-
SAWYERS TOLD TO BUZZ OFF
Retired fireman Brian Whitehead spent a career
putting out fires. But when he retreated to
beautiful Brock township 15 years ago, he had every
intention of hanging up the hose for good.
It didn't turn out that way, however, and things
are now getting fairly hot in Brock township.
Whitehead and his wife Lorraine are embroiled in a
dispute with neighbouring farmers Ed and Marie
Vincent, who are fighting for their right to
operate a stationary sawmill.
Tempers are flaring in this neighbourly dispute
over noise and right to farm, see page 10, but the
hundreds of farmers across the province who operate
sawmills to supplement farm income should take
note. The Vincents' mill has been silent for almost
two years, and business has dried up, after it was
shut down on a court order. The Vincents had failed
to get a building permit for the structure housing
the 45-foot-long mill. They also ran afoul of a
bylaw which didn't specify that sawmills were a
permitted use on farmland. They were fined more
than $1,000.
Since then, the bylaw has been altered, and the
permit obtained, but the Whiteheads aren't giving
up. They're challenging the new bylaw before the
Ontario Municipal Board.
With all the trendy talk of diversification and
competitiveness, it galls farmers such as the
Vincents to see their own efforts stymied at every
turn. As for the Whiteheads, they see no reason why
their peace and quiet should be shattered by what
they describe as a commercial operation. Yelling at
your spouse to make yourself heard on your own deck
was not their idea of retirement.
In many ways, the Vincent-Whitehead dispute is
unique, and for farmer sawmill-operators it should
be business as usual for the time being. Unlike
many portable mills on the market, this one is
home-built, and stationary, anchored into the
ground on concrete pillars. It has a 52-inch
circular blade and runs off a tractor engine.
Ed Vincent's son-in-law John Holmes says it would
be impossible to move, and, furthermore, sits on
poor-quality land ideal for a secondary operation
such as sawmilling. But he sees no difference
between his father-in-law's mill and many so-called
"portable" mills around the province that have been
anchored and housed for permanent use. The Nov. 21
Farm & Country featured one.
There's never an easy answer in any dispute across
the fenceline, but the Vincent-Whitehead case does
underline the dire need for some careful local
guidelines on what constitutes a farm business and
what constitutes a commercial operation. The
Vincents are not selling lumber to Cashway; they
have farm customers looking for slats for a farm
wagon or trusses for a barn. But supplying urban
needs can be a mainstay on a farm operation, not
only for lumber producers. What about on-farm
stores? Burlington farmer Peter Fisher was recently
charged with violating a municipal zoning
restriction by selling pies from his farm retail
outlet.
And how about seed cleaning operations? They
produce noise and dust similar to grain drying, but
can quickly become full-time businesses. When does
a farm sideline become a commercial operation not
permitted on agriculturally-zoned land?
It's a fine line, but farmers and municipal
officials had better sit down to define it, or
there will be more Vincents and Whiteheads across
the province.
LETTERS
Mixed feelings?
Thank you for your continuing interest in the story
of corn producers and the seed trade working to
exempt corn from registration in Canada.
In your Oct. 24 article, "American corn sprouts up
all over", I think Don Stoneman misinterpreted my
feelings on silage varieties and how they ought to
be brought from research to the customer. I do not
have mixed feelings about testing silage varieties.
It is completely necessary to test for silage
yields at several locations and to determine the
silage quality of the best yielding hybrids. It is
not necessary for the Ontario Corn committee and
the Agriculture Canada registration office to be
involved as third-party judges as to whether a seed
company should be allowed to sell new varieties to
farmers. These are my feelings and there is nothing
mixed about them. I do not know what I said that
Don interpreted as mixed feelings.
Francis B. Glenn
Blenheim
We're not fascists
With regard to "Lots wrong with animal rights" by
Michael Coren, Oct. 24 issue, surely there is not
such a scarcity of material that Farm & Country
must reprint articles that have not only been
previously published in the Toronto Sun, but that
are also hateful, unfounded accusations which offer
nothing to a rational dialogue on very serious and
valid concerns.
Apparently, both Michael Coren and the editors of
Farm & Country missed my letter in the Toronto Sun
in response to the first run of his article, so I
would again like to share some of my concerns.
Coren says not every animal rights activist is a
fascist. Nice of him. In fact, I would suggest that
the only ones who fit that description are those
who try to impose their will on others through
illegal acts. There are very few such people, just
as there are few writers who would do the same.
However, why defame the remaining 99 per cent of us
who are legally and rationally seeking to assist
animals?
And yes, we can be carnivorous, but we are
omnivores to be more exact; although meat
consumption in contemporary society is
disproportionate, to an unhealthy degree, to the
ancestral norm. Humans have engaged in a wide
variety of activities which were legal and morally
acceptable at one time that would now be considered
immoral or illegal. But we have choices, and there
is nothing fascist in advocating a meatless diet.
