No turbines near Great Lakes, says nature group


, , , , , , , , ,

Wolfe Island--one of the top killers in North America. What does Ontario do? Approve another one at Amherst Island.

Wolfe Island–one of the top killers in North America. What does Ontario do? Approve another one at Amherst Island.

August 15, 2016

London Free Press

John Miner

It’s a standard that would eliminate almost all of Ontario’s current wind farms and the ones recently approved.

In the wake of the release of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service migratory bird study, the American Bird Conservancy is calling for an 16-kilometre buffer around the Great Lakes for wind farms.

Losses not sustainable

“It is highly problematic to build anywhere near the Great Lakes,” Michael Hutchins, director of the American Bird Conservancy’s bird-smart wind energy program, said Monday. “These losses are just not sustainable.”

Using radar designed to detect birds and bats, the Fish and Wildlife Service monitored four sites along the south shore of Lake Ontario in 2013. The results were released last month.

Hutchins called the findings of a high level of bird and bat activity in the zone swept by wind turbine blades “a smoking gun” that proves the turbines should not be located close to the lakeshore.

The results from the U.S. study would apply to the Canadian side of the Great Lakes as well, Hutchins said.

“There is no reason to assume it wouldn’t be as bad on the (other) side as well because these birds are making their way up to the boreal forest in Canada to breed.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a standard that wind farms not be located within five kilometres of the shoreline. The Nature Conservancy recommends eight kilometres. The new evidence points to an 18-kilometre zone as appropriate, Hutchins said.

“These birds don’t just belong to Canada and the United States, they are a shared resource and they are worth billions of dollars,” Hutchins said, pointing to their role in controlling pests, pollinating crops and dispersing seed. “We can’t afford to lose these animals,” he said.

Ontario doesn’t restrict the proximity of wind turbines in relation to the Great Lakes, but does require wind farm developers to monitor bird and bat deaths for three years. For bats the acceptable mortality level is 10 per wind turbine each year, while the limit for birds is 14 birds annually per turbine.

Beyond those levels, the wind farm company may be required to take mitigating action.

Data released last month indicated wind turbines in Ontario in 2015 killed 14,140 birds, mainly songbirds, and 42,656 bats, including several species on Ontario’s endangered species list.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife radar study found that migrating birds concentrate along the shorelines to refuel and rest before crossing the lakes. The researchers also found the birds make broad-scale flights along the shorelines to explore wind conditions and orient themselves for migration.

Big Wind says ‘Meh’

Brandy Giannetta, Ontario regional director for the Canadian Wind Energy Association, said wind farm developers are attracted to the areas close to the Great Lakes because they provide the most consistent winds.

The industry recognizes bird mortalities from wind farms can be a problem and is committed to the proper siting of turbines, she said. But Giannetta said the issue has to be looked at in context.

Wind energy is designed to respond to global warming, the biggest threat to birds and other wildlife. Far more birds are killed by cats and collisions with buildings and cars, she said.

Hutchins agreed cats are bigger bird killers than wind turbines, along with pesticides and building and vehicle collisions. But that isn’t a reason not to deal with the turbine issue.

“They all need to be addressed,” he said.

Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, said the wind farm on Wolfe Island in Lake Ontario kills so many birds it is rated among the deadliest wind turbine projects in North America.

Despite that, the Ontario government just approved another project a few kilometres away on Amherst Island. 

Amherst Island citizens demand McKenna do environmental assessment


, , , , , , ,

The Association to Protect Amherst Island, whose appeal of a huge, invasive wind power project planned for the tiny island was recently dismissed, is asking the federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Catherine McKenna to conduct an environmental assessment of the impact of the power project.

The Environmental Review Tribunal in its decision to dismiss the appeal accepted much of the Appellant’s evidence on endangered species on the island, but in the end determined that the population of Blandings turtle in particular would not be affected by the power development.

The citizens’ group is pondering its next move, which could involve an appeal at Divisional Court.

In its request to the federal environment minister, APAI refers to a recent announcement by the American Bird Conservancy which recommends that wind power projects, because of their role in bird and bat mortality, not be located near the Great Lakes. In Ontario, many power projects are located or planned for along Great Lakes shores. A recent report by Bird Studies Canada showed that bird and bat mortality rates are far higher than predicted by the power developers; Ontario is responsible for 77% of the bat deaths in Canada, due to wind power projects.

