I am absolutely against the…

I am absolutely against the suggested changes to the Environmental Protection Act. This is not a safe way to go about "streamlining". Public consultation and input is critical to ensure proper development. Thomas Cavanagh Construction is applying for a lakefront gravel pit on Barbers Lake in Lanark Highlands. Even with the current process, it is alarming what kind of a proposal can be presented. Without community input the MNR would not have been made aware of uranium on the site, the homes on Barbers Lake that would be impacted, Blanding’s turtles on the site and the extent of the potential impact on Barbers Lake, Long Sault Creek and the surrounding wetlands.

I feel that the applicant should have to pay for the studies needed for the application process but the research should be done by experts appointed by the MNR. No work should be allowed to start until the application criteria has been fully met and the application has been fully approved.

Every application has to be approached differently because each application is different and interacts with the surrounding areas differently. Conservation authorities are a vital part of the process for the aggregate industry and should be reinstated with their previous power to protect wetlands, waterbodies and water resources. Unpredictable storms with extreme rainfalls are becoming more common, perhaps as a result of climate change. These storms are sometimes unprecedented and mean that stormwater management is crucial and requiring oversight by unbiased third party experts.

The MNR is already overextended. How could they be expected to have the manpower to properly inspect large numbers of new pits that are opened quickly through a streamlined process? Chances are the new pits will require more inspections and have more issues with compliance if they are fast tracked. The risks of irreparable damage are too high and the costs are too great for the water and environment. It is better to ensure strict and careful consideration when issuing licences than have to undergo costly and potentially ineffective remediation. Would the operators or the taxpayers be expected to cover these additional costs?

It is ridiculous to even consider unlimited water taking. Development is futile if the future is not protected. Safe and plentiful water is essential for a healthy and successful future for residents of our province. Issuing of water taking permits must ensure that wells in neighbouring properties and other water resources are protected. Water taking should not be considered for these changes.

The public has a right to comment on aggregate development that will impact their health, environment and community. It is wrong to fast track the application process so that aggregate operators maximize their profits by extracting the cream of the crop while there is so much aggregate still available in licenced pits that are not depleted or rehabilitated. The costs are too high to the people of Ontario. I am strongly opposed to these proposed changes.