Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Well, it has begun—sort of! It is March 31, 2010, 10:30 a.m., I am sitting in the King Township Council Chambers. The Ontario Municipal Board hearing is about to get under way with respect to the site plan for the York Energy Centre. A 393MW (but licensed for 435MW) natural gas-fired peaker power plant to be imposed on the Stewards of the Land in an area known as the Holland Marsh, (the Salad Bowl of Ontario, Greenbelt, Protected Countryside, flood plain, Specialty Crop Area, to name a few of the pieces of legislation that “protect” this sensitive, high value vegetable food production area) by the proponent, Pristine.

We all stand when the judge enters the room. The lawyer for the proponent and the Township are present, together with some members of the farming community (of which one is a participant), Holland Marsh Growers’ Association Executive Director who is a participant, Concerned Citizens of King Township (CCKT) a couple of whom are participants, the Executive Director for the Global Environmental Action Group who is a participant, along with others who have come to show their support in opposition to the location of this facility.

Some guidelines are laid down by the judge for the media present. After this, it’s down to business.

The referral of the site plan motion is scheduled to commence Tuesday, April 6, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. at King Township Council Chambers. We are advised that Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure will apply, and a Form 53 of the Courts of Justice Act must be filed. This is not applicable to summons’ witnesses. The expert evidence will be heard first, and then the participants statements will be heard. The dates for the 10 day hearing are discussed amongst the judge, and the two solicitors, with a couple of these dates being tentative. We are adjourned until Tuesday, April 6/10.

A videographer from Rogers Cable is interviewing several people—one being the proponent’s lawyer. I hear him say that this peaker plant facility is necessary, and words to the effect that it has to go in. Really? And the ONLY available place to build this facility is in the Salad Bowl of Ontario? Less than a kilometer from where our valuable crops are grown, and the waterway we irrigate from!

Our population is growing, and is only going to continue to grow. Taking prime agricultural land out of production, and potentially reducing the yields of the crops on the land remaining as a result of the impact the emissions from the YEC may have on our waterways, and organic based soil seems, to me, a step backward—not forward thinking at all!

I’ve said this before, this power plant is not even going to benefit our area with us having access to the electricity. The energy will be for Bradford, and north-eastern York Region, not the Holland Marsh!

I was also interviewed by Rogers, and asked what I would like to see come out of this OMB hearing? I advised that the land for the YEC is located in the Greenbelt, which was supposed to be protected for green space and food production (Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan). However, the government can step in and impose infrastructure running at 35% efficiency that is clearly a “conflict use”. I’m also baffled that the MOE , or whoever receives the “studies” information has not jumped on at LEAST 2 facts that have come to my attention, as a “lay person”:

1). “all necessary studies have been completed with no negative impact to this area…” regarding the impact from the emissions from this facility on soil. Yes, MINERAL soil—this is key, since studies DO NOT EXIST to show the impact of said emissions on ORGANIC BASED/MUCK/PEAT soil (Specialty Crop Area soils) such as are present in the Holland Marsh. There are many types of soil out there—not just mineral!

2). “the emissions from the YEC fall within acceptable parameters”. Sure they do, if you are farming the land at the Pearson International Airport, which is the airshed that was tested for acceptable emissions levels. The last time I checked, there was no airport in the Holland Marsh. The airshed that should have been tested was right here, and not near the highway either. Why wasn’t the air where the plant will be built tested. My guess, probably because the emissions test would not fall within acceptable parameters!

I find it ironic that at a time when government is pushing Farmers to invest more money (at their own expense) on food safety, food traceability, continued reduction in fertilizer and pesticide use, together with on-going tri-annual certification of Farmers in this regard (all to preserve our environment), requiring Farmers to obtain Permits to Take Water to irrigate their crops, strict human rights rules and regs (as employers we are NOT to put our employees in harms way, but must make sure their workplace is safe—by imposing this power plant in this agricultural area, our health is being put at risk—again, I find it ironic that the government would push this type of industry here), to name a few of the rules we must adhere to--that this same government is calling the Farmers NIMBYs, and pushing this peaker power plant down our throats. Even going so far as to say that the environmental assessment applied to this facility (which is the equivalent to that of a 2 MW windmill) is sufficient for a 393 MW natural gas fired peaker plant!