Amherst Island: the environmental treachery of Ontario’s wind power push


, , , , , , ,

The Wynne government has approved and upheld the approval of an invasive, destructive wind power project on tiny Amherst Island, in the path of migratory birds and home to endangered species. To say nothing of the impact on the 400 people who live there…


The Times, August 12, 2016

From Amherst Island, you can see the Lennox gas-fired generating station sitting idle most days. The plant sits just across the narrow channel. It burns both oil and gas to produce steam that, in turn, drives generators to create electricity. The plant has the capacity to generate 2,100 MW of electricity—enough to power more than a million homes. But that electricity is rarely ever used. Over the last decade, the Lennox station has operated at less than three per cent of its capacity. That means it is idle much more often than it runs. Yet it earns more than $7 million each month—whether it runs or doesn’t. Such is Ontario’s hyperpoliticized energy regime.

Last Thursday was a warm day across Ontario— one of the warmest in a hot summer. With air conditioners humming, electricity demand across the province peaked at 22,312 MW. Meanwhile, Lennox sat idle all day. As it does most days.

So it seems odd that yet another gas-fired generating plant is emerging from the ground next to the mostly-idle Lennox station. It will add another 900 MW of generating capacity to a grid that clearly doesn’t need any more.

From Amherst Island, it must seem cruel. Within a couple of kilometres, there is enough unused power generating capacity to light millions of homes, yet island residents are being forced to give up their pastoral landscape— for the sake of an intermittent electricity source that nobody needs.

Last week, an Environmental Review Tribunal rejected an appeal by Amherst Island residents seeking to stop Windlectric, a wind energy developer, from covering their island home from end to end with industrial wind turbines, each one soaring 55 storeys into the sky.

Amherst Island is tiny. Just 20 kilometres long and 7 kilometres wide, there is no place, no horizon, no home that can avoid being transformed by this out-ofscale industrialization.

The treachery gets worse. Amherst Island is administered by a council that presides over the larger Loyalist Township from the mainland. Last year, council made a deal with the wind developer, agreeing to recieve a $500,000 payment each year the wind turbines spin. It is a lot of money for a municipality that operates on a $12-million budget annually.

But perhaps the most disappointing bit of this story is the damage that has been done to friendships and families on Amherst Island. Just 450 people live here. It swells to about 600 in the summer. It was a close community in the way island life tends to be.

Industrial wind energy has, however, ripped this community in two. Property owners hoping to share in the windfall from the development are on one side and those who must endure the blight on the landscape for a generation or more on the other.

Lifelong friends no longer speak to each other. At St. Paul’s Presbyterian service on Sunday mornings, the wind energy benefactors sit on one side of the church, the opponents on the other. A hard, angry line silently divides this community.

The Environmental Review Tribunal concluded not enough evidence was presented in the hearings to say the project will cause serious and irreversible harm to endangered species including the bobolink, Blanding’s turtle and little brown bat.

The decision underlines the terrible and oppressive cruelty of the Green Energy Act—that the only appeal allowed for opponents is whether the project will cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment. It is a profoundly unjust restriction on the right of people to challenge the policies and decisions of their government as they directly impact their lives.

The folks on Amherst Island weren’t permitted, for example, to argue that the power is unneeded— that this project is a grotesquely wasteful use of provincial tax dollars. Their neighbourhood already boasts enough electricity capacity to power a small country, yet it sits idle—at a cost of millions of dollars each month. It might have been a useful addition to the debate—but this evidence wasn’t permitted.

Nor were island residents allowed to appeal the fundamental alteration of their landscape. Nor the loss of property value. They can’t undo the broken friendships and the hollow feeling that hangs over the church suppers or the lonely trips across the channel.

Wide swathes of reason and logic have been excluded in the consideration of renewable energy projects in Ontario.

To the extent that urban folks are even aware of what green energy policies are doing to places like Amherst Island, they console themselves by believing it is the cost of a clean energy future—that diminishing the lives of some rural communities is an acceptable trade-off for the warm feeling of doing better by the planet.

Yet these folks need to explain to Amherst Island residents how decimating their landscape, risking the survival of endangered species and filling the pockets of a developer with taxpayer dollars for an expensive power supply that nobody needs makes Ontario greener.

Visit Amherst Island. Soon.

Remember it as it is today. Mourn for its tomorrow.

Read the full story at The Times website here.

Wynne government ad would have been banned last year: Auditor General


, , , ,

…but the Ontario Liberal government changed the rules so ad promoting its “green” agenda is now allowed.

