Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

You Can't Eat Energy--Peaker Plant in the Holland Marsh

PEAKER PLANT IN THE HOLLAND MARSH


My name is Avia Eek. My husband, Bill, and I farm in the Holland Marsh. My husband, and many of the farmers in the Holland Marsh are descendants of the first pioneers who broke this land in 1934. Although, it should be noted the first industry here was the harvesting of the marsh grass for mattresses. This business took place from 1880 to approx. 1915, when it peaked.

The soil in the Holland Marsh is organic based, the result of thousands of years of vegetation decay. The Holland Marsh contains huge pockets of peat/muck soils which is a tremendous medium for growing the crops that are produced here, which number more than 40. The soil holds the moisture and nutrients so the plants can grow. It should be noted that this type of soil does not occur everywhere, and it is considered “valuable”. In fact, a recent economic impact study shows that the Holland Marsh, through the business of farming and related activities, contributes more than $500 million to the province of Ontario annually!

The Farmers of the Holland Marsh are a community-minded people, and are ready, able and willing to help those in need whenever the need arises. Whether it’s providing fresh vegetables, together with our time to our local foodbanks regularly, giving our time and resources to family crisis shelters, coaching a sports’ team, or simply helping one another when given the opportunity.

Last year, we found out that a property in the “Salad Bowl”, diagonal to an elementary school, metres from a waterway the Farmers irrigate from, and which feeds into Lake Simcoe, which property is also located in a flood plain, Protected Countryside, Greenbelt, etc. (actually we found out there are 17 pieces of legislation “protecting” the Holland Marsh) was to become the home of a 393 MW, simple cycle, natural gas-fired peaker plant. This facility is designed to run at just 36% efficiency, the emissions from this plant will be the equivalent of 3 tonnes of greenhouse gases every hour when it is running, complete with 18 km of 16” high pressure, industrial gas pipeline. It should be noted that this particular type of facility is a “conflicted use” for this highly productive, sensitive growing area which has the designation of “Specialty Crop Area”.

It is my understanding that there were some information meetings held in September or October (this is a very busy time for Farmers here, so I’m unsure how many Farmers actually even knew the meetings were taking place). I do know that there were 5 or 6 chosen sites for this peaker plant. I also know that residents in those particular areas said “NO” to having the facility in their communities. I find it interesting that one of the sites was to be beside a conservation area in the Bradford area. I understand that 300 + people showed up to that meeting, said no, and that was that. While I realize that conservation areas are very important and should be protected, I would think a highly productive, sensitive food growing area would be given, at least, the same consideration.

So, as promised by the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, a Town Hall meeting was held in February, 2009, after the site was chosen (Fall of 2008—harvest time). The meeting was held in King City with the then Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, George Smitherman, addressing the many Farmers and residents of this area (over 500, I believe). Mr. Smitherman opened the meeting with an announcement that “NIMBY’s would not be tolerated, people wanted to flick a switch and know they had electricity…this peaker plant is going to be built on the chosen site”! So began our fight to continue to be able to grow safe, healthy, local food for the people of Ontario! To date all of our requests for re-consideration have fallen on deaf ears!

I won’t get into all the scientific data regarding the emissions (NOX, GHG, PM2.5, etc) this facility will release from its smoke stacks, or how it will increase respiratory problems for people, since I am not qualified in these areas, but the research is available. What I do know is that the Holland Marsh is located within a bowl, hence the name “Salad Bowl of Ontario”. While this peaker plant facility is not technically within the Holland Marsh, it is meters from it, and within our bowl, emissions have a better chance of being trapped here—that’s just common sense! Here is a website you can visit to see the damage that will occur as a result of the added air pollution http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/01-015.htm . Currently, we have the 400 Highway which runs through the Marsh, this is scheduled for expansion, which will add more air pollution to this sensitive area. The name “peaker” refers to the fact that this facility will provide power at “peak” times i.e. summer, when it’s hot, and winter, when it’s cold. The fact that this facility will be running in “peak” times, when it’s hot and extra power is required, also coincides with the crucial growing period for our crops. Therefore, based on facts, if this peaker plant facility is allowed to be built in this area, it will cause additional challenges (air pollution which will affect crop yields) and undue hardship to our Farmers, who are already struggling to compete with a global market.

According to the proponent, the emissions from the peaker plant fall within the acceptable parameters for air quality. I question the “acceptable parameters”, since, I believe the “standard” data used for testing air quality is the air shed at Pearson International Airport. I’m pretty sure that if the air shed where this facility is slated to be built, and not by the 400 either, was to be tested independently, the findings would be quite different, and not so “acceptable”! As well, the soil data that was used was based on mineral soils, not organic soils—again the proper testing should be done to see exactly how the emissions from this peaker plant will affect our organic soil!

Holland Marsh Farmers adhere to strict rules and regulations to ensure food safety, as well as to insure a nurturing environment for our crops.. The Farmers here monitor changes in the soil twice a year, tissue samples are taken, and water samples from the canal are also taken on a regular basis. Our crop yields are reported annually—we know what we produce, and we know our environment. Our Farmers attend workshops and implement environmental farm plans on a regular basis, many of us are Local Food Plus certified (which means a 3rd party attends at your farm and assesses your best farm practices).

Over the last several months, while we’ve been fighting the rash decision to build the facility here in the Marsh, I keep hearing the same lame argument from those who are in favour of the project, and/or who stand to gain from this short-sited vision “we need the energy for northern York Region development…”. Something that I find ironic in this statement is THERE ISN’T GOING TO BE ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE MARSH, it’s a flood plain. The development this facility will supply energy to is north and east of the Marsh for several kilometers. The Marsh isn’t even on the same grid this plant will be supplying peak energy to! Yes we do need energy, but we also need adequate food production—you can’t eat energy! This area is designated for food production, and should remain protected for food production!

