- Published on Saturday, 09 November 2013 13:00
- Hits: 587
The North Dufferin Agriculture and Community Taskforce board is meeting this week to discuss what measures, if any, it can take to counter what it views as glaring omissions and the weak language of the Aggregate Resources Act review recommendations.
- Published on Saturday, 09 November 2013 01:01
- Hits: 528
Our provincial government has missed an opportunity to protect a vital part of Ontario’s economy.
The recently tabled review of the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) fails to put any importance on protecting agricultural land of any class.
However, the province’s agriculture industry contributes about $34 billion to the economy and supports more than 740,000 jobs across Ontario.
Farmer Brent Preston explained the financial value in farmland best during the ARA review committee’s stop in Orangeville.
“I only produce eight or 10 tonnes of salad a year on my farm, but I can produce salad in perpetuity,” Preston said. “You can only mine a tonne of gravel once.”
- Published on Wednesday, 06 November 2013 23:19
- Hits: 618
ARA review tabled in legislature
Changes suggested for the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) would still permit a mega-quarry application if implemented, according to Carl Cosack, chair of the North Dufferin Agricultural Taskforce (NDACT).
On Wednesday (Oct. 30), the all-party committee reviewing the ARA tabled a list of 38 recommendations at Queen’s Park.
However, none of the suggestions protect farmland or water sources from becoming quarries or pits.
“There’s no doubt we’re disappointed. There’s no protection for the water underneath the land and no protection for the land itself,” Cosack said.
“Bottom line, it’s just unacceptable. We expect better representation from an all-party committee.”
Ontario’s Standing Committee on General Government began the process of examining the ARA more than one year ago. The review included numerous public hearings throughout the province, including Orangeville.
The committee heard from a variety of stakeholders in the land and the aggregate industry, from municipalities to farmers to engineers.
Cosack, who attended several of hearings throughout the province, said change was a reoccurring theme for aggregate legislation.
“There were all kinds that said this needs to be different. It all got ignored,” Cosack said. “It’s really quite remarkable.”
The committee recommends that farmland transformed into an aggregate extraction site is rehabilitated “where practical.” As well, improved monitoring of agricultural capability is suggested.
On prime agricultural land, the committee recommends the Ministry of Agriculture and Food receive the application to evaluate rehabilitation plans and the potential reduction of local food production.
For water sources, the committee recommends the government, conservation authorities and aggregate producers assess the risk, and avoid damaging surface and ground water sources “where warranted.”
Cosack takes exception to the wording of the review.
“The language is so suggestive. They use clauses that are ‘if possible’ or ‘where practical’,” he said. “That’s in essence, I hate to say it, useless language.”
The review’s wording is necessary, according to Dufferin-Caledon MPP Sylvia Jones, who sat on the committee during its public hearing in Orangeville.
“Some of that is because we’re not lawyers. We get an overview of what we see and what we heard,” Jones said.
“Does there have to be further study on some of the recommendations? Yes there does.”
Jones added she is proud of the 38 recommendations made in the review.
“It’s not often you get NDP, PCs and Liberals in a room together that can come up with concrete suggestions on how to improve a piece of legislation,” Jones said. “I wish we would do more of this pre-emptive stuff.”
As far as recommendations for agricultural protection, Jones said the suggested changes are sufficient.
“I think there are some concrete recommendations that cover it,” she said. “Did everybody who presented get what they asked for? No. That’s the nature of a consensus report.”
The promotion of aggregate recycling is one of the 38 recommendations, an idea first floated at Queen’s Park by Jones. In April, the MPP introduce a private members bill that would allow contractors to use recycled aggregate when bidding on construction projects paid for with public money.
“I’m happy to have it included,” Jones said. “The fact they have made reference to it, I’m pleased.”
Cosack said he is pleased to see the inclusion of promoting recycled aggregate. However, NDACT plans to continue include farmland protection in legislation.
“We’ll be fully engaged and we expect the minister (of Natural Resources) to make meaningful changes to this,” Cosack said. “Our attitude has always been that we want to work with people.”
By Bill Tremblay
Published in the Orangeville Banner, Nov. 6, 2013
- Published on Thursday, 24 October 2013 14:48
- Hits: 1373
Filmmkaer Jason Van Bruggen, camera operator Brian Smith and historian Stuart Henderson film a short video supporting the Food and Water First campaign. Actress Rachel McAdams is also featured in the video.
Canada’s largest city and one of the nation’s biggest stars have joined the campaign for Food and Water first.
Rachel McAdams, star of The Notebook, Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers, visited the Honeywood area in August to film a short video promoting the need to preserve Ontario’s farmland.
“Farmland and water are our most vital resources. Without them, we wouldn’t be able to survive,” McAdams explains in the video.
Jason Van Bruggen, a filmmaker and volunteer with Food and Water First, said McAdams spent about two days in north Dufferin County filming and visiting local farmers.
“She is someone who is deeply concerned with that topic,” Van Bruggen said. “It’s a natural alignment.”
The London, Ont.-born actress joins North Dufferin Agricultural and Community Taskforce (NDACT) chair Carl Cosack, local farmer Dave Vander Zaag and Chef Michael Stadtländer of Eigensinn in the video.
“I was just hoping it draws attention to the topic and gets people to take the pledge and think about that issue more closely,” Van Bruggen said.
NDACT is leading the charge for the Food and Water First Campaign, an effort to change policies that allow rezoning that compromises food and water sources.
