Citizens for the Environment and Future in Eastern Ontario

Media Coverage

(N.B. The most recent clippings are at the top of this page;
English and French texts are all compiled in this same archive.)

Mega-hog farms on hold

by James Parry, Hudson Gazette, March 12, 2003

http://pages.infinit.net/gazette/Pageone-3.html

Opponents to proposed mega-hog farms in St. Eugene are celebrating this week after learning that an application for a permit was refused by East-Hawkesbury's chief building officer, Jean-Claude Minor, on the grounds that it was incomplete when submitted on February 20. The applicants cannot now reapply for any project that will house over 250 animal units, i.e. 1,250 sows, as set out in the interim by-law and municipal moratorium.

While elated at the news, Jean Dussault of the Citizens for the Environment and Future in Eastern Ontario, warned, however, that the battle is far from over. "It only means that the immediate threat is on hold," he told the Hudson Gazette on Monday. "In effect, the municipal moratorium could be appealed by the promoters in a bid to have it revoked and go ahead with plans to build mega-hog factories, despite the fierce local opposition and our very serious fears."

Added Dussault: "East Hawkesbury's municipal Council has publicly assured citizens, however, that should this be the case, it will defend its position and the moratorium to protect our community, farmers, our quality of life and our health."

Regardless of the next stage in the fight that has pitted developers and Mayor Michel Lalonde against grass-roots opponents from communities on both sides of the border, including Hudson, St. Lazare and Rigaud, the moratorium will last one year at most. Perhaps not even that as the Ontario government intends to introduce as early as this July, its so-called Nutrient Management regulations under Bill 81 which do not exclude such pig farms from the definition of 'normal farming practices'.

This, says Dussault, would mean that municipalities in Ontario would lose a lot of their control over their own territory when it comes to allowing such mega farms to be built or managing their local impacts.

In St. Eugene, the battle continues.

• • •

Hawkesbury-Est – Le permis d’exploitation de mégaporcherie est refusé

Sandra Gagnon, Le Carillon, Actualité 12 mars, 2003 (http://www.infoprg.com/lecarillon/)

C’est avec soulagement que les opposants au projet des mégaporcheries ont accueilli le verdict de la municipalité de Hawkesbury-Est. «Le permis d’exploitation a été refusé parce que le formulaire de demande n’a pas été rempli complètement», a précisé l’adjoint du maire de Hawkesbury-Est, Ronald Conway. Soulagés, les citoyens de la municipalité le sont, mais les inquiétudes persistent. La loi 81 sur la gestion des éléments nutritifs qui devrait légiférer en matière de déchets agricoles ne tardera pas à être en vigueur. Pourtant les règles qui la composent ne sont toujours pas établies clairement.

Les citoyens craignent que la loi du gouvernement de l’Ontario ne soit pas suffisamment sévère et qu’elle ne protège pas convenablement les résidants. Comme l’a fait savoir M. Conway, «une fois que la loi 81 sera adoptée, il sera beaucoup plus difficile de s’y opposer».

C’est justement ce qui effraie la population. «Aussitôt que leur loi sera décrétée, nos règlements municipaux vont tomber à l’eau. Ça m’inquiète énormément, révèle la conseillère de Hawkesbury-Est, Linda Séguin. La loi risque de nous faire payer pour le reste de nos jours pour des sols contaminés. Il va falloir se battre et aller chercher l’aide des communautés avoisinantes.»

La municipalité de Hawkesbury-Est dans son règlement sur l’élevage porcin demande aux producteurs d’acheter leurs terres, un règlement qui ne sera peut-être pas exigé par la loi ontarienne. Les producteurs pourraient, par conséquent, louer des terres agricoles.

Ronald Conway croit que la loi 81 réglemente de façon juste la production porcine intensive. «La législation va aider à réglementer pour éviter la contamination des sols et de l’eau.(*) Il ne faut pas se le cacher, l’agriculture, il faut que ça se fasse. On mange 90 mille porcs en Ontario par semaine. Il faut être capable de les produire de façon saine pour l’environnement.»

(*) Comme suite à ce commentaire de M. Conway, le CEAEO se permet de référer le lecteur intéressé aux commentaires de la Canadian Environmental Law Association à ce sujet. [en particulier les publications téléchargeables # 436 – 433 – 430]

• • •

Les mégaproducteurs porcins se disent sans voix 

Sandra Gagnon, Le Carillon, Actualité 12 mars, 2003 (http://www.infoprg.com/lecarillon/)

St-Eugène – La Ferme Bédard qui tentait d’obtenir le permis d’exploitation d’une mégaporcherie dans la municipalité de Hawkesbury-Est s’explique mal le soulèvement de la population contre les projets de mégaporcherie. «Les gens sont mal informés. Ils ne parlent que des côtés négatifs. Le groupe de Citoyens pour l’environnement et l’avenir de l’Est ontarien semble vouloir faire peur à la communauté et les médias contribuent à la désinformation» (**), commente l’agriculteur Marcel Bédard qui souhaitait acquérir un permis d’exploitation pour son projet de mégaporcherie.

Le groupe de citoyens qui fait pression pour arrêter les projets de mégaporcheries dit que les producteurs perdront le contrôle sur leur ferme au profit des dirigeants de l’industrie porcine. «C’est absolument faux, rétorque l’agriculteur franco-ontarien. Il n’y aura pas de perte de contrôle sur ma ferme. Pour continuer à opérer, les fermes doivent grossir. Si on veut assurer une relève pour nos cinq garçons, on n’a pas le choix de vouloir prendre de l’expansion». Même si l’agriculteur reconnaît que les lois ne sont pas plus rigoureuses, il ne faut pas s’attaquer aux fermes familiales, mais plutôt aux règlements municipaux et provinciaux.

