By North Dufferin…

By North Dufferin Agricultural and Community Taskforce (NDACT)
May 14, 2020

We, the people behind Food & Water First, learned firsthand the need to protect farmland and source water from short-term thinking.

The Food & Water First campaign was born of the Stop the Mega Quarry movement near Shelburne. Nine (9) years ago a proposal was made to dig a 2,400-acre quarry 200 feet deep on prime vegetable land. Farmers, First Nations, locals, weekenders, Chefs, artists, musicians, and anyone who could see the importance of Ontario’s food and water security came together to protect the land. In October 2011, “Foodstock” attracted 28,000 people to Melancthon Township, just north of Shelburne. In 2012, 40,000 people joined us in downtown Toronto for “Soupstock”. The furor was so great that the quarry proposal was withdrawn in November 2012.

Today NDACT’s mandate through the Food & Water First campaign is to protect Ontario’s food land and clean water sources for future generations by promoting good legislation and land-use planning.
To that end, North Dufferin Agricultural and Community Taskforce (NDACT) submits the following comments:

1.1.1 Water Report
NDACT encourages and appreciates any changes to process that strengthens the protection of clean water sources. Water reporting should include input from the local Conservation Authority as well as alignment with source water protection plans and policies. We request that aggregate extraction below the water table be prohibited without a full Environmental Assessment and complete understanding of the impact of extraction on the groundwater and within the applicable watershed(s) thereby avoiding any detrimental effects locally or downstream.

1.1.2 Cultural Heritage Report
We encourage and appreciate any changes to process that considers cultural heritage and prevents the fragmentation of farmland. Many rural communities have a rich farming heritage that is being fragmented by urban development, commercial enterprises and resource extraction. Agriculture loses ground gradually as farmers sell all or parts of their properties to “city-folk” and adjust their farming practices accordingly. Businesses that support farmers such as feed mills, tractors and parts sales, mechanics, welders, informal country kitchen diners, local co-ops, and other farmers, go out of business or move to more profitable farming communities. Farmers are forced to drive their trucks and tractors to properties further and further away, generating more emissions, putting up with more complaints (smell, tractors on the roads, noisy farm trucks), fewer services and more aggravation, until they too stop farming in the area, retire or move. Fragmenting Ontario’s farm heritage is short-term thinking when it comes to local and national food security for today as shown by the COVID-19 pandemic, and for tomorrow. Where will our great grandchildren get their food?

1.1.3 Natural Environment Report
We encourage and appreciate any changes to process that aligns aggregate operations reporting with the current natural heritage policies and the four provincial plans (Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan), which we strongly support.

1.1.4 Agricultural Impact Assessment
We recommend that aggregate extraction does not occur in prime farmland areas.
1. The Ontario agri-food sector supports more than 837,000 jobs in Ontario and contributes more than $47.5 billion each year to the province’s economy. (Source: October 7, 2019 Ontario government News Release - Ontario Celebrates Farmers During Agriculture Week).
2. Food and food security is vital to Ontario and Canada as highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. The people of Ontario can’t eat rock.

1.1.7 Application Requirements for Extraction from Land under Water
We do not support the proposal to customize the requirements for technical reports, information, notification and consultation processes. Allowing Ministry staff to customize requirements could put Ministry staff under pressure of influence. Additionally, customized requirements would ultimately lead to inconsistent applications, thus sowing confusion. It would be better to have a documented set of requirements to guide the application.

Additionally, we do not support extraction of aggregate from land under water (e.g. from the bed of a lake or river) without an Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken to determine how to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts locally and downstream.

1.2.2 Site Plan Standards – Modernization
We find it disappointing that aggregate extraction is condoned within any provincial plan focused on environmental protection (e.g. within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan). The “maximum disturbed area” should be zero.

We find it appropriate that the processing and removal of recycled aggregate from a site be included in the tonnage condition of the operation.

We find it appropriate that all onsite activities be accounted for under the hours of operation.

1.3.2 Notification and Consultation Process
We find that increasing the 120 metre distance threshold to 150 metres for a proposed pit and to 500 metres for a proposed quarry for resident (not landowner) notification is negligible especially in agricultural or forested areas where properties are measured in hectares. We recommend a larger notification perimeter in rural areas.

Additionally, the Proponent of a new proposal should be tasked with a fiduciary duty to inform local landowners and community members to the extent that the proposal can be negotiated in good faith to benefit both the aggregate site operator and the community. Aggregate operations bring jobs, business and funds to the local area. Any new proposal should be negotiated to a win-win resolution and not forced into communities.

We support licence applicants having more flexible options related to the method of notification as long as the applicants put forward their best efforts to contact and keep open channels of communications with landowners, residents, applicable First Nations communities, local businesses and governments.

1.3.3 Objection Process on Private Land
We do not support the ministry’s proposal to “clarify when submissions are considered to be formal ‘objections’”. Such a proposal would foster the notion that submissions made during the notification period are less important and easily dismissed.

Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights (1993) gives Ontario residents the right to participate in environmental decision-making. Therefore, Ontarians have the right to comment and/or object to decisions being considered. The Environmental Registry was established so that Ontarians could comment on actions that could affect the environment. Ministries are obliged under the Environmental Bill of Rights to consider Residents’ comments when making their final decisions so proponents should take any objections submitted under this process to be of a serious nature.

Requiring a separate formal “objection form” process is redundant, time-consuming, and contrary to the intent of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Requiring a separate formal “objection form” process noting that objectors are expected to attend LPAT hearings would be intimidating and off-putting.

