Under the constitution, land use planning (and thereby agricultural land protection) is provincial jurisdiction, with operationalization shared with municipalities in most provinces. The federal role in agricultural land protection was restricted to research and monitoring through the Lands Directorate of Environment Canada, though most of that was abandoned in the 1990s.
The protection of agricultural land is intimately connected to how urban, suburban and peri-urban areas are planned, designed and managed. Such matters are ultimately connected to land capitalism, profit-taking, and urban capitalist values that are embedded in both the private and public sectors. Addressing the weaknesses in Canadian urban planning is a huge topic in itself, so this section only selectively addresses the most pressing problems related to agricultural land. Issues of rural land use planning are addressed under Goal 2, Demand-Supply Coordination.
Only 5% of Canada's land base is suitable for agriculture without severe constraints.Yet, by 2001, about 50% of urban and suburban land was located on good farmland (Hoffman et al., 2005), and the total increased by 19% over the next decade (Statistics Canada, 2013). Agricultural land has also been lost to transportation (highways, transport hubs, airports) and aggregate extraction for transportation and urban development. More subtle losses are associated with land fragmentation, short-term land rental, and poorly planned urban - rural edges, where proximity to urbanites results in suboptimal land utilization for agricultural production.
Although the highest rates of agricultural land loss are associated with urban and suburban areas, in many parts of Canada, the countryside is being "urbanized" by ex-urbanites settling in the country. As well, rural land fragmentation results from farmland severances, often originally to create dwellings for family members, but as farm demographics shift, these severed lots are then sold to non-farm families. Ex-urbanites often contest agricultural practices around them, leading to conflicts that are sometimes warranted, sometimes impediments.
The guiding ethos for decision makers has essentially been that the land market efficiently allocates resources to the most appropriate uses and at prices that reflect value, that farms can move elsewhere when faced with urban development pressures, or any production shortfalls can be met with more food imports. As set out on this site in many locations, these views are erroneous and run counter to sustainability and national food security imperatives.
In Canada, the main instruments of agricultural land protection have been differential property assessments (a tax incentive) and agricultural zoning and urban growth boundaries. Eight of ten Canadian provinces use preferential assessments (a lower rate of assessment if land is used for agriculture), and NB and NS use deferred (property taxes are deferred if agricultural land use is maintained). These instruments have not been particularly effective for a variety of reasons, including that land sale prices for urban development greatly exceed the tax savings, and the programs are used by land speculators while waiting to develop the land, essentially a subsidy to land developers (Bunce, 1985; American Farmland Trust, 2006). There is some benefit to keeping the land short term in farming except that the way this land is typically farmed is not environmentally sustainable.
Only BC, Ontario and Quebec have relatively strong legislative frameworks for agricultural land protection through agricultural zoning (Connell et al., 2016), though even these are compromised by exemptions, incomplete application, and failures at the municipal level to explicitly implement provincial frameworks. Other international jurisdictions, however, have employed a wider range of instruments and with greater success. Some of these have been tried on a small scale in Canada, sometimes retained, but frequently abandoned.