«C’est affreux de voir que les règlements ne sont pas assez sévères pour arriver à protéger l’environnement. Mais, je ne suis pas certain qu’en empêchant les mégaporcheries de s’implanter ça va régler le problème. Il faut revoir les lois, les méthodes de travail et surtout faire des études avant de bloquer un projet qui respecte les normes du ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario», continue-t-il. «On aurait pu doubler notre ferme laitière, soutient Marcel Bédard. Le problème, c’est que nos sols sont en train de se débalancer. Le lisier de bovin contient trop de potasse. Le lisier porcin contient du phosphore qui aide à équilibrer nos sols sans qu’on ait besoin d’utiliser les engrais chimiques. Ce qui est loin de déplaire aux environnementalistes, mais ça, on n'en entend pas parler.

Marcel et Richard Bédard qui exploitent présentement une ferme laitière à grande échelle, n’ont toujours pas décidé s’ils contesteraient la décision de la municipalité quant au refus d’accorder un permis d’exploitation. «La province va bientôt adopter la loi 81 qui devrait nous permettre d’avoir une mégaporcherie. Il faut voir si ça vaut la peine de dépenser l’argent des contribuables de toute la municipalité pour une cinquantaine de personnes qui se plaignent.»

(**) Le CEAEO se permet de référer le lecteur intéressé aux commentaires de la Canadian Environmental Law Association à ce sujet : Submission by CELA to the Ministries of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and Environment on the Discussion Paper on Intensive Agricultural Operations in Ontario, Elisabeth Brückmann, February 2000; à la documentation présentée dans le cadre des audiences québécoises sur la production porcine; ainsi qu’à la page de liens Internet du site Internet du CEAEO qui énumère diverses sources de l’information utilisée par notre comité.

• • •

"Hog farm put out to pasture"

By TOBI COHEN, Ottawa Sun, Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Plans for a hotly contested large-scale pig farm in East Hawkesbury were indefinitely snuffed out this week, but opponents aren't celebrating just yet.

Municipal building inspector Jean Claude Miner announced Monday he would not issue a building permit for the proposed 3,000-hog livestock operation near St. Eugene.

Miner said the application was incomplete when he received it Feb. 20 -- just hours before the municipality adopted an interim control bylaw prohibiting the construction of new farm developments of more than 250 [animal units] for one year.

RESIDENTS RELIEVED

Although the company has 60 days to appeal the bylaw, nearby residents who opposed the pig farm were relieved by the news -- at least temporarily.

"For now the fire's been put out, but we don't think it's over," said Vlasta Vrana of Citizens for the Environment and Future in Eastern Ontario.

Should Ontario approve the Nutrient Management Act -- which would put intensive livestock operations under provincial jurisdiction -- East Hawkesbury's bylaw would be rendered moot. The act could be adopted as early as July. "It will supersede all municipal controls on agriculture in terms of waste management and that's a danger," Vrana said.

• • •

Pollution transfrontalière oblige - Québécois et Ontariens mènent la lutte contre les mégaporcheries (http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/03/08/22056.html)

Louis-Gilles Francoeur, Le Devoir, samedi 8 mars 2003

L'industrie du porc a rivalisé de stratégie pour implanter ses équipements souvent là où on l'attendait le moins! Mais cette fois, des Québécois se retrouvent avec un problème vraiment inusité, la pollution porcine transfrontalière. [article incomplet sur le site web du Devoir]

(Mots clés : Québec (province), Pollution, mégaporcherie, lutte, pollution transfrontalière)

• • •

Pig protestors pressure Council – Mega-hog factories under attack

by James Parry, Hudson Gazette, 5 March, 2003 http://www.hudsongazette.com

Brandishing placards protesting plans to build mega-hog farms in their backyards, demonstrators brave -20° temperatures outside the East Hawkesbury Township Town Hall Monday evening. Gazette photo

In freezing temperatures and the largest demonstration ever held in this usually tranquil farming community just over the border in Ontario, some 100 angry protestors descended on the Town Hall Monday night. They threw down the gauntlet to Mayor Michel Lalonde and councillors expressing their "outrage and anger" that giant pig farms be built on their territory.

Carrying placards reading 'Don't contaminate my well', 'Don't kill my river', 'No ammonia in my lungs' and 'What about my property values?', residents, farmers, and environmentally-concerned citizens came from Hudson, Rigaud, Pointe-Fortune, Très-St-Redempteur, Ste-Anne de Prescott and St-Eugene with but one objective. To convince the administration that its approval for giant pig farms would be an unprecedented threat to farmers, communities, local economies, and property values.

Their message in a nutshell? East Hawkesbury declare itself a mega-hog industry-free community and that laws need to be established to protect the health of all citizens and their environment something, they claim, that proposed laws in both Ontario and Quebec do not address. Also that big industry should not be protected under the guise of farms.

In a passionate address to Council, while Mayor Lalonde excused himself from the meeting, Jean Dussault, of the Citizens for the Environment and Future in Eastern Ontario, stated: "These are not farms but big polluters. When the slurry ponds from this industry seep into the water table, and it could remain contaminated for 30 to 40 years, our farmers' wells will also be polluted. This will necessitate massive investment in filtration equipment on their part. Their cows will become sick and they could even be unable to fulfil their milk quotas from one day to the next."

Added Louise Rock, a St-Eugene resident operating a biologically-friendly farm in the region: "What guarantee have you taken against these risks? Have you spoken to your insurance people?"

Organized by the newly-formed Citizens for the Environment and Future in Eastern Ontario, which has retained the services of a lawyer to advise on further steps, the demonstrators presented a specific four-point challenge to Council, comprising:

· Should a permit be granted by the chief building official for construction of the mega-hog industry on land owned by the Farm Bedard et freres, which permit could only be issued if the application was full and complete in every respect at the time of its receipt, which would be the most extraordinary circumstance, join the citizens of East Hawkesbury and oppose the permit as other Ontario Municipalities, most notably the City of Ottawa, have done.

