Québec wants to act Qubec wants to act without taking notice of agricultural zoning The UPA feels a loss of influence from the Commission for the Protection of Agricultural Land 26 January 2017 The government intends to give itself the power to authorize, by simple regulation, the use of farmland for purposes other than agriculture, thereby bypassing the Quebec Agricultural Land Protection Board (CPTAQ). In Bill 122, which recognizes municipalities as local governments and increases their autonomy, a bill tabled in December by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Land Occupancy Martin Coiteux 185 can not be more explicit: " The Government may also provide by regulation for cases where the use of lots for a purpose other than agriculture is permitted without the commission's authorization. " This article is of utmost concern to the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA), which sees it as an annihilation of the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities and the role of the CPTAQ. The UPA must react to Bill 22 Thursday at a press conference. In the cabinet of Martin Coiteux, it was indicated that the Minister will present a draft regulation during the next parliamentary session at the time when the consultations on the bill will begin. It was assured that this would be to authorize uses that would have little impact on farming activities, such as operating a hairdresser's salon in a farmer's residence, Lawyers or notaries or a grain trade. But for the UPA, even though this draft regulation was extremely narrow in scope, nothing would prevent the government from adopting any other regulation in the future which would have undesirable impacts on farms and their expansion, And this, without the CPTAQ having a say. The wording of section 185 is far too broad and could be used in all respects, alleges. At present, the government has the power to disregard the recommendations of the CPTAQ and to dezoner agricultural land for public use or to satisfy private developers. But in all cases, the CPTAQ is involved. Pursuant to section 66 of the Act, " The Government may, after consulting the Commission, authorize, on the conditions it determines, the use for purposes other than agriculture, subdivision, alienation and exclusion of a lot of one Agricultural area [for the purposes] of a government department or agency " . Last year, the government used this article to seek an opinion from the CPTAQ on the dezoning of more than 30 ha of farmland in order to accommodate the station and the metropolitan power grid (REM) parking lot at Brossard. On 30 September, the Commission issued a negative opinion stating that there were several alternative locations in the white zone. The government has not yet decided whether or not to comply. In the case of private projects, the government may invoke section 96, which allows it to divest the CPTAQ of a case it has begun to consider. This was the case of the Rabaska LNG gas project in Lvis, where the government authorized the encroachment of the green zone. The same goes for the Bell Hlicoptre plant in Mirabel. In both cases, the CPTAQ did some of the work. Another source of concern The UPA is also concerned about another provision in Bill 122 that allows small rural municipalities to evade section 61.1 of the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities. Under this section, the CPTAQ may reject any application for the use of land for purposes other than agriculture solely on the grounds that there is suitable land in the white zone elsewhere in the municipality. With Bill 122, small municipalities will be able to authorize, as they wish, the construction of residences or the installation of industries in a green zone. In 1996, the UPA was granted protection in the name of the right to produce. It fears that the multiplication of residences or businesses in green areas, even on poor land, will harm the farms that will be subjected to the complaints of the vacationers. In a report tabled in December 2015, the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, Energy and Natural Resources (CAPERN), which had considered the operation of the CPTAQ, had advocated a relaxation of the Act in order to To provide devitalized rural municipalities with some development. Parliamentarians therefore recommended that the CPTAQ no longer have to judge applications for municipal facilities, agrotourism and, in some cases, residential construction on poor land. In 2009, a report commissioned by the Charest government and signed by a former president of the CPTAQ, Bernard Ouimet, recommended that the development of a resort in a green zone, in the vicinity of lakes or in the mountains, for example, Permitted to attract new residents to small rural communities. https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/490091/agriculture-quebec-veut-se-passer-de-l-avis-de-la-cptaq