario loses 319 acres of farmland per day to development.” Prince Edward Federation of Agriculture's debate question, read by moderator Jason Clarke, 17:28

That number is widely cited, and the concern behind it is understandable. But the phrase to development asks the number to prove more than it can. The Ontario Farmland Trust's calculation divides the decline in total land reported by Ontario farms between the 2016 and 2021 Censuses of Agriculture across those five years. Statistics Canada's definition includes cropland, pasture, woodlands, wetlands and other land, including idle land. The figure does not tell us that 319 acres were built on each day, or how much of the decline occurred in PEC.

There is a second detail that complicates the picture: Ontario's reported total farm area fell 4.7% over that period, while its reported land in crops rose 0.3%. Neither number tells us how much productive soil was permanently converted to other uses. They tell us that losing land from the census measure and losing land beneath development are related concerns that require different evidence.

The debate question also said Ontario farms produce $50 billion in food annually. The approximate $50 billion figure refers to the broader agri-food sector's contribution to the provincial economy, including activities beyond farms. The province's 2025 local food report put that contribution at nearly $51 billion in GDP. The distinction matters if we want to understand both the value of farming and what a local planning decision can protect.

The boundaries Terry Shortt wants to restore

Shortt said A1 agricultural land and environmentally protected areas should be returned to what he described as their former position. 

“A1 Agriculture means no development, and it should stay no development. EP zones should be EP zones and nothing else.” Terry Shortt, mayoral debate, 18:15

He pointed to Talbot Street as an example of farmland that became housing. His answer raises a question we would like to put on an actual map: which lands changed designation or zoning, when did they change, and what would he propose changing back?

There is room to clarify what “no development” means, too. Ontario's 2024 Provincial Planning Statement protects prime agricultural areas for long-term farming while permitting agricultural, agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses under its rules. It sharply limits new residential lots. A planning designation, a zoning category and the quality of a particular soil are different pieces of the picture. 

PEC also adopted a new comprehensive zoning by-law in 2025, with an AG agricultural zone; the County has said that by-law is subject to an appeal. That makes the dates and instruments behind Shortt's proposal especially important.

The protections Ernie Margetson says are working

Margetson emphasized the County's Land Evaluation and Area Review study, or LEAR, provincial policy and the Official Plan. He argued that these have advanced farmland protection, including by limiting severances and directing urban growth toward serviced areas. The County's description of its 2021 Official Plan says it eliminated country-lot subdivisions and reduced rural severance opportunities.

“We may lose some farmland here, but a good deal of it is lost to abandonment because we have a lot of poor land here that is designated rural.” Ernie Margetson, mayoral debate, 19:08

His distinction between development and abandonment deserves attention. A field that stops being farmed, land that ceases to be reported by a farm, and land covered by buildings have different possible futures. But the provincial acreage figure does not establish how much of PEC's change belongs to each category. What local evidence supports the scale of abandonment Margetson describes?

The mapping question Brad Nieman raised

Nieman agreed that development should focus on serviced areas, where more residents could use water and sewer systems. He also questioned what happens when a large mapped area contains smaller pockets of different land. The County's LEAR background report says smaller candidate areas of either prime agriculture or rural land may be absorbed into surrounding designations greater than 250 hectares, about 618 acres. Provincial guidance likewise considers broad, connected agricultural areas and allows smaller areas to be designated where warranted.

“So there may be prime land that could get developed because it was classed that way in the LEAR study. We don't want that.” Brad Nieman, mayoral debate, 20:27

That gives us a reason to inspect boundaries closely. It does not establish that a particular parcel of prime soil was made developable. A parcel example would let everyone examine its soil, designation, zoning and applicable policy together. It would also help us distinguish a concern about the LEAR method from a later planning decision.

“Prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, shall be designated and protected for long-term use for agriculture.” Ontario's Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, section 4.3.1

The province sets that direction. The local question is how faithfully the County's maps and individual decisions carry it through, alongside the need for housing and affordable infrastructure.

Help us examine the evidence

We welcome input from mayoral candidates; current, former and prospective councillors; County planning staff; farmers; and residents. These questions would help move the conversation forward:

• Which specific parcels or decisions illustrate a changed agricultural or environmental protection boundary? Please share the map, date or planning file if you have it.

• Is there productive soil within a Rural designation that merits another look? Which protections apply to it now?

• What PEC-specific data can distinguish permanently converted farmland from land that has ceased to be farmed or reported by a farm?

• Where can housing make use of existing or planned services, and how would those locations affect infrastructure costs and nearby farms?

Add a comment below or email hello@pecconnect.ca. Firsthand experience is welcome; for factual claims, please include a document or link where possible so neighbours can check the same evidence. We will review substantive contributions and update or follow up on this article as the picture becomes clearer.

Farmland protection is a long-term promise made one planning decision at a time. Let's make sure we know what those decisions protect, what they leave open, and what evidence would help the County choose well.

---

Debate quotations are from the timestamped transcript generated by PEC Connect. Quotations have been excerpted for length without changing their wording.