· Symbolically declare East Hawkesbury as a municipality free of mega-hog industry, since installation of that industry is totally incompatible with the protection of farming and the rural environment and quality of life of the citizens of East Hawkesbury.

· Join other municipalities in raising serious concerns with the Nutrient Management Act and its proposed regulations because they fail to protect the rights and resources of farmers while, at the same time, not adequately protecting citizens and the environment from the dangers of mega-hog industries.

· Ask the Ontario government to create a separate regulatory framework for mega-hog industries, which are not farms, but industries and need to be regulated as such.

Following the meeting, Rigaud resident Ralf Jürgens told the Hudson Gazette: "Will we allow this dirty industry to wreck our environment and our health? To turn this beautiful land into a manure wasteland? Our river and the Lake of Two Mountains into dead water? No. We have to fight this. Our future is threatened, whether we live in St-Eugene, Ste-Anne-de-Prescott, Rigaud or Hudson."

Added Dussault: "What was positive about the meeting is that Council members said clearly they don't want these huge hog factories in East Hawkesbury. They seem to have understood what is at stake, and we hope that they will do everything to protect our communities."

Concluded Dussault: "If they don't, there is simply no chance that they will be re-elected. This will be the number one issue in this Fall's municipal election. People will elect a mayor who will close the door to this industry, and revoke a building permit, if necessary."

The group, Citizens for the Environment and Future in Eastern Ontario, is seeking donations to help finance its legal battle against the Municipality. Cheques may be sent to: P.O. Box 345, St-Eugene, Ontario, K0B 1P0.

• • •

Mégaporcheries : tension montante à Hawkesbury Est

Le Droit, Matthieu Boivin et Caroline Barrière, lundi 03 mars 2003

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/article/3,722,0,032003,214838.shtml

L'opposition continue de s'organiser contre l'arrivée d'une éventuelle porcherie industrielle à Hawkesbury Est.

Hier soir, lors de la réunion du conseil municipal du canton, des membre de Citoyens pour l'environnement et l'avenir de l'Est ontarien ont manifesté leur inquiétude en affirmant que personne ne bénéficierait de la présence de «mégaporcheries» à Saint-Eugène et Sainte-Anne de Prescott.

Avant la réunion du conseil, des dizaines de résidants et d'agriculteurs de cette localité du Québec ont marché devant l'hôtel de ville. «Nous avons eu affaire à la plus grosse manifestation de l'histoire de Hawkesbury Est, a signalé Jean Dussault, le porte-parole de l'organisation environnementale. Environ 75 personnes ont manifesté devant l'hôtel de ville durant 45 minutes pour faire voir leur mécontentement.»

M. Dussault a expliqué au conseil que son groupe ne s'opposait pas aux fermes, mais bien à ce type d'élevage qu'il juge incompatible avec les pratiques actuelles. «On veut protéger les agriculteurs. Les mégaporcheries et les intégrateurs constituent une industrie et donc une menace», a dit ce résidant de Rigaud au Québec dont la maison est située à proximité de la frontière ontarienne. Il a souligné les dangers de contamination de la nappe phréatique et donc de l'eau des puits environnants.

Selon M. Dussault, sa déclaration devant le conseil municipal à ce sujet a été bien reçue par les édiles. «Les élus étaient contents qu'on leur ait donné de l'information et des faits rattachés à notre point du vue, a affirmé M. Dussault. Les élus nous ont dit qu'on pouvait compter sur eux. Ils nous ont raconté qu'ils étudiaient la demande d'émission de permis très sérieusement avec leurs avocats, afin de voir s'il est possible de ne pas émettre le permis.»

Hier soir, le préfet du canton, Michel Lalonde, s'est retiré de sa chaise à la table du conseil quand les élus ont commencé à parler de ce sujet délicat, selon M. Dussault. M. Lalonde a agi ainsi parce que celui-ci serait en situation de conflit d'intérêts dans cette histoire.

Rappelons qu'une demande de permis de construction pour l'implantation d'une porcherie a été déposée à la dernière minutes le 20 février, quelques heures avant que le conseil de Hawkesbury Est ne décide d'imposer un moratoire visant toutes les exploitations animales.

Ce règlement de contrôle intérimaire interdit pendant une période d'une année la construction de nouvelles installations ou l'expansion de celles déjà existantes touchant plus de 250 unités animales, ce qui équivaut à 1250 truies ou 1000 porcs d'engraissage. Selon certains agriculteurs locaux, la demande de permis viserait 6000 porcs adultes.

• • •

Un urbaniste et un conseiller juridique déterminent l’avenir de la région

Le Carillon, 5 mars 2003 http://www.infoprg.com/lecarillon/

(section Société) 

Hawkesbury-Est - Deux résolutions ont été adoptées dans la saga des mégaporcheries qui se poursuit de plus belle. Encore une fois, ils étaient près de 75 opposants au projet des mégaporcheries réunis au conseil municipal de Hawkesbury-Est pour réaffirmer leur mécontentement.

Afin de déterminer si oui ou non la municipalité de Hawkesbury-Est devra accorder un permis au promoteur du projet de mégaporcherie dans St-Eugène, cette dernière a embauché un conseiller juridique. C’est lui qui déterminera si la municipalité doit donner préséance au projet de mégaporcherie ou au moratoire signé quelques heures après que la demande de permis a été faite.