When you consider that: 56% of Canada’s prime agricultural farmland is in Ontario; the Holland Marsh is one of 3 micro climates (the other two being in the Niagara Region); organic based soil pockets such as exist in the Holland Marsh do not occur everywhere, and should be treasured and protected; the population is increasing and we will require MORE food production, not less—then the decision to build a peaker plant in the Holland Marsh, on a flood plain no less just becomes irresponsible.

I believe Mr. McGinty, and the Energy Minister (temporarily) Mr. Phillips have an obligation to the people of Ontario to rescind the directive to build this industrial facility in the Holland Marsh. I extend an invitation to these individuals to meet with us and discuss this project, before it’s too late. The proponent has already made reference to the fact they will be proceeding to the OMB with this matter.

There is a petition at www.gpo.ca that you can sign which will be forwarded to the Minister of the Environment.

Views: 491

Comment

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

Join Ontario Agriculture

Comment by OntAG Admin on December 19, 2009 at 6:16am
Good luck Avia, we will help get the message out.

The Farms.com team.

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

Map: Prairie Dryness, Drought Little Changed in May

Abnormal dryness and drought across Western Canada were little changed in May compared to a month earlier. The latest monthly update of the Canadian drought monitor shows 19% of Prairie agricultural lands were being impacted by abnormally dry or drought conditions as of the end of May. That is 2 points higher than the end of April but slightly below 21% at the end of March and sharply below 47% in February. Much of the Prairie Region received below to well below normal precipitation in May, with the Peace Region, south-central Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba recording less than 25% of normal. On the last day of the month, however, a large storm system in Alberta produced 40 to 80 mm of precipitation alone. In east-central Alberta up to 300% of normal monthly precipitation fell in the one day. Significant rainfall was also recorded in western regions of Saskatchewan but at lower levels than in eastern Alberta, the monitor said. Temperatures were generally below normal across

U.S. Soybean Ending Stocks Steady

U.S. soybean ending stocks – both old and new-crop - were left unchanged in USDA’s June supply-demand update on Thursday. For 2026-27, USDA made no changes to the U.S. soybean balance sheet this month. Estimated production remained at 4.435 billion bu, up 173 million from 2025-26, while the crush was held at 2.75 billion bu and exports at 1.63 billion. With no changes, forecasted 2026-27 U.S. soybean ending stocks were left steady from May at 310 million, modestly below the average trade guess of 314 million bu. The USDA also kept the 2026-27 season-average farm price unchanged at $11.40/bu, up from the 2025-26 estimate of $10.40. For old-crop 2025-26 soybeans, the USDA raised crush by 20 million bu, citing stronger soybean meal exports and domestic meal use, while soybean oil use for biofuel was also increased. However, exports were lowered by 20 million bushels based on available U.S. Census data, offsetting the increase in crush and leaving ending stocks unchanged at 340 mi

Only Modest Adjustments for Old-, New-Crop U.S. Corn

The USDA left its 2026-27 U.S. corn outlook virtually unchanged this month, with the only supply-side change a 3 million-bu increase tied to a higher import forecast carried in from the old-crop balance sheet. In its June supply-demand update on Thursday, USDA left 2026-27 U.S. corn production unchanged at 15.995 billion bu, while all major demand categories were also steady. Feed and residual use was held at 6.1 billion bu, food, seed and industrial use at 6.955 billion, including 5.6 billion for ethanol, and exports at 3.15 billion. With no change in use, the small increase in 2026-27 beginning supplies carried directly into ending stocks, which were raised 3 million bu from May to 1.96 billion, slightly above the average pre-report trade guess of 1.942 billion. The season-average farm price was unchanged at $4.40/bu. Corn futures were trading about 7-8 cents/bu lower this afternoon, following the report’s noon hour EST release. For old-crop 2025-26, USDA also made only mo

Don’t miss June 12 deadline: Share your feedback on the Beef Cattle Code of Practice

Public comment period nearing close on proposed updates to national beef cattle care standards.The Beef Code outlines expected and recommended animal care practices for beef cattle. The public comment period is an opportunity for anyone who has an interest in how beef cattle are raised in Canada, including consumers, veterinarians, food service professionals, and producers, to review the draft content and share feedback. Feedback gathered through the public comment period is critical and helps determine the content of the final document. Strong producer feedback from all regions of Canada is an important step in this process. The Beef Code is meant to drive continuous improvement in animal welfare and is built to be scientifically informed, practical, and reflect societal expectations for responsible farm animal care. The Code uses an outcome-based approach that focuses on achieving successful standards while allowing for flexibility in how these outcomes are met rather than dictati

From the Government Desk: ABP keeping up momentum

Spring is always one of the best times of year in this business. Calving is underway, seed is going into the ground, and there’s a sense of momentum heading into the grazing season. This year, that momentum also includes a few policy wins worth noting. Strychnine is back in 2026! After its approval was pulled in 2023, producers have been searching for a useful option to control infestations of Richardson’s ground squirrel. If you’re impacted, you’ll know why this is a meaningful development. The rollout is still underway, with initial access expected toward the end of May. For some, that timing will miss the most effective spring window, which is frustrating. There is expected to be another opportunity later in the summer, but it won’t fully replace what many producers were hoping for this spring. That said, getting this approval across the line was no small task. This was very much an Alberta-led effort, with strong collaboration between cropping groups and ABP to build the case. A

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service