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: 76

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

Meat Institute Pushes Back on Trump Processing Plan

President Trump has announced plans to allow farmers and ranchers to process their own meat as part of an effort to address concerns about concentration in the meatpacking sector.

AgriStability Deadline Extended to Oct. 1 for Alberta Producers

Alberta producers affected by excessive moisture this growing season have more time to enrol in AgriStability, while those already eligible for interim payments will be able to access a larger share of their estimated benefit sooner. According to the Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC), the Alberta and federal governments have opened late participation in the 2026 AgriStability program until Oct. 1 in response to wet conditions that have affected many farms since the original April 30 enrolment deadline. The interim payment rate for 2026 has also been increased to 75% of the estimated final AgriStability payment, up from 50%. AFSC said the change is intended to improve cash flow for producers facing financial pressure during a difficult growing season. AFSC CEO Darryl Kay said record moisture levels have left some producers unable to access fields or complete essential farm work, creating significant uncertainty and financial stress. “AgriStability is designed to

Map: August Weather Drier for Much of Western Canada

Western Canada saw a sharply uneven precipitation pattern over the 30 days ending Wednesday, with the driest conditions concentrated across Saskatchewan and parts of southern Alberta and Manitoba. As can be seen on the map below, large portions of southern and central Saskatchewan received less than 40% of normal precipitation during the period, with another broad area receiving just 40% to 60%. Much of southern Manitoba was also drier than normal, although some pockets received above-average rainfall. Alberta precipitation was variable. The pattern reflects a growing season finish that has been considerably drier across parts of the Prairies, particularly Saskatchewan, following wetter conditions earlier in the summer. In Saskatchewan, the lack of late-season rainfall likely accelerated crop maturation and helped fields dry down as harvest approached, although it may also have limited final yield potential for later-developing crops in the driest areas. In Alberta, comparatively

Saskatchewan Harvest Still Lagging Average Pace

The Saskatchewan harvest accelerated this past week but remains behind the previous year and well back of average. Thursday's weekly crop report showed the provincewide harvest at 11% complete as of Monday. That compares to 4% a week earlier, and the five- and 10-year averages of 25% and 21%. Last year at this time, 12% of the crop was in the bin. Harvest progress varied widely by region. The Southwest was furthest along at 27% complete, followed by the Southeast at 11% and West-central region at 8%. East-central Saskatchewan was 5% harvested, while the Northeast and Northwest were each just 1% complete. Warm daytime temperatures and cooler evenings helped crops mature across much of the province, while generally dry conditions supported fieldwork. However, rainfall, strong winds and periods of high humidity slowed operations in some areas. Later-seeded crops are now beginning to turn, with harvesting expected to expand soon, the report added.. Producers continued to focus o

Sclerotinia Fungicide Sensitivity Survey

Manitoba Canola Growers along with SaskOilseeds, Alberta Canola, Canola Council of Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) are currently funding research projects that evaluate sclerotinia for sensitivity to fungicides with different modes of action. Sclerotinia with levels of insensitivity and immunity to common modes of action, have already been identified in Manitoba through this project. With favorable conditions across the province in 2026 we need samples from across the province to understand how widespread this problem is and provide farmers with recommendations for fungicide stewardship and efficacy. You will receive fungicide test results from the samples you have submitted. Combined results with samples from across Manitoba and the other provinces will be shared publicly at the RM level. All other field information will be handled confidentially. Sampling and Submission Instructions From a single canola field collect 1-10 sclerotia from infected stems at crop ma

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service