Pour le moment, le maire adjoint Ron Conway indique qu’il faut attendre le rapport du conseiller juridique avant que le conseil puisse pendre une décision. «Si on doit accorder le permis, les opposants auront 20 jours pour en appeler. Dans le cas où la municipalité déciderait de ne pas émettre de permis, c’est le promoteur qui disposera de 30 jours pour réagir.». La municipalité a par ailleurs demandé à un urbaniste d’étudier en détail le projet afin d’en connaître toutes les répercussions possibles. Les citoyens n’en sont pas moins inquiets et demandent à la municipalité d’adopter une position claire et de s’opposer à l’implantation de mégaporcheries dans la communauté.

Dans un rapport déposé par les Citoyens pour l’Environnement et l’Avenir de l’Est ontarie, on peut y lire les angoisses de gens de la région. Le rapport évoque, entre autres choses, le danger de contamination de l’eau, la perte du pouvoir décisionnel des agriculteurs au profit des dirigeants des mégaporcheries en plus des facteurs qui ont été exposés lors de la première rencontre. Le conseiller juridique devrait se prononcer au cours de la semaine. Rappelons que le maire de Hawkesbury-Est, Michel Lalonde, s’est retiré du dossier pour des raisons de conflit d’intérêt.

• • •

In the country

Editorial, Vankleek Hill Review, March 5, 2003 http://www.thereview.on.ca

As the debate over intensive livestock operations continues, clarity and a new perspective are needed for better understanding of the issues.

How many animals constitute an "intensive" livestock facility? Can farm and factory be one and the same and governed by the same rules? Do we have the right to expect a small-scale agricultural operation to manage its nutrients using the same technology as a large-scale agricultural facility?

Provincial nutrient management legislation, which would govern how all agricultural operations handle manure and how municipalities handle human waste, is not yet official. But Bill 81, if passed, will apply to all nutrient users. Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Ron Bonnett says that all farms rely on nutrients to grow crops and thus all farms need to plan their nutrient applications. Bonnett says that it was farm organizations themselves who asked for provincial legislation to escape harassment at the municipal level, and that concentrating on only one segment of the agriculture industry could leave small and mediums-sized farms still exposed to this harassment. While the new legislation is being debated, municipalities have enacted their own temporary legislation to define and govern intensive livestock operations.

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell M.P.P. Jean-Marc Lalonde says that implementing the province's new Nutrient Management Act will cost small farm operators between $1,000 and $2,000. Lalonde says that to date, the provincial government has not offered funding to assist any farmers to implement the legislation.

Living as we do in a region where small to medium-sized agricultural operations exist side-by-side with rural residents, it is not surprising that the idea of a mega-facility with thousands of animals triggers questions and concerns. What is surprising is that the provincial government, having recently created an alternative energy ministry, is not addressing sustainable alternatives for producers.

How the nutrients from large facilities will be managed and who will ensure that legislative safeguards are being met are legitimate concerns.

But developing alternative technologies along with incentives to encourage agricultural producers to try them should be part of any plan.

L.S.

• • •

The pariahs of agriculture

The Editor, (Vankleek Hill Review, 5 March 2003) http://www.thereview.on.ca/

I am not an activist, but I find myself drawn into the issue of the huge pork operations moving into our area. When I first heard the rumors, I was mildly concerned. I know the smell of hog manure, and its particular charms are unmistakable, but occasionally they must be

endured. This is after all, a farm area, and farmers have a difficult and risky job to do. Agriculture is subject to the whims of weather and the market. However, when I did some research, I became alarmed.

Intensive hog operations are the pariahs of agriculture. In almost every jurisdiction of western society there is an outcry against these meat factories. Most European countries have strong protective standards. Holland has bought out many of these pork producers, to close them down. South Carolina, Manitoba, Québec and many other areas in North America are under strong pressure from their citizens to control the impact of such operations. Here in Ontario, local governments are acting vigorously to protect their communities.

The Ontario government, driven by intense reaction to its public health failures, notably in Walkerton and elsewhere, are promoting the Nutrient Management Act. This is a ham-fisted measure that will harm ordinary farmers, while shielding these huge corporate entities from community accountability. These facilities would consume vast quantities of land, resources, and water, would buy their feed from other corporate growers (not necessarily local), ship their product somewhere else for processing, and leave behind tens of thousands of tons of untreated, uncomposted, anaerobic waste, which is more like toxic industrial sludge than agricultural manure. Anybody with internet access or a library card, can find a huge volume of information about the harmful effects of this kind of activity.

Industry has been forced to be clean. No industry can be established that knowingly pollutes and creates a hazard for the community. The very scale of these pork operations and their wastes is undeniable. I am saying that these intensive hog operations are in fact, more factory than farm, and they should be regulated as such. A separate category, even a separate act, should be made to regulate them.

The proposed Nutrient Management Act must be reconsidered. In its present form, it will punish family farmers, driving many out of business, while encouraging huge corporate operations. Farmers have deep roots and ties to their communities, and are generally responsive

to their neighbours. Corporations respond to the bottom line. We should not let this happen. Protect our farmers. Regulate these factories. Even better, don't let them into our community.

Vlasta Vrana, St-Eugène

• • •

Mégaporcherie à Hawkesbury-Est

Nouvelles TV Radio-Canada Ottawa-Gatineau (24 février 2003)

http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/ottawa/nouvelles/200302/24/004-megaporcherie.shtml

Des citoyens de Hawkesbury-Est pourraient se tourner vers les tribunaux pour que le nouveau projet de mégaporcherie dans le secteur de Sainte-Anne de Prescott, soit soumis à un moratoire adopté jeudi dernier.

Ce qui a soulevé la colère, c'est que la demande de permis pour cette porcherie industrielle a été déposée quelques heures avant l'adoption du moratoire qui empêche justement la construction de ce type d'exploitations.

Les citoyens en ont aussi contre le maire de Hawkesbury-Est qui a déclaré des intérêts financiers personnels dans ce projet et qui a avoué s'être placé en conflit d'intérêts.