Ironically, the animal rights movement is closely
aligned with endeavours to bring rights and dignity
to everyone, regardless of race, colour, gender,
sexual orientation, age - or species! These are
hardly fascist goals; and if a political bent must
be put on such work, it would be to the left of
centre.
Andrea Maenza
Director, Animal
Alliance of Canada
Toronto
Insulting to farmers
Your front page article of Sept. 12, "Banned sprays
pour across the border" insults farmers. It implies
that farmers go to church on Sunday but act like
hypocrites during the week. Tom Button blames
farmers for using illegal chemicals but nowhere in
the three-page report does he explain why the
sprays are banned.
In Canada, chemical sprays must be approved by four
federal government departments before they can be
registered for use. These departments are Health
Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,
Environment Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada. Why does Button blame the victims of
government inaction and duplication instead of the
attitude of the people who administer the
legislation?
Apparently, the banned sprays are not harmful to
the environment or they would not be registered in
the U.S. Farmers know that rain comes down and
washes chemicals through tile drains into ditches,
rivers and lakes on both sides of the border.
Why does Button not address the issue of free
trade? Other industries have free trade. Why not
farming? Perhaps new sprays are banned in Canada
because Canadian chemical company executives need
time to sell off old stock. Why are MPs not moving
toward harmonizing products between the two
countries?
Farmers are only two per cent of the population of
Ontario but they generate 20 per cent of the jobs -
everything from government jobs to food processing
jobs. Farmers deserve better treatment from the
media.
M. L. Goodwin
West Montrose
Conservation concerns
After reading your cover story of Nov. 21,
"Conservation Authorities Think Big", these
thoughts and questions cause me to become concerned
how this quasi-government agency has become so
deeply entrenched in the day-to-day running of our
affairs when we are already paying for elected
officials and ministries to do this very work.
Who are the Conservation Authorities responsible
to: municipal, regional or provincial governments,
or, like the school boards, only to themselves?
Why have our elected officials been willing to
allow an unelected group of individuals to become
so powerful that they can dictate to all levels of
government and the private sector?
An extra level of authority comes with extra costs,
which have very little benefit for the average
Ontario tax payer.
Why is the Halton Region Conservation Authority
allowed to develop the Niagara Escarpment when
anyone else would face endless studies, permits and
rejections? I am in full agreement with the
recreational development of the escarpment and
other areas as long as it is environmentally and
economically feasible and serves the entire
community.
I feel the whole conservation system requires a
review by a neutral party to see if they are still
viable and whether their work is a duplication of
that carried out by government authorities.
Should Conservation Authorities be found to be
viable, they should live by the following rules:
¥ Be accountable to tax payers;
¥ Get out of the recreation for pay business; and
¥ Get out of policing and use regulation. The
Ontario Provincial Police, regional police forces
or Ministry of Natural Resources officers can take
care of this.
R.J. McPherson
Brampton
Tom Button's article Getting More Authority (Oct.
24) starts off correctly. Conservation Authorities
(CAs) are certainly pushing a plan. They wish to
assume most permit granting authority from various
provincial ministries. Although they claim it
streamlines government, in reality, it does not.
As long as municipalities retain control over land
use planning, zoning and building code matters,
farmers will always have to go to their local
municipality for approvals. Why should they not go
there for all of the various approvals as well?
Another trip to the Conservation Authority is still
duplication.
CAs are engaged in a desperate struggle across
Ontario to justify their own existence. Their
original mandate of flood control is largely
accomplished and their other traditional activity
of reforestation is not a sufficient base upon
which to build a larger bureaucratic empire. They
feel threatened with the downsizing of the
provincial government.
CAs tell us they are rural organizations and are
municipally based. But urban areas are also
represented and, since the number of
representatives is determined by assessed values,
large cities and towns tend to dominate.
I do not see how Mr. Prout can claim that,
regarding drainage, CAs would be able to protect
farmers better than the Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs against the
Ministry of Natural Resources, when the Ministry of
Natural Resources provides 45 per cent of each CA's
budget.
There is no requirement for a CA member to be a
municipal councillor and certainly none that he or
she be a farmer. A municipality appoints a member,
but once that is done, it loses control over the
member's actions. The association of CAs has
developed a plan to amalgamate numerous CAs into
much larger regional units. So much for local
control and responsiveness.
Here in Essex county, the CA rammed through a plan
to buy an abandoned rail line, over the
overwhelming objections of farmers. Now the CA
wants farmers whose land is bisected by the
right-of-way to sign use permits, for a fee, so
they can continue to cross the right-of-way.
I can assure your readers that more government in
the form of an expanded CA is the last thing they
should allow, much less welcome.
Paul Courey
Tilbury
back