Farmers Forum, August 2016

By Tom Collins

TORONTO– The Ontario government is once again calling on television scientist David Suzuki to help get its message out, but the province’s auditor general says the latest ad would have been banned under old rules that were changed last year by the Liberal government.

Suzuki spoke to an auditorium of school kids about climate change where Suzuki warned that the earth is in trouble, not enough adults are doing anything, and the results could be irreversible if nothing is done immediately. Suzuki then told the kids they would have to live with the consequences. The talk was for an ad to support the Liberal climate change action plan.

Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk slammed the ad saying in early June that the commercial doesn’t provide any useful information.

“Instead, it appears to be designed to create apprehension about the effect of climate change so viewers will be more likely to support Ontario’s climate change action plan,” she said in a statement. She said the ad reflects support for the Liberal government.

Taxpayers paid for it.

The much-loved and much-hated Suzuki doesn’t get the same respect from the scientific community. Greenpeace co-founder and scientist Patrick Moore told Brian Lilley of that Suzuki “is not the geneticist who’s using genetics because he’s against all the genetic sciences that we have developed to improve our food and medicine.” Moore, who left Greenpeace when that group abandoned science for ideology, added, “That to me is indicative of someone who has gone astray in their mind somewhere.”

“He id a really good job of popularizing science in his early years but he became political and ideological,” said Moore. “He just does not engage with anybody on a meaningful level who wants to debate with him or discuss with him… they’re feeding him all this propaganda, and that’s what he talks about.”

Suzuki also did a commercial for the Liberals in 2011, supporting then premier Dalton McGuinty for re-election.

The article is on page A21 of the August edition of Farmers Forum, see


Seismic effects of wind turbines affecting wells “across Ontario” says groundwater association


, , , , , , , , , ,

July 16, 2016

Here is a podcast from News 1310 Carol Anne Meehan show with an interview she did with Water Wells First Kevin Jakubec of Dover Township on the effect wind turbines have had on the groundwater and local wells for homes and farms.

His group is reacting to three years of disturbed wells, due to nearby wind turbines. The wind power developer has offered bottled water to residents … not much help for farm owners with livestock.

Water Wells First has demanded the resignation of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Glen Murray.

Our question: what will be the effect of the vibrations from the construction and operation of wind turbines in Nation Township which everyone knows is sitting on Leda Clay?

Landowners need to consider this before signing any option or lease.

Wind farm construction may affect wells, says groundwater association


, , , , , ,

A citizens’ group concerned about the effect of wind turbine construction and the vibration coming from operating turbines is calling for the resignation of the Ontario Minister of the Environment. The government’s response to the problem of damaged wells? Bottled water. Not so great for dairy herds…

Chatham Daily News, July 11, 2016

A citizens’ group worried about the potential impact on groundwater from wind turbine vibrations is calling for the provincial minister’s resignation.

Water Wells First placed protest signs on Monday at the Windsor, Sarnia and London offices of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, said group spokesman Kevin Jakubec in a media release..

“Water Wells First no longer sees the MOECC as credible stewards of the environment.

We are asking for the immediate resignation of Ontario’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Glen Murray,” he said.

Last week, Water Wells First held a demonstration at a Chatham Township farm to show how difficult it would be logistically for farmers and their livestock to use bottled water, if it was required.

Jakubec said the management of the Renewable Energy Program could jeopardize the health and safety of Ontario’s livestock when “the MOECC put forward the impractical use of using bottled water to resupply livestock farms” that have lost their water wells due to wind farm construction and operation.

The proposed North Kent 1 Wind Project, which calls for 40 to 50 wind turbines to be constructed in the area, had some residents worried that the vibrations could result in dirty water.

“Water Wells First will protest the actions of the MOECC until the MOECC recognizes that groundwater must be protected as the first line of defense against climate change,” Jakubec said.

Last month, the group held an initial media conference to help raise awareness about the issue.

In an e-mail on Monday, the ministry stated that it was taking the necessary precautions.

“The MOECC takes all public concerns very seriously. That is why MOECC included an extremely stringent series of conditions on the proponent for the North Kent Renewable Energy Approval,” it stated. …

Read the full news story here.

See also a London Free Press editorial on this today, here.

Editor’s note: looking ahead, we would think this might be a concern for liability on the part of both the landowner leasing land for turbines and the wind power developer. Another reason to carefully examine the pro’s and cons of signing a lease agreement.

Trudeau government silent on wind farm noise and health problems


, , , , , , , ,

In sworn testimony at an environmental review tribunal, a Health Canada official confirmed industrial wind turbines — large, noise-emitting devices — are regulated under the federal Radiation Emitting Devices Act

Ottawa Sun, Jun 28, 2016

The federal government’s inaction on wind turbine noise is making Canadians sick.