• • •

Porcherie : demande de permis déposée juste avant le moratoire

Le Droit (section La Région), samedi 22 février 2003, p. 14 http://www.cyberpresse.ca/droit/

Caroline Barrière

Une demande de permis pour l'implantation d'une porcherie a été déposée à la dernière minute jeudi, quelques heures avant que le conseil de Hawkesbury Est ne décide d'imposer un moratoire visant toutes les exploitations animales.

Le règlement intérimaire bloque pendant une période d'une année la construction de nouvelles installations ou l'expansion de celles déjà existantes touchant plus de 250 unités animales. En convertissant ces unités, il serait alors impossible d'implanter une porcherie comptant plus de 1250 truies ou 1000 porcs d'engraissage. Cependant, la demande de permis de construction ne serait pas touchée par cette nouvelle mesure puisqu'elle a été faite avant son adoption par les élus.

Bien que les détails concernant la proposition doivent demeurer confidentiels jusqu'à l'émission du permis, il appert que le demandeur est un cultivateur local qui souhaiterait construire une porcherie pour y engraisser les bêtes sur des terrains situés à trois ou quatre kilomètres de la frontière avec le Québec, entre Saint-Eugène et Sainte-Anne de Prescott. Certains agriculteurs locaux estiment que la demande viserait 6000 porcs adultes.

Avant le début de la réunion jeudi soir, le préfet du canton, Michel Lalonde, a préféré se retirer du dossier en affirmant qu'il se trouvait en conflit d'intérêts. Le conseiller juridique de la municipalité lui a indiqué qu'il serait préférable d'agir ainsi en vue des discussions qui devaient avoir lieu. Hier, il a confirmé qu'il avait encore certains intérêts financiers dans des terrains. " Jeudi, je n'étais pas en conflit d'intérêts mais quand la demande a été déposée, les choses ont changé ", a expliqué M. Lalonde.

C'est Ronald Conway qui a alors présidé la séance en tant que maire adjoint. Il a indiqué que toute cette affaire faisait beaucoup jaser et que plusieurs citoyens étaient mécontents. " Je les comprends. C'est ironique car la demande a été faite juste avant notre réunion. Les gens étaient au courant et on ne voulait pas faire ça en cachette car on est une communauté agricole et le règlement touchera tout le monde. Moi, je comprends les deux points de vue. "

Il a ajouté que la demande sera étudiée en vertu des règlements existants. Le demandeur devra préparer un plan de gestion des éléments nutritifs, qui proviennent notamment du lisier de porc et des matières produites par les exploitations agricoles, en plus d'être propriétaire des terrains. Les futures demandes seront ensuite soumises à la Loi 81 sur la gestion des éléments nutritifs de l'Ontario dont les règlements seront adoptés au printemps.

" On va étudier la demande attentivement et si elle ne satisfait pas nos normes, on va la refuser. Elle tombera alors sous le coup du règlement intérimaire ", a dit Ronald Conway. La réponse du canton devrait être connue d'ici quelques mois. Il a ajouté que le moratoire actuellement en vigueur au Québec poussait la production porcine vers l'Ontario.

Toute cette affaire a provoqué la colère de Jean Dussault, un résidant de Rigaud au Québec, dont la maison est située à proximité de la frontière et qui est membre de l'organisation Citoyens pour l'environnement et l'avenir de l'Est ontarien. " Cette situation est désespérante car l'écoulement va se faire de la rivière Rigaud dans la rivière des Outaouais. "

Il s'insurge contre le laxisme dont ont fait preuve les politiciens de Hawkesbury Est. " Ils connaissaient l'urgence de la situation depuis une semaine et ils auraient pu agir autrement mais ils ont préféré attendre avec les conséquences qu'on connaît. On se sent trahi surtout que le maire a seulement déclaré son conflit d'intérêt juste au début de la réunion. "

• • •

Adoption d’un moratoire d’un an sur les mégafermes

La Carillon, par Yves Rouleau, 26 février 2003 http://www.infoprg.com/lecarillon/

St-Eugène – Le conseil municipal de Hawkesbury-Est a adopté, jeudi soir, un règlement intérimaire qui fera en sorte d’empêcher, pendant une période d’au moins un an, l’établissement de mégaporcheries ou fermes sur son territoire pour une période d’un an. Le règlement a été adopté à l’unanimité, moins le vote du maire Michel Lalonde, qui a entrepris l’assemblée en déclarant un conflit pécunier, ce qui a fait rouspéter l’assistance qui remplissait à pleine capacité la petite salle du conseil de St-Eugène.

Le sous-maire Ron Conway qui a bravement pris la présidence de cette assemblée chargée d’émotions, a expliqué que le maire avait agi en accord avec la Loi municipale qui lui impose de déclarer tout conflit d’intérêt et de quitter la salle pour ne pas influencer les discussions. Règlement intérimaire Le règlement intérimaire du conseil stipule que toute demande d’implantation ou d’expansion d’une ferme de 250 unités (une unité égale 5 truies ou une vache laitière) sera soumise à un moratoire d’un an, qui pourra être prolongé d’une autre année, pour laisser le temps à la municipalité d’étudier les impacts. Il s’agit d’une tactique utilisée par plusieurs municipalités, dont le canton de Champlain, pour empêcher l’établissement des mégafermes, d’ici l’entrée en vigueur de la Loi 81 sur la gestion des éléments nutritifs du gouvernement de l’Ontario prévue pour le mois de juillet, au plus tôt.

L’adoption du règlement n’a pas satisfait une partie de l’assistance qui s’est demandée, malgré les propos des conseillers qui ont tenté de se faire rassurants, si la demande de permis déposée jeudi matin par un producteur de porc du Québec allait être assujettie à ce moratoire. «Aucune ferme n’obtiendra de permis si elle outrepasse les restrictions de notre règlement. Par contre, il y a absolument rien que nous puissions, en tant que municipalité, pour empêcher une ferme de s’établir ou de prendre de l’expansion si elle respecte tous les règlements et normes», a indiqué le maire Conway qui a également insisté pour rappeler que Hawkesbury-Est est situé dans une zone agricole.