Requiring a separate formal “objection form” process two years (or more if the extension proposed in 1.3.1 is ratified) after the notification and consultation process would bury the urgency of the issue in bureaucracy.

After two years (or longer) the proposal is easily forgotten and with only 20 days to reacquaint oneself with the original proposal, plus any amendments, plus the need to learn the new process of a separate formal “objection form”, makes the process stressful and more likely to be abandoned, thus favouring the Proponent’s case.

Objections are detailed during the notification and consultation period and should not be taken lightly. Accepting a process that lightens the weight of Ontarians’ objections is contrary to Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights.

Enacting an objection process that decreases objectors’ options, increases objectors’ expense (i.e. registered mail only, submission by computer only,) or does not encourage objectors to participate is unacceptable and contrary to Ontario’s democratic process.

The objection process should be easy for Ontarians -- not made difficult or exclusive or be setup to favour the aggregate industry.

3.1.2 Dust
We support the idea that all licence and aggregate permit holders be required to mitigate dust to prevent it from leaving the site.

3.1.3 Blasting
We support the proposed approach for blasting but would like to see mandatory fly rock prevention procedures and an 800m Safe Blasting Exclusion Zone as implemented in Nova Scotia.

3.3.3 Amendment to Expand an Existing Site Below the Water Table
For the most part, there are few landowners within 120 meters of an aggregate operation in a rural area. In rural areas, the perimeter should be wider and should extend to the local community.
We do not support aggregate operations extracting below the water table without a full Environmental Assessment including input from the local Conservation Authority to gain complete understanding of the impact of extraction on the groundwater and within the applicable watershed(s) thereby avoiding any detrimental effects locally or downstream.

3.3.4 Self-Filing of Site Plan Amendments
Aggregate operations should only be allowed to self-file if they have good social licence. In other words, the operation has the ongoing approval and goodwill with the local community and government. Companies that do not follow the rules should not be given the privilege of self-filing.
We are concerned that self-filing is an excuse for the government to reduce budgets, monitoring and enforcement of aggregate industry regulations.

Proposed Site Plan Amendments Eligible for Self-Filling
Topic: Portable Processing Equipment
We do not support self-filing that would allow the addition, removal or re-location of portable crushing equipment.

Portable processing equipment is extremely noisy, dusty, and intrusive to communities.

In March 2008 Ken and Jeanine Cressey purchased a house in the hamlet of Snow Road Station, North Frontenac. It turned out there was an inactive gravel pit across the road despite the residential zoning. There were no signs, no berms, no screen of trees. In April 2009 when the pit started to be worked, there was dust. Jeanine started to cough. Day by day her cough worsened, and her doctor advised them to move. They put their house up for sale in August. Then the pit operator installed a portable crusher 90 metres from the Cressey’s front door. According to Ken, “the noise was insane and the dust from the trucks and crushing were even more extreme”. Complaints to the Township, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) yielded no support with the latter two Ministries pointing to each other. The Cresseys were told that the pit could legally operate from 6am to 9pm and there was nothing that could be done. Jeanine’s coughing got worse. She stayed inside the house with the windows closed suffering the noise and dust. The pit stopped operations for the winter in September 2009 but Jeanine was still coughing. At one time her coughing was so severe she had bruises on her stomach. Jeanine died on October 25, 2009. She had never had any heart problems or breathing problems until the pit had started up operations. She was dead within a year of the start-up. Finally, the MNR took responsibility for the case with the MOE in a supporting role. The MNR took Ken’s videos, photos and documents to remind the pit operator of his responsibility. The operator was charged with crushing without a Certificate of Approval (CoA). On October 27, 2011 Wilbert Crain entered a plea of guilty on behalf of Crain’s Construction Limited and was fined $1,000.
We expect the Government of Ontario to make the health and safety of Ontarians their first priority.

Other Comments

NDACT/Food & Water First were disappointed to find that the Government of Ontario has not yet addressed the issues around large-scale fill and dumping at aggregate sites. For instance, extracting aggregate from beneath berm locations and refilling with imported fill, which may be contaminated, before building berms has not been regulated.

NDACT/Food & Water First supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Accordingly, we expect meaningful consultation with local First Nations communities to take place especially in Crown land areas where First Nations people have the constitutional right to hunt and fish.

NDACT/Food & Water First recognizes the importance and value added by Ontario’s thirty-six (36) Conservation Authorities for local watershed management.

NDACT/Food & Water First supports Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, and emphasizes the importance of keeping government decision-making transparent and accountable through the Environmental Registry.

NDACT/Food & Water First supports the former Environmental Commissioner of Ontario position as an independent non-partisan officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario charged with upholding Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights, and we ask for the position to be reinstated.

Today’s decisions are our legacy for tomorrow’s generations.

About NDACT
North Dufferin Agricultural and Community Taskforce (NDACT) is a grassroots group formed in 2009 by local farmers and residents to defend Melancthon’s prime farmland at the headwaters of five (5) rivers from a proposed mega-quarry. After a successful campaign, NDACT continues to fight for farmland and source water by developing awareness, encouraging people power, and by promoting better legislation for today and for the future. Food & Water First is a campaign of NDACT.

Contact
Karren Wallace, Chair
North Dufferin Agricultural and
Community Taskforce (NDACT)
Box 875
Shelburne, ON
L9V 3M1
info@ndact.com

#ProtectOurWater #ProtectPrimeFarmland #GrowOurGreenbelt #FoodAndWaterFirst