It’s been a year-and-a-half since Health Canada’s $2-million study determined low-frequency acoustic waves from industrial wind turbines cause community annoyance.

According to the World Health Organization, unwanted noise, even at a moderate level, can lead to a myriad of adverse health outcomes, including stress-related symptoms such as sleep disturbance, elevated blood pressure, cardiac events and depression.

It’s a “green” form of radiation sickness.

Canada’s Radiation Emitting Devices Act (REDA) is supposed to regulate the design and operation of devices that emit radiation, such as microwave ovens and tanning beds. In sworn testimony at an environmental review tribunal, a Health Canada official confirmed industrial wind turbines — large, noise-emitting devices — are regulated by REDA.

REDA requires a manufacturer or importer of such a device to “forthwith notify the Minister” upon becoming aware its device is emitting radiations not necessary for the performance of its function.

On June 15, Barbara Ashbee of Mulmur, Ontario, together with hundreds of other Ontarians, sent an open letter to Health Minister Jane Philpott, asking why Health Canada has not insisted wind energy corporations report citizen complaints about noise radiation. She wants the minister to meet with her and representatives of citizens suffering from turbine noise radiations.

Ashbee wrote: “Many in Ontario and elsewhere have logged serious health complaints with proponents/operators of wind turbine projects, provincial and federal government ministries as well as wind turbine manufacturers … As previous ministers and current Minister Philpott have been informed, the adverse effects of wind turbines are not trivial.”

Access to Information records indicate wind energy corporations have reported no complaints.

Why is Health Canada not forcing wind turbine operators to report citizen complaints, as required?

Is the wind industry lobby that strong?

Why were Canadians not told wind turbine corporations are required to report citizen complaints to Health Canada? Were wind energy companies also not told about the REDA?

Why did Health Canada’s Wind Turbine Noise and Health study exclude people under age 18 and over age 79, the most vulnerable segments of Canada’s population?

Why do REDA regulations not include standards for the design and operation of wind turbines, as they do for microwave ovens, etc.?

Prior to the 2015 federal election, Canadians for Radiation Emission Enforcement (CFREE) asked candidates in wind turbine-affected Ontario ridings: “Will you support a moratorium on new wind turbines within 2 km of residences, until REDA regulations are updated to clearly stipulate wind turbine operators must comply with REDA, and to include scientifically proven safe setback distances?”

The survey revealed equal support from candidates of all four parties for a wind turbine moratorium. Only three candidates opposed it, but none were elected. In Ontario, the turbine setback is only 550 meters from residences.

Other countries are extending setbacks to safer distances. In Poland, the setback is now ten times turbine height. In closely settled Bavaria, it is now two kilometres. But there is no such action from Health Canada. No moratorium. No change in setbacks. No standards in REDA. More wind projects are planned. More Canadians are getting sick.

Openness and transparency are supposedly important to the federal Liberal government.

What will Prime Minister Justin Trudeau do about Health Canada’s inaction on wind turbines?

Read the full story here.

New wind turbine noise regulations needed, says Wind Concerns Ontario


, , , , , , ,

Wind turbine noise testing needs total overhaul, Wind Concerns Ontario tells MOECC



June 27, 2016, OTTAWA – Ontario needs to do a complete revision of procedures for wind turbine noise testing, Wind Concerns Ontario has informed the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) in a review of proposed regulatory changes.

According to WCO, the growing scientific research on wind turbine noise emissions and the escalating number of unresolved complaints confirm that proposed changes to the government’s old protocol are insufficient to address the problems faced by people living among wind turbine projects.

“The changes the Ministry has proposed to its existing procedures are nothing more than minor tweaks,” says president Jane Wilson. “The government is ignoring the need for real change to keep up with science, and to protect health from noise emissions.”

By 2015, the MOECC had received more than 2,700 complaints about problems with wind turbine noise, WCO learned. Though more recent data are not available, monitoring by WCO suggests that this number has continued to grow with the number of larger new turbines that have become operational since then.

Proposed new testing procedures are inadequate as they limit testing to audible noise outside of the home, while many citizen complaints relate to turbine noise emissions that people cannot hear, but rather, are vibrations or sensations that they feel, says WCO. And, while many complaints are about the noise and sensation experienced inside buildings, the MOECC only tests outside noise.

