by MIKE BEAUDIN
Farmers who lease land on Toronto’s northern boundary say their future is in limbo after the provincial government refused to go forward with plans to sign an agreement with Ottawa to create a national urban park.
The York Region Federation of Agriculture, in a statement Monday, criticized provincial Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid for not handing over the land to the federal government for the Rouge Urban National Park.
The park would have protected 7,500 acres of prime farmland, much of it Class 1, said the federation. It would have given farmers more control over what they grow, and extended farm leases to 20-plus years.
The two levels of government have been wrangling over the park for months and appeared to have worked out a plan that would have seen the land transferred to the federal government under Parks Canada.
But provincial Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid said last week that Ontario would not go ahead with the plan to transfer the provincially controlled lands because the Conservative-controlled Senate refused to hear amendments to the agreement.
Kim Empringham, secretary of the York agriculture federation, said the amendments would allow environmental and conservation considerations to take priority over agriculture. She said environmentalists want agriculture within the park boundary to be restricted to small organic farms because they believe corn and oilseed crops are better suited to private lands.
However, in an email to Better Farming via his press secretary, Jeff Leal, Ontario minister of agriculture, food and rural affairs, said agriculture would remain an important part of the park.
“We’ve been clear from the start that our government supports agriculture in the Rouge Park,” said Leal. “The establishment of the park must be done in a manner that protects the land for agricultural production and ensures farmers are an important part of the conversation. Farmers will continue to be able to manage and make their own decisions regarding what crops they grow.”
Farmers within the affected area have been working on one-year leases since the mid-1970s when the land was expropriated, in part to make way for the proposed Pickering Airport that was never built.
Ontario controls about two-thirds of the 58 square kilometres of land in what would be Canada’s first urban national park. The area includes a large portion owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that cannot be sold without provincial government approval. The park stretches from the Oak Ridges Moraine in York Region down to the Lake Ontario shores in Toronto, and is designated as part of the Ontario Greenbelt.
The federal government owns the remaining third of the land while the cities of Toronto and Markham hold small parcels.
Empringham said the farmers involved are discouraged.
“They've been frustrated for the past four 40 years, never knowing what might happen,” she said in a telephone interview. “At one time there was an option to buy farms back and that was closed abruptly. The (farmers) who have all their operations inside the park need some security. This is just another layer they have to deal with.”
Most of the farmers are leasing land that had been owned by their families for generations before it was expropriated. They bought farms just north of the park and continued to lease the expropriated land. Corn and soybean are the predominant crops in addition to three dairy farms, two pick-your-own markets and a couple of nurseries.
Empringham said the environmental groups that want the province to restrict farming usage are misinformed.
“The environmentalists don't actually understand agriculture,” she said. “They don't know what they are asking for. If you are using environmentally sound management practices it shouldn’t matter what the crop is.
“On the surface to most people (the amendments) likely don’t look like a problem but with the provision to put the environment first – it’s the slippery slope we’re worried about. (Duguid) uses general terms like there will be farming in the park but that doesn't mean he will protect all the farmland.”
The federal bill to create the national park has passed second reading in the Senate, which means the park will still go ahead on the federally owned land. That would leave about half of the farmland under provincial control.
In a statement, Duguid said he was disappointed the federal Conservatives rejected the amendments that would have added Ontario’s preferred wording regarding environmental protection. He said Ottawa has ignored the concerns of both the province and stakeholder groups.
Federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, said the Ontario amendments would “prioritize nature over the conservation of culture and agriculture.” BF
Comments
I work in the farming industry and this is another example of our Provincial Government's complete misunderstanding of agriculture in our province. Add it to the list right behind Neonicotinoids. It would be nice if they at least made an effort to show some interest in our industry despite where they get their votes. Regardless of how they got into power, they still have a responsibility to represent all of us.
How does anyone know that the above anonymous poster isn't on the Executive of the Grain Farmers of Ontario as well as a card-carrying member of either the NDP or Conservatives?
More to the point, when the above anonymous poster chides the present government for dodging their responsibility to represent us all, he/she neatly side-steps the fact that, by definition, anonymous postings don't represent anyone.
As usual and as always, if it isn't worth being signed, it isn't worth being written.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Maybe the York federation should be asking what should be happening under the law with this land since it was expropriated . If they really want to know they would be best to ask the Ontario Land Owners for the real answer and not some bs to the best of my knowledge response .
Likely have people signing their name if it was not for a few trolls that would try to belittle them as much as possible .
Anonymous posters are very much the modern-day equivalent of the mythical and faceless trolls living under the bridges of truth and accountability over which those responsible enough to identify themselves wish to pass.
While I'm not a scholar of these things, all the trolls in the literature I have read, except for possibly Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings", are anonymous and more of a nuisance, if not an outright menace, than anything else.
Alas, the same mannerisms seem to abound on this site - those wishing to maintain legislatively elite priveleges they hold at the expense of others, prefer to hide under bridges and snipe anonymously at those who proffer the truth and who, quite-appropriately, aren't ashamed to identify themselves when they do.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
actually it is the signed comments on here that are a nuisance. 9 out of 10 times they are totally off topic from the article they are posted under. If the editors had the nerve to stand up to signed posters which they don't 99% of the signed comments on here would not be posted. I actually find the unsigned comments to be thought provoking and logical unlike the signed ones that are continually non productive and put down anyone thoughts accept their own.
EDITORS READ THE GUIDELINES POSTED ON THIS SITE AND ADHERE TO THEM.
these signed comments that rant non stop make us farmers look so very unprofessional. it is time this site got cleaned up!
non sm farmer.
The above anonymous poster, like every other anonymous poster on this site, just doesn't seem to be able to grasp the concept that unsigned postings are the epitome of unprofessionalism.
If farmers truly did want to look and act like professionals, they wouldn't make anonymous utterances claiming things which can't be supported factually, and they wouldn't fall all over themselves in an attempt to justify the making of outageous and unprovable claims.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Overall I prefer the unsigned comments on this site but some of the signed ones have good information and when they do I appreciate the signature and do give them more credibility. In general it seems like the unsigned are more civil and. My job won't allow me to post so I try to contribute anonymously. I do enjoy the debates but I don't like personal attacks or bullying.
Anonymous posters argue they don't like the somewhat abusive comments on this site. I take my share of abuse also, and unlike anonymous posters, everyone knows that I have taken it-and CAN take it.
Anonymous posters are gun shy, unlike myself.
I use this site because there are a few things that I feel strongly about, and not enough people speak up.
So bring on the inevitable snarky and sarcastic comments that will follow.
Raube Beuerman
You are in the majority but most will no longer feed the problem.
Some people have jobs and they would not want to seen on here by their employer
Many employers or contracts have rules preventing their people from signing posts. Others will stay away based on common sense considering the history of this forum.
If somebody isn't high enough up in an organization to be allowed to publicly express an opinion about issues of the day, it means his/her opinion isn't that of a decision maker, is therefore irrelevant and really shouldn't be expressed because it is little more than graffiti.
The perceived problems on this site arise when people hide behind the shield of anonymity in order to:
(A) express views completely-devoid of common sense and evidentiary merit.
(B) advance agendae without revealing any potential conflict of interest.
Common sense dictates that people who offer unsigned graffiti and then try to infer that it has evidentiary merit and/or is unbiased, deserve to be jumped on.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Post new comment