NDACT was created with the mandate to stop the Highland Companies' quarry plans in Melancthon as well as influence change to the province's Aggregate Resources Act (ARA).
With the quarry application withdrawn, the group is now focusing on ensuring legislation exists to protect Ontario’s edible assets.
Earlier this month, Toronto city council voted to relay its support for the campaign to the premier and ministries of agriculture, rural affairs and municipal affairs and housing.
“I thought it would be important for Toronto to take a stand. … We don’t live in bubbles,” said Toronto Coun. Josh Matlow, who tabled the motion. “Even though one might live in the heart of Toronto, it doesn’t mean we’re disconnected from the region around us.”
While political boundaries separate Toronto from Dufferin County, Matlow stressed the importance of working together within the region.
“We rely on protecting our natural and agricultural lands for the future success of the many millions of people who live in our area,” Matlow said. “We’re interdependent.”
Throughout the fight against the mega-quarry, and the Food and Water First Campaign, signs of support have popped up in Toronto businesses and on residents’ lawns. Matlow said he isn’t surprised Torontonians have joined the cause.
“Many residents recognize the connection between the success of our urban land with protecting our agricultural land,” he said. “I thought it was incredibly impressive how successful a grassroots campaign became. It’s quite remarkable in fact.”
He added the province must hear Toronto’s viewpoint on protecting farmland.
“With the strength of the voice that we have, it’s important the provincial government hears our voice on this too,” Matlow said.
“That’s why I thought it was important that we became a Food and Water First City.”
To watch the Food and Water First video, visit http://vimeo.com/77280156.
By Bill Tremblay
Published in the Orangeville Banner, Oct. 24, 2013
- Published on Monday, 14 October 2013 02:32
- Hits: 644
Nestlé Waters Canada is withdrawing an appeal surrounding how much water it is allowed to draw from its Hillsburgh well during times of drought.
Set to see conditions found in its recently renewed water-taking permit reviewed further by an Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) panel, Nestlé’s request to have the proceedings cancelled has been granted.
The reasons for Nestlé’s decision not to move forward boils down to cost and timing, according to John Challinor, the company’s director of corporate affairs.
“The cost to us, and Ontario taxpayers, because the (province) was with us on this one,” Challinor said, adding Nestlé’s current water-taking permit expires in 2017. “We looked at the cost and the timing and we decided not to proceed any further.”
Meanwhile, the Wellington Water Watchers, Ecojustice and the Council of Canadians are heralding Nestlé’s withdrawal as a significant triumph.
While satisfied by recent events, Emma Lui, national water campaigner for the Council of Canadians, said it is unfortunate the three groups were forced to get involved the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) water-taking permit process.
“We, essentially, were doing what the ministry should have been doing,” Lui said. “Nestlé has backed down, but at the same time, it really highlights the role of the ministry in this case.”
The controversy surrounding Nestlé’s well in Hillsburgh began when its water-taking permit was renewed by the MOE in September, 2012.
The permit, which extended Nestlé’s water-taking privileges to August of 2017, allowed the company to draw a maximum of 773 litres per minute, or 1.113 million litres per day.
The permit forced Nestlé to reduce water taking during Level I and II drought declarations. Prior to that, reductions were considered voluntary.
In the past, Challinor stated Nestlé has voluntarily reduced its water takings during Level I and II drought declarations, “and that will continue,” he added.
Citing unfairness, Nestlé argued the mandatory reduction conditions weren’t applied to water takers uniformly across the Grand River watershed.
“We’re definitely the only one,” Challinor said.
After Nestlé appealed those mandatory conditions to the ERT, the company and the MOE drafted a proposed deal that would have relieved the company of those obligations.
Urging those stricter conditions stand, the advocacy groups challenged that proposed deal. In August, an ERT panel ruled the matter be subject to a full environmental hearing.
“It is hard to say why Nestlé dropped it,” Lui said, referring to its recent decision to withdraw from the proceedings. “When the public learned what Nestlé was doing ... it raised a lot of public concern.”
Nestlé’s opponents are now arguing the MOE failed to protect the Hillsburgh community’s water sources by negotiating a settlement with the water bottling company.
“Community groups shouldn’t have to put time and money into challenging the ministry to do its job,” Mike Nagy, chair of the Wellington Water Watchers, said in a news release. “Sadly, the (MOE) failed to protect our communities’ water sources by negotiating a questionable settlement.”
When contacted by The Banner, MOE spokesperson Kate Jordan said the proposed settlement did protect and safeguard the local water supply.
The deal required formal testing and monitoring ensure any change to water taking wouldn’t have an adverse impact, she said.
“This was a precautionary, science-based approach,” Jordan said in an email. “Experience and studies have shown that Nestlé Water Canada's water taking is being done in a way that is sustainable for the surrounding environment.”
Meanwhile, the three water watchdog groups have also sent a letter to the MOE urging reforms to Ontario’s water taking-related laws and policies are undertaken.
In that letter, the groups are recommending the MOE prioritize water uses and conduct cumulative impact assessments of water takings.
“It is the government’s duty to protect groundwater and to prioritize water taking in favour of reasonable community use,” Lui said. “We hope to see more mandatory restrictions on the water takings throughout the province.”
Although the letter raises concerns about the way the MOE approves water permits in Ontario, Jordan said current provincial policies are sound.
“Water taking in the province is well controlled,” she said. “The ministry approves Permits to Take Water only after thorough scientific and technical reviews demonstrate the water taking will not have adverse effects.”
By Chris Halliday
Published in the Orangeville Banner, Oct. 9, 2013