All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Sunday, December 10th, 2023

Ostrander Point Will Not Save the World

Part of Prince Edward County's South Shore. Photo by Terry Sprague

Has anyone noticed that the Ostrander Point wind turbine debate has progressed way beyond right or wrong, common sense or absurdity, green or grey? It is no longer a debate; it has become an obsession, a quest of sorts from a new wave of environmentalists who have suddenly taken a baffling interest in something in which they had never before given much or any thought, or had expressed vocally. “These nine wind turbines at Ostrander Point are going to save the world, and by God, they are going to be built, and the hell with anything or anybody that stands in the way.” At least, this is the way those standing on the sidelines interpret how this issue has evolved.

I’m sorry folks, but these nine turbines are not going to save us from the end of the world – that ship sailed long ago when we decided that responsibility and conservation were dirty words, replaced by a much cleaner word, entitlement. It’s not a question of whether the world will end one day – it’s a question of when. It can only take so much human encroachment, and it’s not showing sign of slowing down any time soon.  Nine turbines at Ostrander Point will not prevent it from happening. 

Long gone are the days of conservation and responsibility. We don’t drive slower when gas prices rise – we drive faster and more aggressively. Earth hour every year is just a joke to many. Solar panels and small backyard turbines are not being mandated with every new home built, as they should be, because we are “entitled” to air conditioners, clothes dryers, automatic dish washers and plasma TVs (none of which my wife and I are even remotely interested in owning), items that require electricity, big time. Laws, legislation and regulations mean absolutely nothing today if you have enough power and money to dance around them. At the end of the day, it’s all about money  – the folding type of green. That’s what motivates and steers us in the direction that we go. As fellow columnist, Steve Campbell has already pointed out, there hasn’t been one word said about promoting hydroelectric power, the simple act of obtaining electrical power from running water. We are, instead, focused on Ostrander Point being our saviour. The world population is not decreasing as it should be with responsible family planning – it is burgeoning, totally out of control. Proponents drone on endlessly about the apocalypse and I am surprised that proponents of wind turbines haven’t blown the dust off their Bibles and even tossed in some sanctimonious quotes to reinforce their positions.

Today the environment is the enemy and it’s entitlement to what we want at any cost. And that cost is biodiversity – the very element that the human race depends on for survival and that we should be protecting. Yet, despite this basic tenet being a component in public school for everyone as early as Grade 5, we just don’t get it. It wasn’t called biodiversity back then – it was called the web of life, and we learned that despite arrogantly believing that we are masters of the universe with dominion over all, bottom line is, we are still mammals, and our survival is linked to being part of that web of life.  I still remember the listener who wrote into CJBQ’s Open Line program and stressed that all wetlands should be filled in and turned into housing developments. Like, where do you begin with these people?

As I was writing this, my computer beeped, indicating the arrival of an e-mail, and that e-mail message from Mississauga reads: “If Nature Canada, a non-profit organization that advocates for nature, strongly opposes this location despite being supportive of most wind energy projects, why is it on the table at all? As a mom of three young children, disrupting the animals in this location for a wind energy site is unacceptable to me.  What kind of earth will our youth be inheriting if we continue to disregard the eco-systems that help us survive?”

Instead of considering an alternate location for these nine wind turbines, away from a globally significant area, we are, as several proponents have already done, resorting to name calling. Those of us in favour of  responsible wind energy, are instead being openly labelled as “nimbys” and “anti-green”. The current debate is much more than “some birds being killed” as one letter writer condescendingly phrased it. It is not about birdwatchers in shorts and Tillies dashing around after feathered friends, and it certainly is not about reactionary residents not wanting to see rotating blades above the horizon. It’s about survival, and to survive, we need natural areas set aside that will protect the very biodiversity that ensures our own survival.

Wind turbines are great, when appropriately located. The South Shore Important Bird Area, adjacent to the Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Area, is not an appropriate area. Radar images and detailed studies prove that it is unquestionably the wrong place. The Green movement, of the folding type, however, says that it’s an ideal area. A desire to make money is laudable. There is nothing wrong with that. Just don’t do it under the guise of being green.