So, back to what I would like to see come out of this OMB hearing? I would like to see this entire project put on a shelf. We have all this new legislation, and Plans and Acts, but the science, assessments and logic is 40 years old—it must be revised. Municipalities should be allowed to conduct studies in order to see exactly how this type of industry will impact the communities they know, but most of all the Farmers of the Holland Marsh must be allowed to continue to do what they do best—grow safe, healthy, nutritious food for you and me without the additional challenges a peaker power plant will no doubt present to them!

Avia Eek

Holland Marsh Farmer

Views: 59

Comment

You need to be a member of Ontario Agriculture to add comments!

Join Ontario Agriculture

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Trade with China

China’s Anti-Discrimination Investigation On March 8, 2025, China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) announced the outcome of its anti-discrimination investigation initiated in September 2024 as a result of the federal government’s imposition of tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, steel and aluminum. In response to Canada, China’s State Council Tariff Commission will impose a 100 per cent tariff rate on Canadian canola oil and canola meal along with several other tariffs on other Canadian agricultural commodities as of March 20, 2025. Tariffs from the State Council Tariff Commission resulting from the anti-discrimination investigation are separate and distinct from China’s anti-dumping investigation into imports of Canadian canola seed which is ongoing. China’s Anti-Dumping Investigation On August 12, 2025, China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) announced its preliminary ruling as part of its anti-dumping investigation into Canadian canola seed imports. In its ruling, MOFCOM announce

Advocating for Trade and Market Diversification on The Hill

Canadian canola farmers are navigating major trade volatility. Ongoing tariffs have closed access to China, once a $4.9 billion market, while uncertainty around the upcoming Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) review is putting Canada’s two largest export markets under pressure. At the same time, Canada’s growing biofuels sector offers a valuable opportunity for canola farmers. With strong policy support, biofuels can drive new domestic demand for canola and reduce farmers’ exposure to trade disruptions. Canada’s canola farmers rely on predictable market access. These shifts show how quickly geopolitical issues and national policies can ripple back to the farm gate.  As the national representative of Canada’s 40,000 canola farmers, Canadian Canola Growers Association (CCGA) has been front and centre with the federal government, calling for a political solution to the China tariff dispute and for a canola-friendly biofuels policy.  Canola’s Annual Lobby Day Every year, the Board o

Revitalizing rural and agricultural infrastructure

Since 2023, Alberta’s government has taken action to support ag societies through the Agricultural Societies Infrastructure Revitalization Program, strengthening the quality of life in rural communities. The program has delivered $7.5 million in total grants for 106 ag society projects over the past three years, including funds allocated this year. This funding has helped ag societies with improvements and repairs to commercial kitchens, roofs, horse riding arenas and heating and ventilation in ice rinks, and has increased accessibility and energy efficiency in rural facilities. Alberta’s rural communities need up-to-date facilities to promote community involvement and economic growth. These buildings are central hubs, offering residents the opportunity to gather, engage and connect with their neighbours. “Ag societies have an important role in the quality of life for Alberta villages, towns and rural communities. Throughout the year they welcome Albertans to community events, from l

Canada makes commitments to international ag

Canada will spend almost $400 million to support farmers around the world

Growth Promoters and the Environment Revisited

In October 2021, this column described a research project that examined how long residues from growth promoters persist in the feedlot environment. They learned that residues from trenbolone acetate (TBA; used in some growth implants to mimic testosterone) and melengestrol acetate (MGA; sometimes fed to heifers to suppress estrus) dissipate very quickly after they’re excreted. However, residues from ractopamine (a feed additive that improves feed efficiency, weight gain and leanness late in the feeding period) could be found on the pen floor for up to five months after it was last fed. Jon Challis and collaborators at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the University of Saskatchewan recently published a follow-up study to learn whether manure composting, stockpiling or soil incorporation help break down ractopamine residues and whether ractopamine residues can affect hormone levels in other organisms that may come in contact with them in the environment (“Chemical and bioassay-based

© 2025   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service