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

Innovation Saskatchewan Invests Nearly $460,000 in University of Regina Research Advancing Water, Waste and Antimicrobial Innovation

Innovation Saskatchewan is investing $459,095 in three University of Regina (U of R) research projects through the Innovation & Science Fund (ISF) to advance solutions in water security, environmental sustainability and antimicrobial resistance.   The investments match funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) John R. Evans Leaders Fund (JELF), effectively doubling the resources available to U of R researchers to accelerate their work.   "The U of R is leading research that's making a real impact and helping shape a stronger, more sustainable future for our province," Minister Responsible for Innovation Saskatchewan Warren Kaeding said. "These investments help ensure Saskatchewan stays at the forefront of innovation and is ready to tackle challenges with solutions developed right here at home."   The projects build on U of R strengths in climate science and population health, advancing Saskatchewan's priority research areas of life sciences, agriculture and energy:  

Enrol now in AgriStability

About AgriStability AgriStability is an important tool to help you manage risks and financial losses due to tariffs, poor yields, low commodity prices, or rising input costs. AgriStability provides support when you experience a large margin decline. AgriStability is delivered by the federal government in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories and Yukon. Use the Benefit Estimator to help you understand how the program works and how benefits are calculated. Learn more about the AgriStability program or access My AAFC Account to sign in to your account or create a new account. Benefits of participating Provides support when risks are beyond your capacity to manage Offers personalized and affordable coverage Helps you manage your farm during periods of market downturns, falling market prices and rising input costs Protects your farm against drought, flooding, poor yields or other unexpected disasters Can be used to secure financing Prov

WCC/RRC Meeting Update

The Western Canadian Canola/Rapeseed Recommending Committee (WCC/RRC) met in early February to review candidate cultivars and make key decisions that help guide canola and rapeseed variety registration in Western Canada. These meetings play an important role in maintaining the integrity of the canola quality system and ensuring new cultivars entering the market meet established standards. The WCC/RRC is an independent committee comprised of all sectors of the value chain including researchers, industry representatives, farmers, sector experts and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Variety Registration Office as a non-voting observer. Its primary role is to evaluate candidate cultivars against defined quality and performance criteria to determine whether they meet the requirements for canola or rapeseed registration. In addition, on behalf of the WCC/RRC, the Canola Council of Canada (CCC) staff coordinate testing and inspection of pre-registration varieties, public blackleg trials at

Manitoba Canola Growers Announces Board Election Results and Executive Appointments

Manitoba Canola Growers is pleased to announce the results of its board elections held this winter, as well as executive appointments made during the organization’s recent reorganization meeting. During the 2025 board election process, three members put their names forward for four available director positions. As a result, Warren Ellis, Jackie Dudgeon MacDonald, and Jay Derkach were all acclaimed to the board. With one seat remaining vacant following the election, Manitoba Canola Growers initiated a board application process, inviting members to submit their names for consideration. The organization was pleased to receive a strong number of qualified candidates. Following a shortlisting process and interviews, the board is pleased to announce that Brad Crammond has been selected to join the board for a four term. “We’re really encouraged by how much interest our members showed and by the strong group of candidates who put their names forward,” said Warren Ellis, Chair. “It’s great

How to cover all the bases with a land rental agreement

It doesn’t make sense to pay to use a piece of land, invest time and effort into raising a crop, and not even have a paper outlining an agreement with the owner. Yet it’s something lawyer James Steele, of Robertson Stromberg LLP, says he sees repeatedly, as well as handshake agreements and handwritten rental deals. Across the country, none of these informal agreements are sufficient if there's a disagreement and the rental matter ends in court. Overall, having a written land rental agreement in place is a critical, yet often neglected, piece of farm business that could save both parties time and money if anything with the rental ever went wrong. Include all the details A rental agreement needs to be longer than a one—to two-page document and include as many details as possible. Steele says he often sees producers show up with an agreement where the term and rate have been determined, but not much else. A rental agreement document must spell out the obligations and consequences, and

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service