Filed Under: Uncategorized


About the Author: Terry Sprague became interested in nature at an early age. "Growing up on the family farm at Big Island, 12 miles north of Picton, on the shore of the beautiful Bay of Quinte, I was always interested in the natural world around me. During my elementary school days at the small one-room school I attended on Big Island, I received considerable encouragement from the late Marie Foster, my teacher in Grades 6 through 8. Her home was a short distance from where I lived and through the years she was responsible for developing my interest in birds. The late Phil Dodds, a former editor with the Picton Gazette, also a great nature enthusiast, suggested I undertake a nature column - a column I have submitted weekly since 1965. The column has since expanded to the Napanee Beaver and the Tweed News. Life has been good, and through the years I have enjoyed working with such nature related agencies as Glenora Fisheries Research as a resource technician, Sandbanks Provincial Park as a park interpreter and Quinte Conservation as a naturalist and outdoor events coordinator. As a nature interpreter, currently working from my home office, I now create and lead numerous interpretive events in the area and offer indoor audio/visual presentations to interested groups. Could one who is interested in nature have enjoyed a more exhilarating period in the work force?" Terry's website is

RSSComments (27)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. John Portnos says:

    That said, put your turbines elsewhere. Or back it up with quality research.

  2. John Portnos says:

    And for those who want to balance their reading out, see what Nature Canada has to say about the specifics on this outrageous project ….

    John – Once you’ve read the +450 page draft EIS from Gilead (link below), you’ll see the light through the trees and will agree that the Ostrander wind park should instead be a national park that encompasses the proposed site, the PEC South Shore IBA, the Monarch Butterfly Reserve and the Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Refuge.

    Nature Canada’s recommendations have been ignored and the facts speak for themselves in this flawed report. After a quick read I would add a few other laughable items from the EIS:
    – PEPTBO has documented 298 species of birds and records 220/year on average, yet Gilead appears to have included outdated figures (Appendix C) using data from 1974 – 1995, well before PEPTBO was established.
    – Site investigations by Stantec / consultants failed to adequately document all species that inhabit the area. (i.e. – snapping turtles, painted turtles, and squirrels are but three easy examples that do not even appear in the EIS.)
    – List of identified breeding birds in the study area (page 264) is poor – it only includes 3 types of warblers and excludes others species witnessed in the area (blue-winged teals and towhees are two quick examples).
    – Consultants use bird checklists from Hamilton and Waterloo areas (page 397). How can the consultants identify everything when they are using an incomplete list to begin with?.
    – During the fall migration searches (page 273), over 50% of the warblers seen were “unidentified”. Gilead couldn’t afford binoculars?
    – Spring migratory searches were not done at the best time of year and missed a key window for passing birds (April / early May).
    – A thorough assessment of bird populations is not accomplished through one consultant covering multiple terrains within 324 hectares in 30minutes as is the case with some field notes.

  3. John Thompson says:

    For those who have not found responses to their questions, there is a lot of reading available on these links.

    From Environmental Defence:

    The World Wildlife Fund Energy Report:

  4. Mark says:

    The lingo now has gone from anti wind to minority opposition. How do we know that the people who are asking legitimate questions in regard to the wind industry and it’s impact on human health and the environment in the County are a minority? There has been no referendum to my knowledge. Why the huge rush without local decision making? Why can’t relevant information on the impacts of this industry be provided so that informed decisions can be made. It certainly gives the impression of big money pushing and it is classic big government not listening.

  5. John Thompson says:

    – Wind and solar need gas backup but the same peaker plants provide backup for all sources of generation. Thermal and nuclear needs to shut down from time to time beacuse of breakdown or need of repairs. Less gas is needed because the the grid is getting power from wind/solar, therefore reducing GHG emmissions, pollution and prolonging the usefull supply of non renewable fuels. I noticed that Lennox was fired up to provide enough power during the heat last week, presumably avoiding a shortage. Wind/solar were providing part of the need.

    – Don’t expect decommissiong of wind in 20 years as towers are good for 40-50 years and only the turbines would need replacement for the project to be repowered as wind will be needed even more in the future. When decommissioned, the scrap value of the towers should easily pay the cost of removal.

    – There is a proposal for a 400 MW pumped storage facility at the abandoned Marmora mine pit. If developed, this would provide storage for power when in excess and for release when needed. This would reduce the amount of import/export/power up/down of gas and hydro generators. Power storage means that wind/solar can grow to a large market share than otherwise. The younger generations are counting on us.

