Councillors, advocates question report on corn crop destruction in Wilmot Township

Calls for transparency continue The region’s attempt to acquire farmland in Wilmot Township continues to be a point of contention. Jeff Pickel reports.

Advocates are demanding an apology after a staff report regarding the destruction of corn crops in Wilmot Township was found to be lacking in detail.

Anger boiled over in Region of Waterloo council chambers Wednesday night as councillors discussed the report after a social media post in July sparked concerns over how farmland and crops were being treated as the region tries to acquire 770 acres of rural land in Wilmot Township. The region is trying to create a parcel of land that may be suitable for future large-scale development.

The social media post garnered thousands of views and inspired multiple protest as farmers called the destruction ‘wasteful and unnecessary.’

“On Aug. 28, we stood here and implored you to support Councillor [Natasha] Salonen’s motion to direct staff to account for and justify their actions with regards to the destruction of 160 acres of corn in Wilmot Township,” Vice President of the Waterloo Federation of Agriculture Mark Reusser said during his delegation to councillors.

“We hoped that this report would shed light on why this event took place, and who was responsible. Alas, it does neither,” he went on to say.

“It breaks my heart that my region, my Waterloo, no longer cares enough to throw the doors open and thoroughly investigate actions that are neither representative of our culture, nor our history, let alone good governance and good management,” he admonished.

According to the staff report, immature feed corn crop was destroyed and removed from the farmland to make way for an archeological assessment. The report states the crop was an estimated 10 to 16 weeks away from harvest at the time that it was destroyed.

The report said, “The option of delaying the removal of crops was pursued by the region. Unfortunately, due to various requirements of the parties associated with the land assembly process, it was not possible to delay the removal.”

Reusser said no one from the region reached out to the Federation of Agriculture for further information or advice about how to manage the crop before it was destroyed.

“All they had to do to preserve a food crop was delay the arbitrary deadline by a few weeks,” he said.

“This is what happens when visionary planning, transparency and community engagement disappear. What an incredibly sad and tragic loss. What can be done now that the corn crop is destroyed and no one has admitted responsibility? Begin with an apology. An apology to each and every resident of Waterloo Region. An apology for not following our official plan. An apology for putting economic development in charge of this project, seemingly without oversight or involvement from other departments. An apology for not consulting with the very group that is most effected – farmers. An apology for wasting tax dollars that we entrusted to you. An apology to all those people and organizations in Waterloo Region that could have benefited enormously from a donation of hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of having it wasted on destroying a food crop. A sincere apology is always accompanied by action. Take the Wilmot prime farmland mega-site assembly off the table,” he added.

Reusser also recommended council begin a new consultation process to identify a potential new site that does not include prime farmland.

Unanswered Questions

The report from regional staff left many questions unanswered.

One of the biggest ones was the financial impact of the crop destruction.

In the report, the only writing under a ‘Financial Implications’ heading reads ‘N/A.’

Delegate Amy-Susanna Compton questioned the lack of information.

“Are our taxpayers supposed to believe that there were no financial implications in shredding 160 acres of field corn?” she asked.

She went on to say that the corn crop could have been harvested early as silage, a preserved product that is fermented and fed to livestock.

According to the staff report, regional representatives spoke to ‘multiple livestock feed producers and a biofuel company’ but none of the companies are specifically named.

Staff said feed producers looked at the crop, said it was in a premature state and would not take the corn.

They went on to say a biofuel company told regional representatives there would be a significant cost if the company had to transport the crop.

When pressed to provide the names of the specific companies, Matthew Chandy, the region’s director of innovation and economic development said, “I request that be something that is shared in closed [session] for the reason of a number of our technical consultants have experienced various harassing calls to their businesses and homes and while they are on site. I don’t want to go ahead and name individuals or a company without at least talking to them first and putting them through what our other consultants are going through right now.”

Councillor Robert Deutschmann pushed back on the notion, saying the community wants to know what steps the region has taken.

“They were harassed and they did get phone calls and I’m not saying anybody in this chamber would ever have done that, but clearly some people did,” Regional Chair Karen Redman said. “It was very upsetting for them. Because of that, identifying individuals by name or by company, is not a prudent thing to do at this point.”

Deutschmann put forth a motion for the region’s legal team to explain what confidentiality agreements are in place that may prevent certain information from being made public, including the names of the companies that were approached. The motion passed and the explanation is expected during a closed session later next month.

Deutschmann also called the report’s overall lack of transparency into question.

“I found this report to be significantly lacking in detail,” he said.

“The suggestion of confidentiality – what document are we talking about that has subjected us to confidentiality at this point? Certainly not the [Non-Disclosure Agreement] anymore. That document has been blown up. That has been blown up by the premier, two senior ministers of the crown and a junior minister of the crown who have used that document initially as a shield and then as a sword. You can’t use a document and a shield and a sword and expect that document to still apply,” he added.

Staff later confirmed the NDA is still in effect.

“Our obligations for confidentiality, not only with other partners, but also with landowners who we are actively negotiating with and are in ongoing negotiations – it has always been the stand of this regional council that they would have fair and equitable negotiated outcomes with the landowners, and we stay committed to that,” Chair Karen Redman said.

Redman also cautioned against putting the blame fully at the feet of regional staff members.

“It isn’t fair to saddle staff with this. This issue had full discussion at regional council. Staff have not acted outside of any of the parameters that regional council has given them. These kinds of negotiations are complicated and there are many parties that are part of this.”

Staff did, however, confirm that council members were not aware the due diligence being undertaken at the site would involve plowing under the crop.

Councillor Salonen also brought up concerns with missing information.

“Even the fact that the financial implications weren’t included in this [report] is pretty alarming. I don’t understand why some of the options that were pursued, and to my understanding, for financial reasons not taken – why that was not further elaborated on,” she said.

Councillor Sue Foxton made an apology to the people angered by what has happened in Wilmot Township.

“You want to hate us, and I understand. But I want you to know I am truly sorry we’ve come to this situation.”