Response to person “Disappointed in attitudes” attending ratepayers meeting

The reader “Disappointed in attitudes” comments printed in the May 2 edition of the Canora Courier have been read with interest.

Firstly, council meetings are required to be an open forum and electors are entitled to be made aware of who attended and what transpired at any council meeting.

article continues below

The meeting on April 16 was even more a case in point, after Reeve Bates at the April 12 public meeting undertook to conduct a standing vote of any further action on Bylaw 03-2018 so that voters would know exactly how each councilor voted. Access to this information is every elector’s right.

On the second issue, while two applications are before council, they are inextricably linked. In order to develop an intensive livestock operation (ILO) on E1/2 33-33-03 W2, the Colony wishes to live on the same or adjacent land parcel; and where they wish to live is the same location as they wish to locate the ILO. It has not been presented as an either/or situation.

It is suggested that electors should be more tolerant and accepting of these applications. Are readers aware that if Bylaw 03-2018 is passed in its present form, any multiple number of collective living situations could exist within any division of the municipality, without any right of intervention or further say by our council?

On the issue of tolerance, should the opposite not also be true? Should the applicant not have been more aware of the implications of situating the proposed ILO directly over the water aquifer that supplies water to so many residents within our municipality?

Should they not have been aware that the E1/2 33-33-03 W2 location is situated in the most densely populated portion of the RM and that potential water contamination and odour, flies and potential disease arising from an ILO would be a major concern?

The Village of Stenen and the Crystal Lake recreational community have existed at their current locations for decades and cannot be moved.

Since the applicant owns 104 other parcels of land in the RM of Keys alone, should the question not be asked, “Why does the applicant require to be at this precise location?”

Surely one of the Colony’s other land sites could be chosen, one that is removed from the fresh water aquifer and away from the populated area, thereby allowing all of us to live in harmony with one another.

Submitted on behalf of the Committee for Concerned Electors in the RM of Keys #303.