  6. Doris Lane says:

    John we know that wind and solar has to be backed up gas generators. So instead of having infastruture to deal with the wind and solar we also have to have gas lines running to each of the areas. Is gas not a fosil fuel?
    Time will tell but if we are unfortunate here in the County to receive wind energy then in 20 years we will know what harm it has done. Probably before that but can you picture the County with turbines that are no longer in use and there has been no laws to deal with the decommising of these monsters. What a horrible mess this county will be in. You and I might not be here to see this horror –well maybe you will and I am sure your grandkids will. Are turbines the legacy you wish to leave to your children.
    Some of the countries in Europe are sorry that they signed on for wind energy. We should listen to what others have to say.

  7. John Thompson says:

    The need to tranisition into the use of wind and solar generated power for an increasing share of our energy needs will become a self evident truth in time. However, like all great truths it must first pass through the ridiculed and then the violently opposed stages.

    I can’t fine a rational basis for the minority opposition allegations when we all must know that fossil fuel usage will decline over time for economic reasons and needs to be declining now to reduce further damage to the ecosystem.

  8. John Portnos says:

    What hapopens next? When are we expected to hear whether the permit is granted or not?

  9. Gary Mooney says:

    I continue to find it amazing that some people are willing to allow wind developers with no ties to our community to plunk down their industrial strength turbines on local properties, and thereby harm our neighbours (health, property values, enjoyment of property), kill, harm & harass local wildlife and wreak havoc on local land use planning.

    These developers spend only about 3% of their wind revenues locally (land leases, municipal taxes) and take the other 97% away.

    And some people welcome this without asking any questions. Is this naivete, stupidity, passivity, generosity, or what?

  10. Louisa says:

    Thanks for posting that web link Chris (Wind Concerns Ontario). I didn’t know it was there, and appreciated the opportunity to add my two cents to the effort. And also to be educated on the issues.

    I’m sure we, who are generally on the same wavelength of caring for our earth and immediate environment, are all doing the best that we can within our financial means and as far as we are personally able according to our knowledge and understanding of issues. I am not proud of the fact that I am using an airplane to go to Newfoundland in a few weeks, and that I drive two hours a day, three days a week to work, but I am happy with the many, many other efforts I make on a daily basis and have made throughout my life thus far, regarding my environment. It is difficult to follow this path of humanity that is revolving around money for existence, and not basic, true living. I don’t have answers, but I would like us to be nice to each other as we find our way through these trying political times and aggravating and frustrating decisions being made around wind power and what it all means to us and the creatures we live amongst.

  11. Lori Smith says:

    Donna, I am glad to hear how ‘green’ you are. We also try to be, as much as a limited budget allows us; one (very small) wind turbine, 8 solar panels, no A/C, one very fuel efficient car, one mini-van less so (acquired for business purposes) which will be replaced with a very fuel efficeint small car, etc.

    But, how can you be so “pro” wind that Ostrander’s Point is OK? We are facing the 6th greatest known extinction of species, all due to human ingenuity and the resultant population explosion.

    In my opinion, the biggest problem with McGuinty’s Green Energy Act and Industrial Wind projects is that they are not designed to reduce our dependance on oil based fuels, but are merely investment opportunities for big business to make big bucks at the average joe citizen’s benefit. This includes harming people and the slaughter of hundreds of creatures, including ones at risk of extinction. Much of the money comes from oil and gas producers who are looking for future ‘trade’ in green credits. The numbers used to promote these IWTs as supposed producers of ‘free’ energy are so inflated and do not take into account the amounts of carbon gases released in the manufacture of the steel, the emmissions from the transportation of the parts from around the world and the tons of concrete required for each base, let alone the equipment reguired to put it all together and the fossil fuels they burn to do so. Simply put, they do not reduce any CO2.

    Even the experts say that there is not enough wind and or solar raditation reaching the earth’s surface to completely replace current requirements, let alone future needs if the demand increases at the current (worldwide) growth in population. In particular, countries with huge popluations (India, China) continue to mechanize and demand ‘modern’ appliances etc. [Sorry, can’t remember which scientific journal just recently published these findings – with math included].

    Rather than ramming these IWTs in any place that the Ontario Government can think of, without regard to the population (whether human or wildlife), don’t you agree that if the money was spent helping people like you and me to become less dependant on fossil fuels, by reducing our usage and becoming producers (solar or wind) that our currently supply levels could last generations instead of just decades?

