clarify how haul routes are…

clarify how haul routes are considered under the Aggregate Resources Act so that the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Minister, when making a decision about issuing or refusing a licence, cannot impose conditions requiring agreements between municipalities and aggregate producers regarding aggregate haulage. This change is proposed to apply to all applications in progress where a decision by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal or the Minister has not yet been made. Municipalities and aggregate producers may continue to enter into agreements on a voluntary basis.

i will give an example of how adverse effects have occurred as a result of limitations of the act and how making it easier for industry is a serious flaw and will result in further adverse effects occurring.

Goldcorp (Dome Mine) in Timmins Ontario.
Goldcorp started an open pit which was approved by the ministry. There was a waste pile were Goldcorp dumped their waste rock, just outside the 1 km limit to residential area. (within 1km of some houses)
Complaints were issued (years of complaints) about the noise and dumping of rock at night at that location. Goldcorp stopped dumping rock their at night.
A local company (Miller) was given the ability by Goldcorp to set up a local crushing plant to process the waste rock into aggregate. Now, you have a fully functioning gravel pit that all of a sudden appears were no gravel pit would normally appear, there was NO approval process, yet it is acting as a gravel pit under the act.
The result of this is that there can be as many as 480 dump trucks pass through the residential area of Gold Mine Rd in one day. (Thats a peak day).
When i complain to Goldcorp about the problem they created, they say it is not their responsibility, a private contractor is hauling the rock.
When i complain to the city of Timmins, they say it is a truck route, there is nothing they can do. (Yet before this pit magically appeared, heavy truck traffic was about 2-4 trucks per day)
There was no consultation with residents about this pit or about were haulage routes should occur.
There was no approval by council for a gravel pit at this location. (because its already on mining property , supposedly covered under the ECA.
So, here is a gravel pit, thats not a gravel pit, yet acting like a gravel pit, created without the approval of the aggregate resources act, which resulted in adverse amounts of heavy truck traffic for more than 5 years now, because there was no requirement to follow the aggregate resources act for this chameleon gravel pit.

There is an alternative route which would have been a little longer for the trucks to travel which would have resulted in no change to truck traffic through the residential area. But that was not the shortest route, so the haul trucks go were they want to.
When complaining to Miller about this, they have said that they will ask their trucks to take the longer route, but cannot control the independent truckers.
Thats good that a company would do that, the issue is that 98% of the trucks are independent truckers. So they still go through the residential area.

So, here is a gravel pit, thats not a gravel pit, yet acting like a gravel pit, created without the approval of the aggregate resources act, which resulted in adverse amounts of heavy truck traffic for more than 5 years now, because there was no requirement to follow the aggregate resources act for this chameleon gravel pit.

I am not sure i understand what "Municipalities and aggregate producers may continue to enter into agreements on a voluntary basis." means.
Does this mean that the producers can travel any route they feel like, if the city does not approve a route?
It has to be voluntary so if the producer does not wish to discuss a route than they dont have to?
I f the city does not feel like imposing a haul route because the residents do not want it at that location, than the city can say, no there is no requirement under the act to do any thing its only voluntary?

This appears to leave the public totally out of the equation, this is totally unacceptable. There must be clear instruction on were the public has an equal and fair input. If the majority of the public in the affected area says no...then the answer must be no.
You dont need to make it easier for industry, it is already to easy. You need more protection for the public...not less.
The environmental laws in Ontario are already terribly weak, industry already has to much strength.