“The MOECC persists in the standard of using one form of noise measurement, the dBA, while the acoustics industry and even the Government of Canada has said this is providing only part of the picture on noise emissions,” Wilson says.

The process of confirming turbine compliance with regulations is convoluted and complex — people have lost trust in the Ontario government, WCO says. For example, the Enbridge project near Kincardine began operation in late 2008 but there is still no report that confirms the turbines are compliant.

The MOECC also relies on information from the power developers, and predicted modelling — not actual noise testing. This has resulted in a loss of faith in the Wynne government as a protector of public health.

Rather than dismissing resident complaints, WCO told the Ministry in a comment document in response to proposed regulatory changes, the government should view these contacts as an opportunity to learn and show leadership in responsible renewable energy implementation.

Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of community groups and citizens concerned about the impact of industrial-scale wind power projects on the economy, the environment, and health.

Contact Jane Wilson at

Additional quotes:

“If government and the wind power development industry is using only A-weighted noise measurement or dBA, they are only getting part of the picture.”

“Wind turbines have been found out of compliance via third-party measurements, yet the MOECC does not act on these findings. The MOECC also does not report publicly on complaints or actions taken as it does for other complaints made to the ministry ‘Spills Line’. ”

“Using only computer-generated predictive noise models does not reflect the reality of wind turbine noise emission experiences in Ontario. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change needs to do actual, on-site testing in conditions similar to or the same as those that spurred a citizen complaint to assure Ontarians it is fulfilling its mandate to protect people.”

See the WCO comment document filed with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change here: ResponsetoNoiseProtocol-June16FINAL

Ottawa councilor: Ontario wind power process unfair, frustrating, not democratic


, , , , , ,

75 municipalities demand municipal support be a mandatory requirement of new wind power bids

CBC News June 20, 2016

Hilary Johnstone CBC

Mayor Ron Higgins in North Frontenac: we know better about where development should go [Photo CBC]

Mayor Ron Higgins in North Frontenac: we know better about where development should go [Photo CBC]

Seventy-five municipalities across Ontario are calling on the provincial government to give them more say on future wind farm projects.

Some eastern Ontario communities have declared themselves “unwilling hosts” to wind farms, only to recently have the province award contracts against their wishes.

The City of Ottawa, North Frontenac and at least 73 other municipalities want Ontario’s Independent Electrical System Operator (IESO) to “make formal municipal support a mandatory requirement in Ontario’s next round of procurement for renewable energy projects,” according to the resolution.

The provincial energy agency claims to let communities express their concerns, but that has little impact on the outcome, according to North Frontenac Mayor Ron Higgins.

“We basically don’t have any democratic right when it comes to deciding where these wind turbines go … within our municipality,” he said.

Wind Energy

75 municipalities across Ontario have endorsed a resolution that calls for increased local consultation before the next round of renewable energy projects. (Robert F. Bukaty/Associated Press)

Higgins said if given the opportunity North Frontenac would turn down all wind turbine projects, but he said some area municipalities would support them.

“We may want them, we may not want them, but if we do want them we’d like to be able to tell you where to put them,” said Higgins.

“Not right in front of a cottage door, or high on a mountain where all our cottages can see it.”

Current process ‘unfair,’ Ottawa councillor says

The current procurement process for renewable energy projects is “unfair” and “incredibly frustrating,” according to Rideau-Goulbourn ward Coun. Scott Moffatt.

Moffatt said he has no choice but to tell upset constituents “‘sorry, it’s the province, sorry, it’s the province.’ It just sounds like we’re passing the buck, but literally we have no control over these things.”

Both Higgins and Moffatt said they’re hopeful Ontario’s new energy minister, Glenn Thibeault, will be open to new discussions.

Higgins said he requested meetings with previous minister, Bob Chiarelli, three times, but that all requests were denied.

Read the full story here.

Municipalities demand formal support be mandatory requirement for new wind power bids


, , , , , ,

Since this news release was issued, two more municipalities in Ontario have asked the Wynne government to change the wind power bid process, so communities can plan for sustainable development — and not have power plants forced on them



Plevna, June 15, 2016

Municipalities call on Ontario government to make municipal support mandatory for wind power bids

Seventy-five municipalities have now endorsed resolutions that call on Ontario’s Independent Electrical System Operator (IESO) to make formal Municipal Support a mandatory requirement in Ontario’s next round of procurement for renewable energy projects.

Mayor Ron Higgins of North Frontenac, who put forward a resolution now supported by other municipalities, says making municipal support mandatory is key to fairness in the process. “It will force proponents to seriously address local concerns when developing these proposals, rather than just going through the motions,” he says.