    That is why I am against the wind turbines at Ostrander Point (even though I live nowhere near there) and yes, I am also against wind turbines anywhere in rural Ontario until proper studies are done and setbacks are designed to protect human and livestock health.

    The Green Energy Act must be repealed since it circumvents the Environemental Assessment (bypassed if a project is below 200MW – they all are) and replaces it with a toothless environemental review that empowers the wind company to do what ever they want, with only the condition that they ‘listen to’ or ‘ackonwledge’ concerns that they are doing damage to people’s health or to wildlife or it’s habitat. There are no fines, no provisions to appeal or to force them to cease and desist from operations if the number of ‘kills’ exceeds the maximium recommended. Wolfe Island is a prime example – they exceeded the bird mortatilty rate with absolutely no consequences except to the birds and bats. Each community should be able to say where, how many and how big they want to allow IWTs and/or solar arrays.

    The lucrative 20-year contracts that in effect subisdize the industry, forces us (through Ontario Power Athority) to purchase wind generated power, whether we need it or not, at an inflated rates abouve the current cost of traditional generation methods. Again, the reason for cancelling the 900MW gas generating plant in Oakville was not due to trying to be green, but becuase the electricity demand has decreased so much that it was no longer needed (manufacturing and most industry has relocated to oversea countries). So why do we need a 24MW industrial site in a environmentally sensitive area? Answer: We do not!

  12. Kathy Felkar says:

    Heah, Donna, Congrats on all your effort in being truly trying to be green. Just to let you know you can buy Great High Shade Coffee from a farmer in Nicaragua who practices organic farming, and is a Direct Trade company (actually better than fair trade). We roast the beans in Brighton and buy from the coffee farmier’s daughters in London, Ont. See Laschicascafe on Facebook or check out their website for more info.The girls also give back to the people of Nicaragua through a number of charities. The small farms are under the canopy in the rainforest which harbour our migrant birds in the winter. We sell this coffee at County Sunshine on Main St. Picton and $2 from every bag goes to Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory. County Sunshine does not take a profit from this initiative by PEPtBO.

  13. Chris Keen says:

    If you want to register your disapproval of Gilead being given a permit to harm wildlife on Ostrander point, this link will take you to Wind Concerns Ontario’s website. Scroll down and you will find a message which you can cut and paste (or modify) which will then be e-mailed directly to the appropriate individuals.

  14. Doris Lane says:

    I understand the word NIMBY is one that a Liberal member of parliament thought
    up –well maybe they will have to think up some new words when they get defeated next October for all the wonderful things they have brought about in the province.
    The GEA is a draconin piece of legislation–one that should never have been passed in a democratic society.
    the HST tax on home heating fuel is simply not acceptable
    The eco tax on such things as computers etc is way out of line
    Paying more and more for electricity does not make any sense. We give the wind and solar people big bucks and then we sell to US for half or less the price.–sometimes we pay them to take it from us
    Do we give the people of Ontario a break–no way

    We know that big business is behind wind and solar power and those big businesses are connected to oil and gas and the material it takes to produce the products
    As has been said the only thing green about IWT;s is the folding green and that green is GREED

  15. John Portnos says:

    I guess not everyone chooses to be a hermit. I’m sure that’s the way the neighbours like it too.

  16. Donna says:

    I’d love to have a big wind turbine in my back field but even though I can’t even SEE the neighbours in any direction back there, the current setbacks are so generous that a turbine couldn’t be erected.

  17. John Portnos says:

    Donna – seems the only thing you’re missing is a turbine in your backyard. I’ll have Gilead contact you.

  18. Gary Mooney says:

    Donna, your label “anti-wind” isn’t accurate. If you must label people, use “pro-health” and “pro-environment”. Similarly, your reference to “not in my back yard” is too narrow — it should be “not in anyone’s back yard”.

    The Ian Hanna legal challenge and the Kent Breeze ERT are both about protecting human health — specifically, the adequacy of setbacks from families’ homes. The Ostrander Point ERT (if needed) will be about protecting threatened species and an Imporant Bird area.

    The answer to your question “Where should the turbines go?” is: NOT within 2 km of anyone’s home and NOT in environmentally sensitive areas.

