Comments re Proposed…

Comments re Proposed Amendments to the Aggregates Resources Act

The proposal summary “Changes are proposed to the Aggregate Resources Act to reduce burdens for business while maintaining strong protection for the environment and managing impacts to communities” is admirable and perhaps describes the right thing to do. However, as is often said, the devil is in the details.

My knowledge of this subject was acquired responding to an application for a new quarry that is proposed to be located too close to a lake. The identity of the application is not important because the key elements of it are very applicable to proposed changes to the Aggregate Resources Act.

Two key elements have been identified: 1) facilitation of easier access, for business, to aggregate; and, 2) protecting the environment. They are not mutually exclusive in that resources can be harvested in an environmentally responsible manner without encumbering business with excessively complicated application processes and expensive reporting requirements. And, by extension burdening the MNRF with extensive oversight responsibilities.

Maintaining strong protection for the environment is critical as we have only been provided with one environment so to speak. Once damaged it is incredibly expensive to clean up and restore. If preserving the environment is not sufficient reason, then please consider that often it is the environment that is the sole economic engine for a region. This is most evident in regions outside of the golden horseshoe of south western Ontario – i.e. especially so in areas such as Muskoka, Haliburton and areas to the north where the health of the lakes and rivers is the sole foundation to the economy. Yes, there are pockets of industrialization such as in terms of mining in the Sudbury area and pulp and paper, but these are surrounded by vast areas which are economically dependent upon the health of the lakes and streams.

Having said this does not mean that harvesting aggregate cannot happen or that it must be done in far off remote areas. What is required though that it be done in an environmentally responsible manner - but what does that mean ? It means that reasonable care must be taken to ensure that pollution from these activities does not pollute the surrounding area. Of particular concern is the watershed – both above the ground and below the ground – given its ability to distribute pollutants over a wide area.

This requires a buffer, or safety zone be placed around the harvest area. This translates to reasonable and effective setbacks from lakes and rivers. The larger the buffer or setback, the greater the ability to protect the environment from pollution … and mistakes that can cause pollution to the watershed.

A larger buffer also affords the opportunity to lessen oversight and reporting requirements thereby reducing costs for the government to oversee these operations and for business to enjoy more streamlined application processes. A larger buffer would also reduce the liability of a quarry operator from being responsible for pollution of the local watershed.

There is another element which has not been taken into consideration – respect for local land use planning. Considerable efforts and expense have gone into planning how the people living in an area want to see the land in their area used. The planning has been governed by provincial planning regulations maintained by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It is simply wrong to set aside all of the planning for the benefits of a few commercial interests simply because Crown Lands are involved. It is further unfair when these interests are from outside the region impacted and many of the dollars spent harvesting the aggregate leave the area impacted.

Therefore, I am asking the Provincial Government to:

1. Reconsider overriding local planning by-laws and to work jointly with municipalities to ensure property owners and tax payers expectations are respected.

2. Require that all proposed aggregate applications with potential waterway impacts (i.e., lakes, feeder streams, groundwater, wetlands, fissures etc.) participate in the more robust application process requirement for quarries below the waterline, set out in the Provincial announcement, in concert with the Government’s policies of protecting water resources.

3. Enforce at least a 1,000-metre setback requirement for all waterfront designations, which is already a minimum in many Municipal By-Laws.

Thank you.