County Regional Environmental
Evaluation KO-Alition
LETTERS - 2004

COALITION OF CONCERNED CITIZENS OF HURON-KINLOSS
UPDATE
DECEMBER 12, 2004

Last Monday I received the disappointing but unexpected news that the Province is appealing the recent OMB ruling decision/order no. 1582 which upheld the agriculture portions of the Official Plan for the Township of Huron-Kinloss. In the Ministry's view, errors were made in the August OMB Hearing and the lawyers representing the various parties will meet sometime in the New Year to argue the issue. I don't know an exact date at this time.

With regard to where the Coalition goes from here, it appears that the Province is determined to control every aspect of factory farms through the Nutrient Management Act. The Coalition has used up its remaining legal funds financing the legal representation we had at the August OMB Hearing. I personally have concluded that I'm not prepared to put up with the stress of attempting to raise the required additional funds necessary to pay for continued legal representation over this issue. I have, however, written a letter addressed to our Mayor and Council asking them to consider hiring Ms. M'Garry to argue and defend their By-law at the rehearing or whatever it is called. My letter points out that it would be risky for the Township to rely on the services of their Township lawyer alone. I was present throughout the entire August proceedings, Ms. M'Garry is the expert and knows the law. Nevertheless, I suspect Huron-Kinloss Council is tired of the issue too and will likely not wish to spend further funds on this issue. I should know their answer by the middle of this week.

I would like to thank the many Coalition supporters for your past financial support and the many words of support I have received since the debut of the Coalition in the spring of 2001. I have one final request to ask of you. Please take the time to write, telephone, fax or e-mail your M.P.P., the Agriculture Minister Steve Peters and even the Premier to express your disappointment over this decision. I've enclosed an attachment of my letter addressed to Mr.Peters. Please feel free to use it. I simply ask that you personalize it with your own name and address. I would love to see the Ministry receive many faxes, e-mails, letters and phone calls expressing our disappointment over the position the Ministry has taken over this issue.

You can send your letter to the following addresses: The Honourable Steve Peters, Minister of Agriculture and Food, Public Archives Building, 77 Grenville Street, 11th Floor, Toronto, ON M5S 1B3 Phone 416-326-3074 Fax 416-326-3083 To e-mail the Minister, go to the OMAF website at www.gov.on.ca/OMAF/english , click on feedback and look for Comments to the Minister. You can e-mail the premier at dalton.McGinty@premier.gov.on.ca or write to him at Office of the Premier, Legislative Building, Queens Park, Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 See my sample letter below:
December 8, 2004

John Welwood

Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Huron-Kinloss
R.R. # 1,
Kincardine, ON
N2Z 2X3

The Honourable Steve Peters,
Minister of Agriculture and Food,
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Public Archives Building,
77 Grenville Street, 11th Floor,
Toronto, ON
M5S 1B3

Dear Mr. Peters,

I am writing to express my strong disappointment with the Province's decision to challenge the recent October 4 Ontario Municipal Board decision/order no. 1582 which upheld the Municipality of Huron-Kinloss's new Intensive Agriculture Livestock zone (AIL) by-law. Since the Walkerton tragedy, our community has been attempting to reach a reasonable compromise over the siting of large animal confinement/intensive operations, particularly operations that rely on untreated liquid manure storage and application in our Lake Huron watershed.

Contrary to the Ministry's assertion that the Township's use of zoning is a threat to the agricultural industry, Board Member, David J. Culham, agreed with the position of the Municipality of Huron-Kinloss that the rezoning process does not constitute a threat to the viability of the agricultural industry and, more importantly, does give appropriate regard to the Provincial Policy Statement and thus represents good planning. The Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Huron-Kinloss fully supported the Township's position.

More importantly, Mr. Culham recognized the importance of having a public, open process. As part of the Municipal criteria used to evaluate new intensive applications in our area, details of Nutrient Management Plans as approved by your Ministry, would be public and open to scrutiny. Based on the Coalition's experience, this public process is essential and, in our view, goes a long way to restore public confidence in the application/building process related to ILOs. By having an open, public process as part of the Township's criteria for evaluating future applications for intensive livestock operations (beginning at 450 animal units and larger), it is very likely that costly litigation disputes, as we have seen in the recent past, will be avoided.

Your decision to question Decision/Order no. 1582 is perceived by many as showing disregard for a democratic and legal process that is attempting to find a workable solution acceptable to all the various stakeholders in our Lake Huron Municipality. Speaking personally as a member of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Huron-Kinloss and as someone who has been intimately involved with the Coalition's many attempts to get all levels of government to address our environmental and health concerns associated with large, liquid manure operations, the Ministry's decision to appeal the Culham OMB decision/ruling will leave many hundreds of Huron-Kinloss Coalition supporters disappointed with your Government's approach to this matter.