  19. Donna says:

    1. If you are against something, then you are ‘anti’.

    2. If you don’t want alternative energy anywhere in Prince Edward County, then you are ‘nimby’.

    3. I agree that Ostrander Point may not be the best place to locate the turbines but the anti-winds won’t tolerate them ANYWHERE else as evidenced by the anti-wind fight flaring up in various locations in PEC. Truth be told, very few of these people cared about Ostrander Point and its species before this. As well, the south shore has been used for agriculture, shipbuilding, fishing, rum-running, the military, cottages, and an ATV playground. I repeat, if not there, then where? PEC must be part of the solution and not expect to live off energy produced elsewhere, in other people’s backyards. Prince Edward County could be a leader in green energy and sustainable living, attracting many like-minded people.

    3. Yes, I do try to practice what I preach, and have been an environmentalist for decades. I am vegan (since eating meat/meat products is disastrous for the environment); I live in a tiny, super-insulated, passive-solar house; I have 4 solar installations from hot water to heat to PV; I have naturalized my property, and instead of a handful of birds when I arrived here, I have now recorded almost 100 species. I DO NOT have a cat nor would I allow one outdoors if I did since they kill millions of birds. I DO NOT have air conditioning except for the County wind ;-); I DO NOT own a dishwasher, dryer, cellphone, big TV, hairdryer, electric toothbrush, various electronic toys, and so on. I DO NOT fly anywhere in a plane. I grow as much of my own food as I can and buy locally-grown foods as much as possible. (My sins are organic, fairtrade, shade-grown coffee and organic green tea (can’t find a local source!)). When I lived in the city I biked, walked and took public transit; I regret that enjoying a quiet life in the country now means driving again but my vehicle is energy efficient, and I save up my errands to do all in one trip to town. I have planted 100s of trees on my property to help ameliorate this. Yes, I DO try to practice what I preach because I truly care about the environment and its species.

    4. I do think that our good Earth is past the tipping point. It is long past the time of personal preferences; now we have to think of the global environment and future generations. Prince Edward County has to be part of the solution.

    5. Obviously my name has nothing to do with anything; it’s just a label. For my well-being it’s probably best I don’t share it; being against the majority in the ATV issue caused real personal safety concerns. Let’s just say that at least one person in the County wants, and has, green energy in her back yard.

  20. Chris Keen says:

    And three final points, Donna since Lori, John and Doris have covered everything else I might say:

    1. Your comments might be more meaningful if you weren’t anonymous.

    2. We’re in the mess we’re in with the environment because we didn’t act prudently thousands of times before with the “little pictures”. This project is a “little picture” that will cause irreparable damage to the environment – it must be stopped before it becomes part of the big picture mess.

    3. Please stop referring to me (and others) as “anti” or “NIMBY” – I’m not and your use of this word and term is offensive and intolerable.

  21. Lori Smith says:

    Donna, people have been defending the County’s South Shore from industrialization or other encroachemnt for years. Just because you were unaware of their efforts does not mean they were not happening.

    For a given city, 3 to 4 times the acerage is required to build wind turbines which would be able to produce enough power for the city, provided the wind is blowing at optimal speed. When the wind doesn’t blow, then what? We will still need some sort of power generation that can supply 100% of the city’s requirements, for those nights when the sun aint shining and the wind aint blowing.

    The current plant at Ostrander is not about creating ‘green’ energy but about the folding ‘green’ for a few pockets. Ontario recently cancelled a gas fire generating station in Oakville, rated at 900MW because it is was excess energy not required. So why should a project rated at a max 24MW (with intermittent winds, realising about 25% at 6MW), be so necessary that they can harm, harass, maim and kill endangered species? Yes they should go anywhere else where they will not cause damage to endngered or threatened species, and away from where people live, work and study. We are facing the 6th greatest animal and plant extinction in the history of the planet and our attempts to ‘fix’ global warming should not be adding to the problem.

    And you should own up since you are pointing the finger –
    Do you have solar hot water and/or on-demand hot water? a solar furnace? use solar photovoltaics or geothermal? Do you go without air conditioning? dishwasher? dryer? big TV? Do you use a hairdryer? an electric toothbrush? microwave? MP3 player? XBox or other gaming console? Wii? Do you drive a small or alternative-fuelled vehicle, or bike or walk? Do you refrain from flying for your vacations? Do you refuse to use a cell phone to call or test your friends? Did you give up your facebook or twitter account? Do you mow your lawn with a people powered push mover? Do you practice what you preach?

