Settled

Picton Terminals and the County agree to settlement terms

The years-long battle between Picton Terminals and the County has come to a close, after an out-of-court settlement was reached and accepted by Council last Tuesday evening.

In closed session earlier in the meeting, Council received a second confidential independent legal opinion from Loopstra Nixon LLP, which it was not able to make public.

In a recorded 7-6 vote, Mayor Steve Ferguson and councillors John Hirsch, Kate MacNaughton, Phil St-Jean, Sam Branderhorst and Phil Prinzen were opposed.

Before the vote, Council heard from local farmer John Thompson, who spoke on behalf of the agricultural community. He said local farmers are pleased to welcome the construction of the Parrish & Heimbecker grain terminal at the port.

“This will result in better prices for County farmers and the regional farmers as well as a benefit for the agricultural economy,” he said, adding that the trucking cost to a port will be reduced by $10 a ton or more. “The grain terminal will provide local benefits for generations to come.”

Thompson also believes another benefit is that the County would have a strong negotiating position for getting provincial and federal assistance to re-build County Road 49.

“Repeatedly asking for help over a couple of decades has not shown any success, and playing the same plan repeatedly and expecting different results makes little sense. We finally have a strong hand to play,” said Thompson.

Ken Stewart of the County Conservancy reminded Council that the grain terminal had nothing to do with the settlement before them.

“We don’t need the settlement terms to make the P&H deal go. Picton Terminals was given the right to ship bulk products in the 2018 judgement from the Ontario Superior Court,” said Stewart. “If there is a bypass necessary to go through to 49 to make it easier for trucks to go in there, then Picton Terminals can apply through the normal planning process. You don’t need an MZO to put a road through to 49.”

Councillor John Hirsch, who has been an advocate for not settling and going to court, said he believed it it is not desirable to execute the minutes of settlement, and hoped the process could be stopped.

“Through this entire process of dealing with a settlement, there has never been a conversation in open session for the public to hear about reasons for and against. I am asking Council to vote no to the by-law before us,” said Hirsch.

“New information has come to light that we were not aware of on June 25. Information about legal case precedent, full scope of operations at the site, the White Chapel Church issue and, more recently, a very comprehensive letter from Transport Canada, confirming what many of us have believed all along: that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over the port facility,” he added.

Hirsch also worried about the complete lack of public input.

“This is not democratic and not how this council should be known. We have all heard significant objections from the public about Picton Terminals’ intention to create a container ship port and to significantly enlarge their operation. I continue to believe we would be better served to continue with our Superior Court request for an injunction so the County can determine its own destiny by approving only the operations which we believe are in the interest of the County,” he said.

Ameliasburgh Councillor Roy Pennell felt differently.

“It’s time we accept what the lawyers have told us and what the decision of Council was. I don’t know if we are trying to be heroes or what. It’s time to move on and start being a team,” he said.

Councillor Janice Maynard asked about the current quarrying of rock at Picton Terminals, and whether the County can leverage a site plan on the lands.

“Will they have to submit a plan for what they do with the property, and cease this years- long endless renovations of the site?” she asked.

CAO Marcia Wallace said the minutes of settlement agreement does not include site plan, but that it does create a development agreement which provides the same— and in some case more power—than a site plan would.

“You also need a formal site plan if you are required under the Aggregate Resources Act by the Ministry of Natural Resources to be treated as an aggregate pit,” she said.