1) Comments on Regulatory…

1) Comments on Regulatory Changes for water takings

I am very much opposed to the proposal to weaken environmental protections in the Environmental Protection Act to “streamline” granting of permits for a number of industries including aggregate extraction in pits and quarries. Specifically regarding water takings:
• Public notification, consultation and input must continue to be part of the license application and permit granting process for these industries including water taking permits. A study must be done by an independent 3rd part expert to understand the impact of water takings on each individual site. It is unacceptable to replace this input with an evaluation by a “qualified person” hired by the proponent. Below is one example where there are hundreds of outstanding legitimate questions (mostly technical) regarding statements made by one of these “qualified persons” hired by the proponent, some related to water takings.
• Those who evaluate and approve water taking permits must not be hired by the proponent – they must represent an independent 3rd party authority with no bias.
• The local Conservation Authority must be involved in review of studies on impact of water taking and in granting of water taking permits on industrial sites including aggregate extraction.

Many of these permit applications have the potential for VAST negative impact on nearby residents, the environment and wildlife, including endangered species. That is why it is vital that public input including input from Conservation Authorities remain an essential part of the permitting process for industries including aggregate extraction and other industries whose operations can cause these negative impacts.

As you will see below there are many unanswered questions regarding some of the recent permit applications from the gravel industry including many technical questions about statements made by the proponent’s consultant. The public must continue to have the right to question these permit applications - including statements made by the “qualified person” hired by the proponent - and demand reasonable answers to their legitimate concerns.

2) Example of a permit application with many legitimate unanswered questions, some related to water taking:
As an example, below is more detail regarding my concerns related to one permit application for a gravel pit that demonstrates the need for continued public consultation and review by independent experts such as Conservation Authorities on these kind of permit applications. Hundreds of other local citizens also submitted many concerns about this application, most of them technical.

Although I do not live near any gravel pit, or along the truck routes, I am a resident of Lanark Highlands where there are numerous gravel pits. I firmly believe we must all keep the Precautionary Principle (Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Chapter 3) top of mind when making any decision that could negatively impact the environment, wildlife and the water table which provides drinking water for nearby residents.

There have been several recent applications by gravel pit owners to modify their licenses to permit extraction of materials BELOW THE WATER TABLE, and in at least one case, directly beside a lake and creek which provides rare natural habitat for cold water trout. Furthermore, endangered and threatened species including Blanding Turtles, Gold Eagles and Bald Eagles have been seen on the site and it is proposed that this pit will operate 24/7 all year with lights and noise all night every night. Please see my questions submitted to MNRF and the proponent’s consultant in bold font below regarding that application.

My concerns are focused on the technical and logistical aspects of this proposal. I am also focused on who will bear the risk and cost of environmental damage which could be enormous – it must not be us taxpayers! There have been many situations where Canadian mining companies have scooped up profits and then disappeared, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill to remediate the toxic mess they left behind. Given the complexities and unknowns of mining under the water table, it is entirely possible that remediation will not be possible at all, and that any environmental damage will remain indefinitely.

To my knowledge, mining below the water table as proposed in this application has never been successfully done long-term without negative impact on the water table, or at a site adjacent to an environmentally sensitive waterway without negative impact on the waterway. Long Sault Creek provides rare natural habitat for cold water trout.

With any risky, unproven technology I believe it should be required for the proponent to:
• hire an independent 3rd party company to determine what negative environmental impacts could occur and estimate the cost to remediate each of them to the largest extent possible – ie. restore the environment to how it was before the project began;
• take out a performance bond to cover the cost of remediating all the environmental damage that could occur to the greatest extent possible;
• continue to hold the bond for the life of the project and if environmental damage occurs, pay out the money in the bond to remediate the situation.

In my past work on multi-million dollar projects for clients at various levels of government, companies have had to take out such performance bonds to be considered a bidder on many large projects even though their proposals used proven, existing technologies. The intent was to ensure that taxpayers would not be on the hook to foot the bill if something went wrong while implementing the project. These bonds would need to be orders of magnitude larger than the ones I am familiar with for unproven, risky technologies that have the potential to destroy the natural environment and contaminate drinking water for local residents. If the MNRF decides to allow below the water table mining, will they require such a performance bond to protect the environment and taxpayers?

