Mail bag: 09/29/2022

‘Bad decision’

Dear Editor:

I feel sorry for the people living near the proposed refrigeration manufacturing plant on Jones Baseline. 

They looked to Guelph Eramosa Township (GET) council for protection from an incompatible land use and didn’t get it. Instead, on Nov. 15, 2021, council approved the rezoning. Now the only hope for the rural residents is to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, an expensive and uncertain process that, if council had done its job properly, would not have been necessary.

The initial county staff report prepared at the time of the public meeting made it clear that, notwithstanding the designation of the site as a “rural employment area”, one of the tests that council needed to use to evaluate the proposal was land use compatibility.

The report notes that Section 6.8.3 of the Official Plan states that “when considering rezoning applications, council shall ensure that existing and proposed uses are compatible, and that sensitive uses are adequately separated from industrial uses. The zoning bylaw may also limit the location and size of commercial uses.” The report adds, “As part of this development proposal, land use compatibility will need to be appropriately addressed.’’

If ever there was a location where a manufacturing plant should not have been permitted because of the number and proximity of surrounding residential uses, this was it. But council blew it and made a very bad decision instead.

And the county staff were complicit in that bad decision because in their recommendation report to council they did not themselves give adequate weight to land use compatibility and recommended approval of the rezoning. 

But ultimately it’s council that is responsible for making a decision and, in this instance, council should have stood up and said, “No, this is fundamentally wrong and we are not going to approve this proposal. Not only that, but because of the number and proximity of residential uses, we want the county to remove the ‘rural employment area’ designation that should never had been applied in the first place.”

Something has to change. Across the board, GET council needs to ensure that its residents are protected from incompatible land uses and should go on record to that end so that no one is surprised by a new direction in its decision making.

Dan Kennaley,


‘Think of others’

Dear Editor:

On Sept. 19 at 6:15pm in downtown Erin I was dropping off my friend after work. 

A ceremony was taking place in honour of the late Queen Elizabeth II at the Erin cenotaph. Traffic was getting through on my way to his place, but on the way back (three minutes later), traffic was completely and recklessly blocked by attendees. 

I would like all those involved to know that I was in an extreme rush to get to the hospital for my 11-year-old daughter. That act was ignorant, entitled and incredibly unsafe. 

Perhaps you folks should think of others next time.

Robert Ninkoviche,


‘Never in danger’

Dear Editor:

RE: ‘Slippery slope,’ Sept. 22.

Letter writer Pat Woode suggested I research an organization called the Euthenasia Prevention Coalition (EPC). They have both American and Canadian contact locations. I have a problem with Americans working against our Canadian law, in this case medical assistance in dying (MAID).

As far as I can see, the EPC serves to scare and confuse. I hope I can dispel Woode’s fear of long-term care (LTC) homes.

For the past eight years I have lived in three LTC homes – until I reached my home of first choice. I have never been afraid of being euthanized. I never had a reason to. I never even thought about it. The staff are all professional. I trust our staff.

Woode wrote in her letter that “Jan Corbett is most fortunate not have anyone in her family or friends euthanized against their will.” I am not fortunate as they were never in any danger.

As for “competent to decide,” I recommend reading the government of Canada’s “new medical assistance in dying law.” Look for the list of eligible criteria.

Thanks for letting me speak.

Jan Corbett,


‘Ridiculous’ situation

Dear Editor:

In June of this year many residents in and around the Elora area received a letter from a doctor who practices at the Elora Medical Centre. We were told that this doctor was leaving the practice and that they would do everything they could to retain another doctor for this practice.  

On Sept. 7 we received a follow up letter stating that a doctor could be not be retained and were given some prices which would be charged if renewing prescriptions and if we wanted our records copied for our use. I have been a client of the Elora Medical Centre for 44 years and have been given no priority on continuing to receive assistance at that centre.

We were also told that our only options in seeking medical attention would be to go to the walk-in clinic at Walmart or go to the emergency room at Groves hospital. Anyone who has been to either of those places know that it is virtually impossible to get service within a decent period of time.

The charge for renewing a prescription is going to be $15/prescription. The charge for getting our records was up to $40. Imagine being a senior, a person on ODSP or Ontario Works having to pay these extra fees out of their fixed income.  

Does the doctor get the OHIP fee on top of the $15?  Does he get a OHIP fee paid for having our records copied?  I could take those records and copy them myself for a lot less than $40! 

In addition, anyone who has more than one prescription could be paying exorbitant fees on a monthly basis.

One person I talked to did not receive any correspondence from the medical centre and tried for three weeks to get through to the office to get her prescription renewed. 

Once she finally got through, she was told she had no doctor and that she would have to pay $15 to get her prescription renewed.  Since she had no notice that she had no doctor, she asked for the fee to be waived. She was told that the fee was the doctor’s fee and the office couldn’t waive the fee. 

I personally am on a program administered by the nurse practitioner (NP) in the office but cannot follow up with the NP on this even though the doctor had nothing to do with putting me on the program.

The NP can take appointments, prescribe tests and meds but can’t continue to see the patients in this office. This is ridiculous. The whole situation is not right.

Linda McFadden,


‘Valuable insights’

Dear Editor:

My wife and I watched the recent Centre Wellington Mayoral Debate on YouTube. What an education. It gave us valuable insights on each candidate. 

We saw clearly what each stood for. It gave us better insights on the depth of knowledge each has on the issues we face today and for the future. It helped us clearly see the depth of thinking and the time each took to develop solutions to deal with the issues as our region grows. 

It was an excellent debate hosted by Janet Harrop of the Centre Wellington Chamber of Commerce. To watch, just Google Centre Wellington Mayoral Debate – Sept. 12, 2022. 

We strongly recommend this to anyone who wants to better understand the people who are running for mayor and how they will perform if elected to our government. 

Patty and Ken Johnston,