Yours truly,

John Welwood

Letter to the Editor
April 8, 2004

Prince Edward County remains unprotected from corporate agribusiness

Not much of substance has happened since August 2000 when The County, like many other Ontario Counties, approved its own Nutrient Management By-Law. This woefully inadequate tool is all that was available to deal with the growing presence of large Intensive Livestock Operations (ILOs) that were moving into Ontario.

These operations claim to be just like family farms, but just a little bigger. This claim seems to be enough to convince many leaders of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), who have a lot to say about the future of farming, because they seem to do what they can to ensure we keep our doors open to these operators.

However, the OFA position is in conflict with some other farm organizations, such as

• The Christian Farmers Federation, which has a policy stating in part: Ontario should add to the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act a statement that allows municipalities to set limits on the size and intensity of livestock farms.
  
  
• The National Farmers Union of Ontario, who wrote in a submission to various relevant government departments: "Intensive agricultural operations" - industrial production models typified by hog"mega-barns" - are incompatible with the NFU's vision of a strong and sustainable agricultural sector based on small and medium-sized family farms and thriving rural communities. In fact, although mega-barn proponents try to appropriate to themselves the terms "farm", "farmer", and"normal farm practice", their operations represent the antithesis of responsible farming, which cares for the land, the animals, and the future of the community.

Besides driving local farmers off the land when ILO corporations move in, their intensive confinement operations are volatile havens subject to viral outbreaks, such as Avian Flu, as the BC chicken industry is now noticing. Intensive pig factories counter their constant bacterial threat by adding antibiotics in feed on a regular basis. This contributes to the strains of super bugs that have grown immune to known antibiotics, now leaving humans at risk.

I mentioned earlier that The County's, Nutrient Management By-Law was a woefully inadequate tool. This is because the only regulatory control in the by-law is with regard to building permits, which will not be issued until the applicant has submitted a nutrient management plan suitable for their planned operation. It basically means they need to own, or have lease agreements, for land adequate to absorb the manure to be generated by the ILO. After the building permit is issued, regulation ends. There is no inspection and it seems the corporation can do as it wishes. The corporation can cancel leases or spread manure wherever, whenever it wishes, even in winter. Neither the province nor the county has any right to inspect in order to ensure that the nutrient management plan is adhered to.

The concept of self-regulation is reasonable on a family farm, where long term welfare of the land and the community are a major consideration. But when the corporate head office is in a city or another province or another country, the $$dollar$$ bottom line is the driving factor.

With regard to the much talked about Ontario Bill 81, the province's Nutrient Management Act, conceived in 2002, there has been much ado about many things, but unfortunately nothing useful has happened yet, and no one knows when or if it will. The best news within its gestation period is that as a result of the Walkerton Inquiry, the Ministry of the Environment will likely be in an inspection and enforcement position.

Many jurisdictions have taken steps to stop the spread of large intensive livestock operations because of the destructive effects they have on ecosystems and people. Quebec recently renewed its moratorium: outrage along Lake Huron's now often-closed beaches has increased resistance to large ISO expansion in that area. After TV specials on the subject by CBCs The Nature of Things, and The Fifth Estate, a cross Canada effort has been spearheaded by The Council of Canadians named Beyond Factory Farming, and they are staging a national day of protest all across Canada on April 16/04 with the theme, Family Farming, not Factory Farming.

About a year ago, Linda Roberts of CREEK (County Regional Environmental Evaluation Ko-alition) made a presentation to PEC Planning Services Committee requesting that they support resolutions coming from Brockton and Kincardine councils that placed moratoriums on new ILOs, and also that PEC enact a similar moratorium. But the local OFA members opposing the motions made a strong presentation: the council agreed, and the motion was rejected. As it stands, PEC remains open for business if large ILOs come knocking at our door and we, The County, will be protected with our home grown toothless tiger, our nutrient management bill.

For further information see http://www.creekwebsite.org or www.themeatrix.com.

Don Chisholm
Media spokesperson for CREEK

The Right Hon. Paul Martin
Parliament Bldgs.
Ottawa Ont.

Open letter to The Prime Minister
Feb. 2, 2004

Dear Sir:

The Federal and Provincial Governments have pumped in millions of dollars via the C.A.R.D. and other programs to facilitate huge Intensive Livestock Operations for many years. These support payments are generated by the Canadian Public. Despite the input, neither the Government nor the Industries have come up with a definite Plan to protect our Health, Water, Air, Land or the Family Farm. The noble projections that Family Farmers had carved out have been ruined by Corporate intrusion. The unforgiving pollution and grief that these Industries have created from Coast to Coast should bring a sobering thought to Government and yourself. Canadians, as a whole, do not want Ecological Terrorism. The sympathy for these polluters must not be greater than the well being of Canadians and their Land Base.

Please put Canada back in the hands of its People and not Corporate dominance.

Sincerely,

Joe Leschyshyn
Chatfield, Manitoba

- 30 -