November 4, 2019 I certainly…

November 4, 2019
I certainly support the objectives of the review & revision of the Aggregate Resources Act to reduce burdens for business while maintaining strong protection for the environment and managing impacts to communities.
The conflicts among citizens, local/provincial governments, environmental groups and the aggregate industry has a long history not just in Ontario but around the world. Research shows that since the 1970’s the confrontations between local governments, citizens, provincial government, the aggregate industry and environmental groups has been on the rise. It is unfortunate that (primarily, because of transportation cost) we seem to need to get our aggregate in south central Ontario, where we have a very limited supply of Canada’s prime farmland, where we have the majority of our population and where were we have some highly sensitive environmental sites and water supply concerns.
Of all the issues that are represented in these conflicts I would like to address mainly three.

Prime Farmland
As stated in the Canadian Land Inventory report 2002 “only 5% of the Canadian land mass is made up of prime farm land. Only 0.5% of it is Class 1. The Central Ontario Zone is fortunate to contain a significant portion of this very limited resource. Unfortunately, it occurs in one of the fastest-growing regions of the country…. The very resource that attracted settlement, is ultimately consuming it.” Unfortunately, the prime agricultural land is located where development pressure is the greatest. The areas around Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton and the urban areas along Lake Ontario are exclusively Class 1 land. These lands should be protected at “all costs” against any forms of development or use other than farming. Strangely the Oak Ridge Moraine, which was recently assigned a higher level of protection, is not prime agricultural land.
Despite booming commodity markets, ever increasing demand for agricultural resources and increasing farmland prices we continue to lose Class 1 and 2 farm land at an alarming rate. A recent Statistics Canada report on Agriculture & the Environment said that most of the total farm land loss in Canada occurred in southern Ontario caused by urban population growth. I would argue as well that this urban population growth certainly increased the demand for aggregate. One might point out that it also increased the demand for agricultural products. As a wise man once said “At some point we must realize that we can’t eat money.”
I recognize that land rehabilitation is a requirement of any aggregate resource application, but seldom if ever is the land returned to class 1 or 2 farmland. In many cases rehabilitation is none existent or minimal at best. I will elaborate on this later.
I would recommend that we protect, through legislation, prime 1 and 2 farm land as much as possible for agricultural use only. It is on the verge of becoming extinct, much like many of the animals we legislate to protect. I realize that might increase transportation costs for aggregate, but I would argue that we have more money than prime farm land.

Rehabilitation
One way to reduce community/aggregate conflicts is to have strict enforcement and compliance with aggregate site rehabilitation. Nothing is more frustrating to a community than an aggregate site left as a scar on their environment. Rehabilitation should ensure that there are limited social and environmental costs to the community resulting from an aggregate site. Rehabilitation is an essential step in repairing the environmental damage done by extraction activities and plays a key role in viewing aggregate extraction as part of a process and only an interim land use. To often the rehabilitation is done ineffectively and as cheaply as possible given that the aggregate extraction is now over.
The rate of complete rehabilitation in Ontario between 2002-2011 was reported as 2.6% an increase of 0.5% over the 2.1% between 1992-2001. Although the rate of rehabilitation has not significantly increased, the rate of extraction continues to exceed the rate of land rehabilitation resulting in an ongoing net growth of disturbed land. Presently in applications the rehabilitation plan is often ambiguous at best. Often the plans describe multiple options for rehabilitation or little or no clear option. The lack of clearly stated performance indicators in aggregate site rehabilitation plans, along with the lack of monitoring and enforcement procedures produces an unnecessary area of potential conflict.
The research on this issue of Rehabilitation Enforcement and Compliance identifies numerous problems:
• It is primarily self-regulating.
• There is minimal site inspection by inspectors.
• It is most often complaint driven.
• There is lack of education for aggregate operators.
• There is a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities of government levels.
• There is lack of clarity regarding who pays for rehabilitation.
In the proposed new legislation these issues should be addressed.
• Applications for an aggregate site should include a clear plan for rehabilitation including land use, compatibility with surrounding landscape and social environment, estimated costs and timelines.
• The plan should be reviewed by affected citizens and local/provincial governments and an agreement reached.
• Rehabilitation costs should be based on a polluter pay model.
• Compliance and enforcement should be carried out regularly.
• A security deposit should be collected with an application to ensure compliance.
• Failure to rehabilitate a site should result in the offending aggregate producer not being permitted to file any new licence applications until existing obligations are met.
It is important that a rehabilitation plan for an aggregate licence not just be a licence application requirement, but it must also comply with any community long term planning and environmental planning.

Stakeholder Involvement: Roles and Responsibilities
As was stated earlier the licencing, operating and closing of an aggregate site involves numerous stakeholders and has a long history of conflict among these stakeholders. It is therefore important that the Application Process; the Monitoring of successful applications; the Enforcement of process rules including rehabilitation involve input and action from the various stakeholders to a meaningful degree. The need for cheaper aggregate cannot be allowed to overrule farming or a community’s social environment or ecological issues. Sometimes there will be the need for a compromise solution, sometimes the aggregate producer will be given a licence to extract resources and sometimes he won’t. The important thing is that the process is seen as fair to most, even if they don’t like the outcome. We cannot allow money or time or perceived immediate needs to overrule fairness. It is most often the process not the outcome that causes the conflict. As a closing comment I would say that in the review of recent newspaper articles written on the proposed amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act the main issue discussed has almost always something to do with “Stakeholder Involvement: Roles and Responsibility”. Usually people were afraid their role and responsibility would be minimized or left out of the “process”.