L’auditoire, chauffée à bloc comme c’est toujours le cas lorsqu’il est question de mégaporcheries, a tantôt dénoncé la pollution et les dommages à l’environnement, tantôt fait valoir le caractère essentiel de l’agriculture et les efforts honnêtes de l’industrie pour limiter les dégâts écologiques.

«Nous ne sommes pas contre l’agriculture, mais contre l’agriculture industrielle», a indiqué une résidante de la 7e concession, Louise Roch Une voisine, Carole Séguin, a ajouté que les fermes intensives n’avaient pas la réputation de faire profiter économiquement leur communauté d’accueil.

«Les fermes industrielles polluent, ce qui fait fuir les touristes et elles endommagent nos routes», a-t-elle soutenu. Il s’est par ailleurs trouvé des agriculteurs pour défendre l’industrie et son dossier environnemental. «On ne devrait pas s’inquiéter de la dimensions des fermes, mais plutôt de la disposition des fumiers. Il y a encore la solution, pour ceux qui font une maladie des odeurs de l’agriculture, de cesser de consommer les produits de la ferme, tout aussi bien dire arrêter de manger complètement», a indiqué une producteur de porc, George Heinzle. «Peu importe la dimension d’une ferme, ça ne veut pas dire qu’elle doit puer. En Europe, il y a beaucoup de grandes fermes établies plus près qu’ici des villes et on a pas tous ces problèmes d’odeur. C’est que les gouvernements ont pris leurs responsabilités et adopté des normes d’environnement sévères», a expliqué un autre fermier Ralph Jurgens.

• • •

Pig Farm Hogs the Spotlight

Ottawa Citizen News, February 25, 2003

http://www.canoe.ca/OttawaNews/os.os-02-25-0004.html

Sean McKibbon

Opponents of large-scale agriculture in East Hawkesbury are raising a stink
about a pig farm proposal that missed by hours being blocked by a year-long
municipal moratorium.

"We are very upset about it," said Louise Rock, an East Hawkesbury resident
whose organic farm is next door to a proposed factory hog operation.

A building permit application for what municipal officials say would be a
3,000-hog farm was submitted last Thursday, before an evening council
meeting to discuss a bylaw banning any new farm development with more than
250 animals. She said she's worried about manure poisoning area rivers and
creeks and threatening her livelihood.

Rock said residents had been asking for a moratorium for a week and that
council needlessly delayed passing it. But what bothers her even more is a
declaration by East Hawkesbury Mayor Michel Lalonde prior to the moratorium
meeting that he had a conflict of interest.

'DELAYED AND DELAYED'

"He delayed and delayed and surprise, surprise, look what happened," said
Rock.

Lalonde said there was nothing unusual in the timing of the meeting and the
farmer who wants to build the hog farm didn't get any special tipoff about
the moratorium.

"The farmer who applied for the building permit bought my farm," said
Lalonde. "I hold a mortgage on the property."

Lalonde said his lawyer told him the mortgage is a pecuniary interest in the
issue, so he withdrew himself from the moratorium meeting.

He said there had been rumours of a factory hog farm for months but the
building permit application was the first time council had any official
communication about the project. The land was sold four or five years ago
and Lalonde said he had no indication then of the farmer's plans. The land
is currently used for dairy farming.

Despite the explanations, Rock and others are promising to fight the hog
farm. They've formed a group called the Citizens for the Environment and
Future in Eastern Ontario.

• • •

Stink raised over pig farms

Mayor declares conflict of interest too late, charge critics

Hudson Gazette, Feb. 26, 2003 http://www.hudsongazette.com

A municipal council that acted too late and a mayor who declared a financial interest in an application for an industrial livestock operation has left citizens of the rural communities of St. Eugene and Ste. Anne de Prescott just over the border in Ontario in a state of shock.

Because of the location of the proposed industrial operation, just west of the Quebec border, Rigaud, Hudson, St. Lazare, and Oka also fear the worst as liquid manure run-off from the operation could flow into the Lake of Two Mountains through the Rigaud River.

The worst fears of thousands of citizens on both sides of the Ontario/Quebec border came true on Thursday night when an application for a building permit for an industrial livestock operation was submitted in the Municipality of East Hawkesbury, only hours before the Council adopted an interim by-law to ban buildings or structures for the purpose of such operations. For the last week, citizens had insistently and specifically asked Mayor Michel Lalonde and the other councillors that such a by-law be passed without delay.

On Thursday night, Council did end up adopting the interim control by-law under which no new building or structure for the purpose of an interim livestock operation will be permitted in East Hawkesbury for a period of one year, so as to allow the municipality to undertake further study on the impact of such operations. The by-law defines 'intensive livestock operations' as agricultural operations in which more than 250 live stock units are kept, the equivalent of 1,000 hogs or 1,250 sows.

But the by-law was adopted a few hours too late, as enraged citizens found out at the end of the Council meeting. In fact, the by-law adopted likely does not apply to the building permit submitted on Thursday morning, before the by-law was adopted, at least if the application was complete and in good order, which has not been confirmed according to a spokespersonfor the Citizens for the Environment and Future in Eastern Ontario. In front of a room packed with farmers and other citizens, the Deputy Mayor, Ronald Conway, refused to disclose how large the livestock operation for which the permit was submitted could be. Local farmers believe that up to 6,000 hogs could be housed in the operation.

The fact that Mayor Lalonde declared his personal financial interest too late left the locals baffled and shocked. The mayor only disclosed the conflict at the beginning of the meeting on Thursday night. He only withdrew from the file at that time.

