Proposed PPS changes would…

ERO number

019-0279

Comment ID

35590

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses

Comment

Proposed PPS changes would degrade Ontario's environment with little benefit for Ontarians.

ERO #019-0279

Provincial Policy Statement Review – Proposed Policies

Changes aimed at increasing housing supply run counter to the fact that there is enough supply, as outlined by the recent Neptis study titled "An update on the total land supply: Even more land available for homes and jobs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe". If anything, limits should be placed on foreign ownership, vacant ownership, and regulations created around Air B&B.

Changes aimed at increasing housing supply would increase urban sprawl and the need for transportation. This, of course, runs counter to the government's stated intention of reducing carbon emissions.

Urban sprawl is an extremely inefficient form of development, requiring more resources, including petroleum and the need to mine aggregate. These activities have negative externalities of their own, which is a cost to citizens.

Urban sprawl is detrimental to farmland and source water areas. People need homes, but they also need food and water.

Extracting a resource has an immediate impact on flora and fauna, degrades the ability of the area to filter water, impacts the quality, quantity and direction of water, negatively impacts surrounding residences, negatively impacts the recreational and tourist opportunities and businesses in the area.

It is ridiculous to continue the “close to markets” fallacy for aggregate mining. The policy undermines recycling efforts. It does not take farmland, source water or people's health protection into account. As Wayne Roberts of NOW Magazine wrote: ““Close to market,” a stand-alone piece of stupidity that would be laughed out of court if applied to uranium, computers, steel or coal, let alone food.”

It is ridiculous to keep refusing to demonstrate need for new aggregate resources including any type of supply/demand and cost/benefit analyses. Ontarians should know on a regional and provincial scale whether the benefits of aggregate production outweigh the significant costs.

Cumulative impacts of aggregate operations must be quantified for good decision-making.

The language of the PPS is often vague and unclear, leaving questions as to how changes will be implemented. For instance, "long-term rehabilitation" provides no indication of what length of time this might be. Given a long enough timeline pretty much anything will revert to some semblance of normalcy.

How will the PPS "prepare for climate change" and "support climate resiliency" when the current government refuses to acknowledge that climate change is an issue and has removed all references to climate change from publicly available information sources?

2.1.5 and 2.1.6 are too easily by-passed and are therefore rendered ineffective.
2.5.2.4 is protecting the mineral aggregate operations and NOT protecting Ontarians.
2.4.2 is protecting the mineral aggregate and petroleum operations and NOT protecting Ontarians.
2.4.3 and 2.5.3 Rehabilitation is a shell game and a waste of time. There is no control over a future decades away or over government and business policies or funding that will guarantee rehabilitation of the heritage feature. In fact, recent history is showing that old pits and quarries never die, they just get expanded, deepened, sold, re-opened for operation, ignored or turned into profit-taking ventures.

Allowing aggregate extraction in natural heritage features provided that the long-term rehabilitation can demonstrate no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions is impossible. The future is out of our hands.

2.5.4 is a waste of good productive prime farmland.
2.3.6.1 is a waste of good productive prime farmland.
3.2.1 does NOT protect the neighbours of the offending extraction operation.

All that being said, the promotion of on-site local reuse of excess soil is a good idea and should be pursued.

Additionally, Ontario’s Greenbelt must absolutely be protected.

#ProtectOurWater #ProtectPrimeFarmland #FoodAndWaterFirst #GrowOurGreenbelt