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: 470

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

Ag in the House: Dec. 1 – 5

A Liberal minister reminded the House the carbon tax doesn’t apply to farmer

Ontario Animal Health Network (OAHN) Swine Network Quarterly Industry Report

Starting in 2015, Senecavirus A (SVA) has caused intermittent complications with respect to the export of Canadian cull animals to the United States. This disease resembles reportable swine vesicular diseases. This is a national issue and since June 2025 has impacted Ontario cull sow movements. In July 2025, the APHIS and the USDA removed the export eligibility status for a cull sow assembly in Ontario due to SVA lesions being seen in cull sows sent to a USDA processing facility. These lesions initiated foreign animal disease investigations at this US processing plant. The suspect animal(s) were initially quarantined for individual inspection and further testing. Since the initial site, another 2 Ontario cull sow assembly sites have also had their export eligibility status revoked by APHIS and the USDA for similar reasons. The affected assembly sites accept cull sows from Quebec, the Maritimes and Ontario. Each affected assembly site must action the USDA requirements including emptyin

New restrictions placed on hunting, farming 'incredibly destructive' wild boars in Alberta

Wild boars have been declared "a pest in all circumstances" by the Alberta government effective Dec. 1, meaning new restrictions have been placed on keeping them in captivity and hunting them in the wild. It is now illegal to keep, buy, sell, obtain or transport wild boars in Alberta without a permit. That also means no new wild boar farms will be permitted in the province. The hunting and trapping of wild boars in Alberta is banned as well, with the exception of land owners or occupants killing the animals on their own land. Any person who kills a wild boar is now required to report the date, location and number of boars killed to the province as soon as possible. Hannah McKenzie, the province's wild boar specialist, says the changes were made due to the dangers posed by existing wild boar populations and the risks associated with more escaping from captivity. "In addition to damaging agriculture and the environment, wild boar pose a serious risk for the introduction and spread of

CUSMA Review Raises Concerns Over Potential U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Pork

As the first formal review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) approaches in July, pork producers across North America are bracing for potential impacts—especially the possibility of new U.S. tariffs on Canadian agriculture. Florian Possberg, Partner at Polar Pork Farms, says the U.S. political landscape is shaping expectations. He notes that U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed for a baseline 15% tariff on foreign goods in recent global trade discussions. If that approach carries into the CUSMA renegotiation, it could disrupt one of the pork sector’s most critical trade corridors. Free Trade Has Been Essential for Pork Movement Possberg emphasizes that under CUSMA, both live hogs and processed pork products have flowed freely across borders without tariffs. This freedom is especially important given the highly integrated nature of North America’s pork supply chain. The best-case scenario, he adds, is that tariff-free access continues unchanged. The wor

FCC report highlights productivity as key to Canada’s agricultural future

Canadian farmers could see significant income gains and new opportunities if agricultural productivity growth returns to historic highs. The Farm Credit Canada (FCC) report titled Reigniting agricultural productivity in Canada, estimates that boosting productivity growth to two per cent annually could unlock $30 billion in additional farm income, generate $31 billion in GDP, and create nearly 23,000 jobs across the country. Canada has long been a standout among global food producers. Over the past half-century, the agriculture industry has achieved significant productivity growth through better farm management, improved input efficiency and technological innovation. The report warns, however, that productivity growth has slowed in recent years, threatening the industry’s competitiveness and Canada’s ability to meet growing national and global food demand. “Canada’s agricultural productivity growth has consistently outpaced other G7 countries for more than three decades, showing the s

© 2025   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service