Farmers and the general public have a wide range of opinions regarding farmland ownership and control. Interestingly, there is some agreement across the political spectrum.
From the left side of the spectrum, the National Farmers Union can be credited for researching the corporate ownership of farmland and speaking out against land being owned by investment companies.
On many issues, the NFU provides a fringe opinion, but on farmland ownership, its views have some mainstream appeal.
On the right side of the spectrum, Progressive Conservative leader Rick Swenson in Saskatchewan has been working hard to make an issue from the Canadian Pension Plan purchase of 115,000 acres of Saskatchewan farmland.
Read Also
Sask. ag group wants strychnine back
The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan has written to the federal government asking for emergency use of strychnine to control gophers
The PC Party of Saskatchewan barely registers on the political radar, and it’s hard to imagine it winning a single seat in the next provincial election.
However, Swenson’s stand against CPP farmland ownership does strike a chord with many farmers and many in the general public.
At 115,000 acres, CPP’s recent purchase isn’t a big deal, but what if the plan decides to invest billions of dollars in farmland?
Interestingly, it appears that CPP can buy Saskatchewan farmland, but other pension funds cannot. According to Sean Pratt’s story in last week’s edition of The Western Producer, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is the actual buyer of the land and it’s considered a Canadian-owned corporation. That makes it eligible to buy when other pension plans can’t.
Swenson may have tapped into mainstream opinion on the pension plan issue, but that’s where any consensus appears to end.
Few observers suggest the province should go back to the pre-2002 rules when only Saskatchewan residents could own farmland. On the other hand, many people are uncomfortable with investment companies buying large tracts of land, even if they are Canadian. Of course, no one knows where a Canadian citizen or Canadian company may be getting its money. Foreign ownership is disallowed, but foreign money is likely involved in many cases.
Intertwined with the issue of ownership is size and scale. The NFU points to Prince Edward Island, where strict limits are enforced on how much land can be owned by any one entity.
Most farmers would balk at that approach on the Prairies. It flies in the face of free enterprise and limits economies of scale.
Conversely, few tears are shed when a large corporate farm such as Broadacre-Wigmore runs into financial difficulty.
Saskatchewan has had experience with government ownership of farmland under the land bank back in the 1970s, and that was highly controversial.
As well, there was a time in the late 1980s when financial institutions ended up owning a lot of farmland, and that certainly wasn’t a happy situation.
Opinions are widely scattered on farm size and farmland ownership rules. There are many nuances to the debate, and the answers people provide depends to a great extent on just how the questions are framed.
However, the tolerance for outside ownership has limits. What if CPP decided to buy a million acres? What if a billionaire Canadian citizen decided to buy a million acres?
If the land was leased back to individual farmers, that’s one thing. If the land was the basis for a corporate farming empire, like that envisioned by Broadacre, it would have many more opponents.
The free enterprise spirit may be alive and well, but there are limits when it comes to farmland ownership and control. Debating this issue is healthy and important.
