1. I substantially agree…

1. I substantially agree with in fact increasing the studies for the application process for existing operators and new applications to ensure that water tables and or flow-through waters and streams and surface waters in adjacent lands are not impacted in any way whatsoever. The authority to reject applications should reside primarily the municipality subsequently with the region and finally with the Ministry of natural resources. In addition, I think it is critical that financial tools are in place to guarantee mitigation should unexpected consequences of extraction occur. In addition, penalties in the range of $5-$20,000 a day until a mitigation is corrected need to be imposed and enforced payable to the municipality, the region and possibly the provincial government. In no way shape or form should any of the provincial governments be required to carry this financial burden or risk when aggregate companies are removing aggregate which puts adjacent lands, homes and businesses in jeopardy. Nor should the property owners.

2. I do not agree with removing the duplicate municipal zoning bylaws relating to the depth aggregate extraction as this route removes authority from local people. It is incumbent upon the municipality to look after and safeguard its citizens. The province should make available lands that are further away from homes businesses settlement areas etc. and all environmentally sensitive lands.

3. Application on Crown lands should continue to have the same requirement zoning as the requirement within municipalities.

4. Given that the municipalities and regions and are responsible all roads and their maintenance. It is not acceptable that they are not allowed to impose conditions on the haulage of aggregate from their areas. Municipalities should be allowed to enforce local bylaws on aggregate companies as they are most informed about local conditions. Further the cumulative effect of numerous developments either settlement, industrial or otherwise are a consideration that local municipalities have an excellent handle on. Eventually self -run programs in this regard would disregard the need of local inhabitants.

Final authority must continue to reside within the municipalities.

5. All access to aggregate with a new or extensions to current extraction should be required to go through the same rigorous and robust planning process as a new application. There is far too much extraction aggregates on an extended basis for current license holders without the requirement for rigorous and robust studies. It cannot be demonstrated that the aggregate industry had abided by the current rules so why give them freer rein?

6. There is no industry in the world that self regulates correctly therefore I do not think it is appropriate to provide more flexibility for regulations to increase self-filing of routine site plan amendments. Should you disregard my comment and allow this then the enforcement of noncompliance must be twice as rigorous and punitive when self-filing has occurred. Having said that I have yet to see enforcement of the current rules and regulations in the aggregate industry. Look especially at the rehabilitation. This in itself is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed prior to any amendments occurring.

7. In regards to rehabilitation.pits do NOT rehabilitate on their own Yet extensions continue all the time. There is no enforcement of the issue of rehabilitation and it is totally disregarded, this is a a fundamental flaw in the aggregate resources act in an application by some authority.

8. Once again, I do not agree with allowing self-filing changes to existing site plans for some routine activities. There is no industry in the world of self regulates correctly and is a recipe for ultimately a disaster for which the unnoticed the public will have to pay

9. I would like to see an intensity of requirements to acquire a license rather than the alternative as is being proposed to allow a simpler and easier access to aggregate extraction. It cannot be said the current process is satisfactory for the extraction of aggregates. This is a permanent scarring and alteration of any given site and therefore given its prominence it should be given the credence and study that it requires to ensure no permanent impact and occur to anybody adjacent upstream downstream in any property whatsoever. This remove the ability to grow food and provide water permanently so it takes 20 years to get a site ready so be it!

10. There should be increased vigilance, more studies, extended studies to surrounding areas as opposed to streamlining compliance and reporting requirements. The amendments being proposed will allow mining and extraction companies to run the mark in a complex service environment and could ultimately lead to significant and permanent irreversible damage to our habitat.

11. The ministry should also revisit the question of “need” in allowing more and more pits and minds to be started. It is a constant need for aggregate and mining clearly all people understand this however managing the resources in an efficient way and method requires that an understanding of current imagery against requirement is an absolute necessity. The wanton disregard for land and its use in opening unneeded pits is not something that the general population should have to bear. It is not a complicated thing to figure out how much each quarry can deliver over what period of time. It’s also not complicated to figure out how much is required for new development throughout the province. Given these 2 factors one can understand easily the need for opening new pits and how much is in fact required before allowing and giving license to pits.

12. The cost of maintaining roads their expansion and development is extraordinarily expensive. The carriage of aggregate damages roads significantly more than regular cars and small trucks. Given the consistency and heavy loads on the same extraction routes as mining and extraction courses there should be a premium paid to the local municipalities of $0.50 per kilometer through the province. This would lead to more judicious use of our resources and more careful planning where and why we open pets. I will go further to say that I strongly believe that the use of the railway system within Ontario to be the 1st source for aggregate transportation for aggregate and mining. This would save our roads, in itself saving aggregate , make the roads less congested, the roads would be safer etc

For the government to allow these changes shows a total disregard for the environment and the long-term needs of its citizens. This plays directly into the hands of for-profit aggregate companies and maybe it is time for all this industry to be nationalized and de-privatized, making a government run, as clearly a self-serving profit interest is not in the interests of the provinces