Citizens are angry because Council could have adopted the by-law preventing construction of new industrial operations earlier, without waiting until the meeting on Thursday night. That is what citizens had been asking the mayor and other council members to do. But the mayor waited until Thursday, and declared his conflict only after the application in which he has a personal financial interest had been submitted.

At another meeting on the future economic development of part of the Municipality, on February 16, about 100 citizens had demanded that Council act immediately. The mayor and two other councillors were present at that meeting and heard that message, but failed to act, despite persistent rumours that an application was imminent.

Citizens in these communities claim they are now faced with a future that could see plummeting property values, contamination of water, nauseous odours, toxic gases, and the demise of the family farm, all for the profit of a few industrial promotors that could not care less about the communities affected by their operations, according to critics.

Citizens for the Environment and Future in Eastern Ontario, a not-for-profit organization founded last week by concerned residents in East Hawkesbury, is satisfied that a by-law was adopted on Thursday night. However, it is outraged at the Mayor's and Council's handling of the file.

It repeats the demands that it made in a written submission to Council, (1) that the interim by-law define intensive livestock operations as agricultural operations in which more than 175 or 200, instead of 250 livestock units are kept, (2) that East Hawkesbury be symbolically declared a municipality free of intensive livestock operations, and (3) that the municipality join the growing movement in Ontario that opposes the proposed regulations under the provincial Nutrient Management Act as inadequate to protect the health of the people of Ontario. These regulations need to protect farmers and the environment and health of Ontario. In their current form, they do not do that, but instead protect industrial operations that have to be regulated as what they are, namely potentially disastrous polluters.

• • •

It's in your back yard

A column by Jim Duff

Hudson Gazette, 26 Feb. 2003 http://www.hudsongazette.com

If there's one thing Hudson and St. Lazare Councils better get straight, it's the need to intervene to halt proposed hog factories for St. Eugene and Ste. Anne de Prescott, or anywhere where the runoff could concievably drain into the Ottawa River. I'll get to why in a minute.

Until I moved to the Townships to run the Sherbrooke Record, I knew nothing about pigs. I was quickly educated by my environmental reporter, Merritt Clifton.

Clifton lived in Brigham, not far from where hog producers were raising one million pigs in a square mile. These weren't farms as we suburbanites think of them, with muddy barnyards full of squealing, rooting, muddy swine. These were massive hog factories, where concentrated feed goes in one end and fattened pigs come out the other. The byproduct is hog slurry, a concentrated diarrhea so toxic, the huge concrete storage basins are sometimes used to dispose of bodies. As one former cop told me, dump a corpse into a slurry pond and nothing's left in a few weeks. It's that corrosive.

Hog slurry is high in nitrogen and phosphates so, in theory, it's good fertilizer. But it has to age and a little goes a long, long way. The 10 million hogs produced every year in Quebec produce far more slurry than the ground can absorb. Hog-slurry runoff killed the l'Assomption River, the Yamaska, the North and South Missisquoi, plus a dozen smaller streams in the Townships. When I was running Quebec's other English-language daily, a summer didn't go by without massive fish kills. Hog-slurry runoff has poisoned the water table in scores of rural communities, to the point that Environment Québec is under enormous pressure to ban new hog operations.

No wonder these folks want it just across the Ontario border.

Let's get something else straight. Hog factories can be located anywhere trucks have access. The pigs spend their entire lives in these vast metal sheds, from the day the piglets arrive until the finished porkers are loaded for their trip to the slaughterhouse. The only reason hog producers want to locate in a rural area is that land is cheap and they like to fool us into thinking what they're doing is farming.

What they're doing isn't farming. It's agribusiness on a massive scale, destructive of the environment, and without precedent in the damage it causes to the neighbourhood it's located in.

And these pigs aren't even destined for our supermarket freezers. Most Canadian pork production is shipped to the Asian market. Ask the Japanese, the Koreans and everyone else buying Canadian pork why they don't allow hog factories and they'll tell you what your own nose knows, they stink up the countryside.

The usual argument is that it's good for Canada's balance of trade. Sure, like strip mining and clearcutting our boreal forests. Like fishing the cod to extinction. Like selling hunting licences to slaughter polar bears and bighorn sheep.

You're saying it's too far away to smell, so why should you care?

Try this: Runoff from the fields around St. Eugene and Ste. Anne de Prescott finds its way into the Rigaud River. The Rigaud River flows into the Ottawa. If, God forbid, something poisons the water table that Hudson and St. Lazare draw their water from, the only solution will be to draw our tap water from the Ottawa.

You think that will never happen? Ask the folks at Environment Québec. They've seen it all before.

• • •

Mega-stink: East Hawkesbury citizens fight factory pig operations

-- East Hawkesbury's freeze on intensive operations is "too little, too late," critics say

Vankleek Hill Review, Feb. 26, 2003 http://www.thereview.on.ca/

Richard Mahoney

ST-EUGENE – Concerned citizens fear East Hawkesbury's one-year freeze on factory farms won't protect them from the impact of a new proposed mega swine operation near Ste-Anne-de-Prescott.

Municipal council adopted a moratorium on intensive livestock operations at a standing-room-only meeting at the township hall in St-Eugne Thursday. But the interim control by-law cannot affect an application the municipality received before the restrictions were adopted.

Citizens say interim control by-law is too late

(Cont'd from page 1)

"It's too little too late," charged Rigaud resident Jean Dussault, one of about 100 people who squeezed into the council chamber for the special meeting which served to fan rumours about the impending arrival of a huge pig farm. Deputy-reeve Ron Conway, who chaired the meeting, refused to reveal details of the application. "I can't say if it is a mega farm," Conway said following persistent questioning from citizens. He noted that if the proposal conforms with all existing regulations, the municipality had no choice but to issue a building permit. "But no permit has been granted yet," said Conway, adding that if that did happen, citizens could still appeal.