The IESO process allowed municipalities to express their concerns about wind power projects but that had little impact on the outcome, Higgins says. In spite of the fact that then Energy Minister Chiarelli said a contract in an unwilling community was “virtually impossible,” three of five wind power contracts were awarded in municipalities that did not support the projects proposed by developers.

The municipality of Dutton Dunwich, which also created a mandatory support motion, held a referendum on the wind power project bid there — 84 percent of residents said no. The municipality is now fighting a contract award.

Municipalities across Ontario support these resolutions, including former Energy Minister Chiarelli’s home municipality of Ottawa. Municipalities in Northern Ontario also endorse the resolution.

“Communities know what type of development is appropriate and sustainable,” says North Frontenac Mayor Higgins. “Our resolution points out that utility-scale wind power does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions or appreciably benefit the environment. In fact, in our case, it would have harmed it.”

The recent Environmental Review Tribunal decision revoking the approval for the Ostrander Point wind turbine project underscores the importance of community input into the process of awarding contracts and approving power projects. The community in Prince Edward County went through two appeal hearings and two hearings in court before succeeding in its goal of protecting the environment and endangered wildlife from a power project.

Recent feedback published by the IESO shows that the current bid process was resoundingly condemned by municipal officials and community groups for a lack of openness and transparency.



Mayor Ron Higgins, North Frontenac, 613-884-9736

Mandatory Municipal Support Resolution

  1. Adelaide-Metcalfe, Middlesex County
  2. Alfred & Plantagenet, Prescott-Russell County
  3. Amaranth, Dufferin County
  4. Asphodel-Norwood. Peterborough County
  5. Algonquin Highlands, Haliburton County
  6. Arran-Elderslie, Bruce County
  7. Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh, Huron County
  8. Bayham, Elgin County
  9. Bluewater, Huron
  10. Brockton, Bruce
  11. Brooke-Alvinston, Lambton
  12. Bruce Mines, Algoma District
  13. Cavan-Monaghan, Peterborough
  14. Central Elgin, Elgin
  15. Central Huron, Huron
  16. Chamberlain, Timiskaming District
  17. Chatsworth, Grey County
  18. Clarington, Region of Durham
  19. Dutton-Dunwich, Elgin
  20. East Ferris, Nippissing District
  21. Elgin, County of
  22. Essex, Essex County
  23. Enniskillen, Lambton County
  24. Gananoque, Leeds and Grenville County
  25. Georgian Bluffs, Grey
  26. Grey Highlands, Grey
  27. Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, Peterborough
  28. Hornepayne, Algoma
  29. Howick, Huron
  30. Huron, County of
  31. Huron-Kinloss, Bruce
  32. Kawartha Lakes, City of
  33. Killarney, Sudbury District
  34. Kincardine, Bruce
  35. Lakeshore, Essex
  36. Lambton, County of
  37. LaSalle, Essex
  38. Laurentian Hills, Renfrew County
  39. Leeds and the Thousand Island, Leeds and Grenville
  40. Lennox & Addington, County of
  41. Mapleton, Wellington
  42. Magnetawan, Parry Sound District
  43. Marathon, Thunder Bay District
  44. McDougall, Parry Sound
  45. McNabb Braeside, Renfrew County
  46. Meaford
  47. Newbury, Middlesex
  48. Mono, Dufferin County
  49. Morris-Turnberry, Huron
  50. Nairn and Hyman, Sudbury District
  51. North Frontenac, Frontenac County
  52. North Glengarry, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry
  53. North Grenville, Leeds and Grenville
  54. North Perth, Perth
  55. North Stormont, Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry
  56. Northern Bruce Peninsula, Bruce
  57. Ottawa, City of
  58. Peterborough, County of
  59. Plympton-Wyoming, Lambton
  60. Prescott-Russell, United Counties of
  61. Prince Edward, County of
  62. Rainy River, Rainy River District
  63. Ramara, Simcoe County
  64. South Bruce Peninsula, Bruce
  65. Southgate, Grey
  66. Tillsonburg, Oxford County
  67. Trent Lakes, Peterborough
  68. Tudor and Cashel, Hastings County
  69. Tweed, Hastings
  70. Val Rita-Harty, Cochrane District
  71. Warwick, Lambton
  72. Wainfleet, Niagara Region
  73. West Grey, Grey
  74. West Lincoln, Niagara
  75. Zorra, Oxford

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 927 other followers