  22. Doris Lane says:

    John there are so many people that express your sentiments, but some of the people just don’t get it. They think that we imagine that tourists will not come here.People also will not buy houses here even if they are not near turbines, they do not want to be in a community that has the kinds of stresses that we have here in the County.
    You mentioned that you had not heard about Gilead before the middle of May.
    We had County LIve attend that meeting and they did a wonderful job of documenting the rally with pictures etc. County Live is a great asset to the County as it brings us the news as it happens daily. I am sure as a resident of TO you appreciate it

  23. John Portnos says:

    Donna – I am not anti-wind but I am anti-Ostrander wind. I did not hear about the Ostrander project until I saw the CBC article in mid-May. Having “Public Notice Meetings” for the past few years, mid-week at 5pm in a small public school in a small town with no video conference, skype or other means to call/listen is not exactly a transparent way to update the general public. Doesn’t surprise me given the sloppy, inferior, biased environmental work done by Stantec, who will probably end up building the project (no conflict there). Gilead’s intention was to slip under the public radar, do minimal environmental work, exclude key data from PEPTBO as well as recommendations from Nature Canada and jam this through permitting before the next election.

    For the record, I grew up in Prince Edward County but now drive in from Toronto every year. My father and i have been going to that area every year for the past 20. Over the years we’ve randomly hung numerous home-made nesting boxes at our own expense/time. We donate to PEPTBO. My family and I make a weekend of it visiting wineries, sandbanks, black river cheese factory, etc and thereby provide tourist dollars to local businesses. If this project goes ahead, I will absolutely have no interest in going to Point Traverse/Long Point ever again if this project goes forward.

  24. Donna says:

    Well, where should the turbines go then? The anti-winds didn’t want them on Royal Road or Big Island or South Marysburgh or…anywhere in the County!! If that isn’t ‘not in my backyard’ I don’t know what is! Like it or not, all forms of alternative energy will be needed for the future; wind, solar, geothermal, electric cars, hydrogen production, and so on. All of that will require more electricity. It has been suggested by the anti-winds that the turbines go way up in Northern Ontario…as far away from their backyards as possible by the way…no matter that transportation costs to the grid would be prohibitive.

    How many of these anti-winds were concerned about Ostrander Point before this debate? Did you see any of them down there in the last decade maintaining habitat for Whip-poor-wills and Blanding’s turtles and other threatened species? Are any of them signed up to do the current Whip-poor-will surveys in the County for Bird Studies Canada?

    How many of the anti-winds have the most minimal-size homes allowable in order to conserve energy? How many of them have solar hot water and/or on-demand hot water, solar furnaces, solar photovoltaics, geothermal? How many go without air conditioning, dishwashers, dryers, big TVs? How many drive small, alternative vehicles, or bike or walk? How many refrain from flying for vacations? How many refuse to use cell phones since cell phone towers are bird killers? How many refrain from mowing acres of lawn and instead turn it into a bird sanctuary? And so on…they need to look at their own lives and practice what they preach.

    The big picture is not the south shore of Prince Edward County. The big picture is the boreal forest, the tundra, the Arctic, our oceans…the earth.

  25. Doris Lane says:

    Great article Terry. It is beyond stupid why Provincial Crown Land is being turned into this monstrosity. As Chris said let us put a hole like the one they dig for IWT”s in McGinty backyard in Ottawa The South Shore conservacy is engaging the help of Daryl Kramp to turn the south shore into a park. Let’s all get behind him in that regard. Write a letter and drop in into his office in PIcton on Mondays. It is in the Edward Building.

  26. Chris Keen says:

    At the end of the day, as stewards of the environment, we have no right to destroy biodiversity. The millions of birds that pass through the south shore Important Birding Area in the Spring and Fall benefit all of us. By all means erect turbines – but let’s put them where they don’t threaten the environment and human health!

  27. Gary Mooney says:

    What was that line from the 1976 movie Network?


OPP reports
lottery winners
Elizabeth Crombie Janice-Lewandoski
Tony Scott Sharon Armitage

© Copyright Prince Edward County News 2023 • All rights reserved.