The Rural Voice, 1988-09, Page 100Coo
ONTARIO
Lake
gwood
Huron
c
Pori
L, Huron
Barrie • Peterborough BellevJle
Kings on
01*
seac
Oshawa
TORON1O
'Guelph
•
Kitchener
Hamilton
Brantford•
London
SI Catharines
lake Ontario
Niagara
Falls
1r
0
rie
Tole
BFFALO
Lackawanna N E W Y 0 R K
*Newark
•Watenown
•Syracuse
•Utica
PENNSYLVANIA
OH 1 O
CLEVELAND
Scranton •
•Albany
The Saugeen Economic Development Community (SEDC) represents five communities which, as this map
from its promotional brochure shows, are close to lucrative markets, not least those of the U.S. The SEDC,
according to the brochure, is "really a rural city" enhanced by an agricultural environment.
in connection with Peel Village in
Brampton. Watson wants to create
an industrial park on 300 acres of his
cattle farm. Under the proposed
amendment, his 400 adjacent acres
would retain their agricultural -use
designation.
Watson is not the "defendant" in
this hearing, but he is represented by
legal council. The Grey County
Council is also represented by a
lawyer, as is Normanby Township.
Local government, fully supportive of
Watson's proposal, has petitioned the
OMB to approve changes to their local
by-laws and official plans in order to
accommodate a welcome industrial
and commerical boost to their home-
town economies.
But changes like this can affect
the environment of local citizens
adversely, and so we have laws to
ensure public scrutiny of industrial
proposals. Notices were sent to neigh-
bouring landowners and public meet-
ings were held. Local branches of the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
spoke out against the proposed devel-
opment. The Ministry of Agriculture
and Food (OMAF) opposed the loss
of the agricultural designation on the
land, and it too retained a lawyer.
Tom Lederer, from a prestigious
Toronto law firm, has represented
OMAF at such hearings before. He
has also made presentations to
Chairman Ball on other occasions.
His experience and his direct, almost
theatrical style make Lederer the odds-
on favourite for those who see the
hearing as a contest between jousting
legal professionals.
But Lederer and OMAF may run
into a high stumbling block when the
hearing resumes this fall.
The case for retaining the agricul-
tural designation on this parcel of land
is centred around a government policy
statement entitled Foodland Guide-
lines. To go further back, in 1976 the
Ontario government released a report
called A Strategy for Ontario Farm-
land and declared its commitment to
maintaining a "permanent, secure, and
economically viable agricultural
industry for Ontario, not only as a
producer of food but as an important
component of our economic base, a
source of employment, and the basis
of the rural community and the rural
way of life." A part of that commit-
ment was to ensure that a land base
remains available for agricultural
purposes and so, in 1978, the Food -
land Guidelines were introduced.
But legal council representing
supporters of the Wat-Cha develop-
ment have declared their intention to
challenge whether the guidelines
are admissible in the hearing.
This is not an isolated case.
John Armstrong, head of the Realty
Department at the University of
Guelph, is involved in a hearing where
a similar challenge to the guidelines is
expected. He says "the guidelines are
too broad."
Armstrong cites the issue of
Sunday shopping as a parallel.
"Surely individual municipalities
should decide on a site-specific basis
what is in their best interests," he
comments. And to the argument that
the government should defend an
agricultural land base, Armstrong
replies that "Canada is not going to
run out of farm land. That's hogwash.
SEPTEMBER 1988 23