Specifically my concerns/questions for the proponent’s consultant and MNRF regarding this permit application are:
• Endangered and threatened species documented near the site include Gold Eagles and Bald Eagles. Artificial light at night (ALAN) is a recognized form of light pollution which is disruptive to wildlife in a number of ways – for ex. it has been documented to cause birds to get “trapped” in the light – they fly in the light until they are so exhausted that they fall to their death (see blog at https://natureconservancy.ca/en/). This light pollution is also disruptive to humans, especially those who enjoy looking at the beautiful night sky (and who doesn’t?). How will the proponent prevent light from its night operations from projecting upwards and outwards?
• Given the very complicated engineering needed to protect: the rare natural habitat for cold water trout in Long Sault Creek; and the water table where everyone’s drinking water comes from - what is the proponent’s track record in successfully implementing and operating such a complex, below the water table mine adjacent to sensitive waterways long term without any negative consequences to the nearby waterways or water table?
• How will such a ‘below the water table mine’ survive extreme weather events without negatively impacting nearby waterways and the water table? What past evidence of this track record is there? Climate Change will surely bring about more of these extreme weather events that are impossible to predict and take into account while the engineering of the mine is being designed.
For ex: the torrential rain, high winds and hail our area got during the Aug 10, 2023 severe thunderstorm where over 77mm of rain fell, most of it in just one hour . A similar situation occurred about a year ago where 106mm of rain fell over 2 days with more rain in the following days . And how about the ice storm followed by a week of extremely heavy rain that our area experienced in April 2023?
• Rocks in the area are known to contain uranium. Mining below the water table as proposed in the application could release uranium into the environment, including the adjacent waterway and water table. What is the proponent’s track record in containing uranium so it doesn’t contaminate the environment once the rocks containing it have been exposed?
• Given the proximity of this site to Long Sault Creek, will MNRF specify on the operating license of this site that there will be no washing or screening of gravel or recycling of imported construction waste allowed on this site now or in the future, whether it is owned by the current proponent, or a different owner?
• What does the proponent currently pay the township for road maintenance on the roads they use? Given that the application asks for an increase from 150,000 to 250,000 tpy to be extracted from this site, how will the proponent increase their payment to cover their share of costs to upgrade and maintain the roads it uses so that taxpayers are not on the hook for repairs and extra maintenance due to the increased truck traffic caused by this mine?
• What is the proponent’s track record in managing truck drivers to be extra cautious regarding road safety on the narrow, winding, hilly roads on the truck route given that Wheelers Pancake House is a popular tourist attraction and visitors who are not familiar with the road are often looking around at the scenery?

I urge decision makers at MNRF not to permit mining under the water table at this site given its proximity to an environmentally sensitive waterway, and also not to permit the expansion of this site given high levels of traffic to a popular tourist attraction. Surely this is a case where the Precautionary Principle must be applied. If something goes wrong, the environmental and economic development damage (ex. loss of business for local tourist attractions) cannot be undone.

3) And finally a note to the Premier’s office:
This proposed legislative change is part of an overall pattern where our current provincial government has been stripping away environmental protections to promote development without consideration of long-term impacts. These regressive policies prioritize development (no matter what negative impacts it can cause), and the best interests of a well-connected few over the interests of the majority of citizens in the province. It also seems that this government has no regard for health of the environment or the welfare of wildlife, including endangered species. Here are a few recent examples of this regressive trend:
• Removing protection for farmland and sensitive areas in the Greenbelt to benefit a few well-connected developers – the Auditor General’s report speaks for itself.
• Changing the Conservation Authorities Act to reduce the power that local Conservation Authorities have to protect watersheds - they can no longer comment on applications that require planning changes at the municipal level, even if they have the potential to damage the local watershed.
• Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act removes protection for farmland, conservation areas and wetlands. In a world where there is increasing concern about the insecurity of food supply we need to protect farmland in Ontario to have a sustainable future. Wetlands are essential for wildlife habitat and for mitigating climate change by sequestering 2-3 times the amount of carbon dioxide that forests do. Affordable housing, including rentals should be close to work places and public transit – there is no need to impact farmland and wetlands with housing developments.
• The proposed 2023 Provincial Planning Statement removes protection for the rural landscape including prime agricultural land, and allows expansion of settlement areas without comprehensive review. It also removes habitat of species at risk from the definition of natural heritage features and downloads costs for watershed studies, wetland identification and Indigenous consultation to municipalities – many rural municipalities cannot afford these additional costs. It also replaces the goal of “affordable housing” (housing that costs no more than 30 percent of a person’s income) with encouragement to provide a range of housing options with “attainable housing” defined by the province as 80% of market prices. That definition still leaves housing prices out of reach for many people who earn moderate incomes.
• Buried in Schedule 14 of Bill 91, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act, is legislation that allows for the establishment of more dog training compounds which involve cruelty to captive wildlife . Former Conservation Officers who have experience with these compounds have implored the Province not to pass this legislation since it involves unacceptable cruelty in a number of ways . The conservative government under Premier Mike Harris had passed legislation to phase out these compounds due to this fact. Unfortunately, it seems that the outrage expressed by the citizens who managed to find out about this legislative change, as well as facts put forward by the former Conservation Officers have been ignored by the province. Apparently the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) who were pushing for this change have been very successful in lobbying the MNRF.

The points noted above demonstrate: a disregard for the well-being of our environment and wildlife, including endangered species; and irresponsible policies that reduce mitigation against climate change and threaten the security of our food supply in this province. Citizens of Ontario deserve better! These regressive changes are a betrayal of people like myself who voted for PROGRESSIVE Conservatives.

Although I have always voted Conservative and have nothing but good things to say about our local MPP, I cannot in good conscience ever vote Conservative again while we have a Premier who is intent on pushing through these regressive changes without adequate debate or consideration of public input. Some of the changes noted above were already in 3rd reading in the legislature before the comment period on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) closed – so, while citizens were submitting comments to the ERO in good faith, thinking they would make a difference, the legislation was already in the last stages of being passed, and it passed shortly afterward. A clear indication of disregard for public input!

This government may think that a majority of Ontarians will continue to vote Conservative, but they need to think again. I know many other long-time Conservative voters who feel the same way I do – they voted for PROGRESSIVE Conservatives. The regressive changes that have been pushed through by this government are starting to affect people personally and they are shocked when they learn that some of the basic environmental protections they assumed would always be there have been removed.