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: 65

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

The Most Wanted Wheat Seed Across the Prairies — AAC WALSH

PART ONE The sign was up before anyone knew who put it there. No name. No description. Just a dark silhouette nailed to the side of the grain elevator, paper already curling at the edges where the prairie wind worried it loose. MOST WANTED. That was all it said. In a town like this, that was enough. People here understood value. They understood timing. They noticed things that arrived quietly and stayed put. By midmorning, more than a few sets of eyes had found their way to the elevator wall, lingered longer than necessary, then moved on without comment. At the café, steam rose off coffee cups and hung in the air like unfinished sentences. “Yield and protein like that,” someone said eventually, not looking up, “oughta be outlawed.” It was meant as a joke. It didn’t land like one. No one asked who that was. Nobody needed to. The phrase carried weight all on its own, passing from table to table, slipping into conversations that paused just long enough to acknowledge it. By the

Canada-China Trade Agreement Boosts Outlook for Canola and Prairie Seed Sheds

Renewed exports may narrow the basis and reduce surplus stocks, but rebuilding grower confidence will take time. Tariffs and economic trends are often discussed in the abstract, but their consequences couldn’t be more concrete for Prairie seed sheds. In recent months, real-world examples have already reared their heads — such as canola multiplications in California facing counter-tariffs — forcing Canada’s seed sector to adapt to a trade environment that can change quickly, even when agreements are reached. The recent trade deal between Canada and China has brought some much-needed relief to the sector, particularly around market access and export movement. But for many farmers and seed companies, the agreement also underscores a hard truth: the impacts of trade disruptions don’t disappear overnight. It is little surprise that global trade ripples affect local decisions: fewer seed options, changing input costs, and constrained access to genetics. “Tariffs create uncertainty in an

Canada Gains Expanded Meat Access in Indonesia

Canada has secured a major expansion of market access for beef and pork exports to Indonesia, marking a significant milestone following the signing of the Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) last September. 

'Phone in one hand, beer in the other': High-tech automation is giving farmers more time

Anyone visiting Don Badour’s cow-calf operation in the last 18 months will have noticed his cattle sporting some spiffy orange bling around their necks. The bovine baubles aren’t just for looks, however. They’re part of a sophisticated virtual fencing system that helps the Lanark County farmer monitor and track his herd’s movement and wellbeing. Badour is quite pleased with the investment — and so are the cows. “I thought that the cows might be not too happy with them on, but we put them on, they gave their heads one or two shakes, and that's it,” Badour said during a panel discussion at the 2026 Northern Ontario Ag Conference, hosted by the Northern Ontario Farm Innovation Alliance in Sudbury Feb. 6-7. “They've come to realize they're there. So we haven't had any trouble with the cows rejecting them.”? ?Made by the New Zealand company Gallagher, the eShepherd neck bands weigh about eight pounds each and are powered by solar-charged batteries. They run on GPS and the system is ope

Trump EPA sued over reapproval of dicamba herbicide as farm and environmental groups warn of renewed crop damage

Farmers and environmental organizations have launched a new legal challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing its latest approval of the controversial herbicide dicamba ignores court rulings, scientific evidence and the interests of growers harmed by chemical drift. The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court by a coalition that includes the National Family Farm Coalition, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety and Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network, challenges the EPA’s decision to re-register dicamba for use on genetically engineered soybeans and cotton. The decision marks the latest chapter in a years-long dispute over dicamba, a weedkiller widely used in U.S. agriculture but criticized for its tendency to volatilize and drift, damaging nearby crops, orchards and natural vegetation. “EPA’s re-registration of dicamba flies in the face of a decade of damning evidence, real world farming know-how and sound science, and, oh-by-the-way, t

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service