MORE THAN ONE?

More than one mega hog operation could be earmarked for the township, indicated Marcel Bédard, who told The Review that he is considering setting up a pig barn on property situated near Ste-Anne-de-Prescott.

"We are not the only ones," Bédard said Saturday, adding another Ste-Anne landowner is also contemplating a new swine operation. Bédard would not disclose the size of his proposed business. "We are discussing that

now," he said. At Thursday's meeting, residents' frustration mounted as they argued they had a right to learn details of the application. Speculation was fueled at the outset of the meeting when Reeve Michel Lalonde left the hall, saying he had a pecuniary interest. Conway said that a council member had a "moral obligation to declare a conflict of interest but he does not have to explain why."

Based on Champlain Township's by-law, East Hawkesbury's regulation essentially bans for a year any new swine operations that have more than 1,000 pigs. Anyone can within the next 60 days appeal the interim control by-law, noted municipal clerk Rjeanne Clermont.

The by-law prohibits new farms that have more than 250 "livestock units." For swine, a unit is the equivalent of five sows or boars and four feeder hogs. During the debate, many residents said they had little confidence in the ability of the municipality or the Ontario government to protect them against the environmental effects of factory farms. While some argued the size limit ought to be lowered, Conway remarked, that with a 1,000-pig ceiling, "No Qubec integrator will come here with that." Municipal regulations will be superceded by the new provincial Nutrient Management Act, which is expected to be enacted this spring or summer.

"We're all frightened, we're scared, we're very uneasy about what is happening," citizen Chris Brown told council. Vlasta Vrana, an organizer of a citizens' movement against mega-hog farms, agreed that most producers respected the environment. "But there are some practices we can't live with. We live here and we have rights as well," said Vrana. Louis St-Pierre was applauded when he stated, "Mega pork farming is not farming -- it's an industry." He remarked that people were knowledgeable. "They know what they want. They know what they smell."

"Whoever doesn't like farmers ought to stop eating because farmers grow the food," commented farmer George Heinzle, noting that not all farms created problems. But Lis Skelly, who lives near the Skotidakis swine and goat operation in St-Eugne, related that in practical terms, authorities do little to punish offenders. "You have to weigh both sides of the coin," said Skelly.

Conway said that environmental complaints had to be reported to the environment ministry. "We need to live together. I know there is a problem," said the deputy-reeve. He later added that controls are being put in place. "It's not just open season. This is one step we are taking tonight."

• • •

High time the air was cleared

Editorial, Richard Mahoney

Vankleek Hill Review, Feb. 26, 2003 http://www.thereview.on.ca/op_ed.htm

A huge corporation moves into a small, peaceful bucolic rural community and establishes a large, money-making factory. The rural community is hungry for revenue. But in the long run, this new industry turns out to be a real stink. It produces few local economic spinoffs. Few jobs are created. Fat profits go to the faceless company, owned by unknown entrepreneurs who live far from the plant that becomes very big and very offensive. Meanwhile, the locals are left with the fallout -- a reduced quality of life, lower property values, more noise, the constant stomach-turning stench of pig manure and many other possible, potential long-term environmental and health hazards.

That is a worst-case scenario. "Mega" is not necessarily a dirty four-letter word, but many East Hawkesbury residents have good reason to fret that this dire scenario will become a real-life horror story for them, if a proposed mega swine operation sets up in their municipality. In East Hawkesbury, the latest municipality to become embroiled in a "factory farm debate", the township has imposed a one-year ban on new factory farms. However, that by-law can't stop a nebulous mega-farm application that was submitted before the moratorium was approved by township council last Thursday. That's why many citizens left that meeting angry, frustrated and convinced that their elected representatives weren't listening to them and that a "pig factory" was a fait accompli. The air was hot -- and at times blue -- in the packed council chamber as citizens pressed for details about the impending mega swine farm. When few facts were presented, citizens speculated even more, fumed even more about pig manure fumes and slammed their council members, who said that they must abide by existing regulations. Speculation tends to breed worst-case scenarios. The story is that once one mega is in, more will come to farmer-friendly East Hawkesbury, which is next door to Quebec, where tougher manure spreading rules are forcing integrators to look for new sites. East Hawkesbury is a natural choice for big Quebec firms that must maintain production so they can fulfill their contracts with Asian companies. Rural municipalities have a valuable asset -- und3eveloped space. One person's bucolic unspoiled countryside is another person's chance to make a buck. And there's no law against making money.

There is obviously still a big market for red meat. Ontarians consume over 90,000 pigs per week! And that's in addition to the herds of beef they consume.

While Ontario is moving to enact stricter manure storage and application regulations, the new Nutrient Management Act is not law yet. Citizens remain skeptical that, at the ground level, these new restrictions will be enforced.

No discussion of farming is complete without a mandatory recognition of the importance of agriculture. If you ate today, thank a farmer. Not all farmers are polluters. But the non-farm people who live around them also have rights.

All that being said, the best suggestion to emerge from the heated discussion was that the mega farm applicant ought to hold a public meeting, to clear the air and explain to residents and particularly the neighbours, the exact nature of the proposal. It is much more constructive to deal with facts than rumours. A face-to-face proponent-opponent meeting might lead to dialogue between the perceived 'villain" and the perceived "villains".

This region's promoters regularly tout government-funded "innovative" agri-business, environmentally-friendly projects. One great innovation would be a pre-approval public consultation meeting. That approach should be taken with all new intensive livestock operations. As part of the approval process, municipalities could require, or at least, strongly encourage, proponents to hold a "town hall" with the locals and give them the real poop, so to speak. After all, they will have to live together.

Without some concrete information, citizens are left holding their breath and hoping for the best.

The public deserves hard facts, not rumours. An informed debate is needed.