I am a private citizen who…

I am a private citizen who lives in a community where there is a quarry. Historically the operator has not followed the rules. When he was declined a PTTW in 2005 he operated until found out in 2011. Apparently the MNRF did not know as communication had not flowed from one ministry to the other. The end result...nothing. The owner was simply given a PTTW to pump over a million litres of water a day and up to 3 million during rain/snow melt. One day a blast went off and blew the brick out of our home as well as cracked the ceilings in the upstairs and shifted the jack posts in the basement 4 inches. The owner refused to acknowledge our concern so I contacted MNRF who had the MOE visit. They said they couldn't prove the damage was from the blast. The house was built circa 1860 and had stood solid until that blast but there was no connection. That cost us about $6000 to repair, with no recourse what so ever. Basically we could pay and fix or pay and take the owner to court. My husband and I have absolutely no faith in our ministries ability to protect us. That is why I do not think in any way there should be lifting of any restrictions. The small bit of oversight we have from the ministry should not be diminished. If the outbreak of covid has taught us anything, it is that private operators care about themselves and the bottom line from a dollars and cents perspective and will cut every corner possible. Aggregate producers have the money to lobby and present cases to government that is beneficial to them and as such over the years, they have been given way too loud of a voice. Will the next disaster be in the aggregate industry as private enterprise has shouted citizen and environmental concerns?

I am a Registered Nurse who cares about my community and my environment. For instance I went before Queens Park to the Standing Committee in 2017 (Citizens Against Melrose Quarry) re the Aggregate and Mining Modernization Act. There was a bit of a success there as consideration is now given to ALL water supply, not just municipal I am pleased to see water addressed on pages 7 and 8 and request that you go one step further and look at cumulative effects. In our case, since the initial request for an Official Plan chance was introduced by the proponent in 2004 to expand the current quarry, our municipality has permitted dozens of new homes in the vicinity. This is a worry as we only have one low yield aquifer and we are in a karst environment.

Last November I had the opportunity to address the parliamentary standing committee re Bill 132, twice. Once with Citizens Against Melrose Quarry and next with the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. I am concerned with changes that put more power in the hands of quarry operators. I urge you to take out the piece re self regulation and operator's ability to alter site plans without MNRF oversight. Again, given the covid experience, to put any more control into the hands of the private sector is just plain frightening. In my community, there have been many non compliances by this operator both in terms of MNRF oversight and even greater ones with the MECP. Currently he is under investigation once again by the MECP. Not that anything ever comes of it. What is interesting in the case of LPAT MM180027 the license application has been referred for decision making, but only non compliances of the current situation with the MNRF can be heard. That too me is silo thinking.

When I presented both times in November 2019, Mr. Harris told me that consideration would be given to partial funding for citizens, if they met certain criteria. That is important as there is a great imbalance. Certainly there is a process for LPAT but companies can afford to go but citizens cannot. As I noted, I have yet to see quarry operators holding bake sales to pay their way at LPAT. Please put something in for this, even if it is only 25 - 30 per cent of the costs. It givens citizens a boost and allows their voice to be heard.

Also in my presentations last fall, I clearly stated that it is my belief that ARA licenses should be time limited and tied to the PTTW. That way there is flow of information and in fact would cut down on ministry inspection time (conversely provide the opportunity for closer oversight) as the MECP/MNRF team could cross pollinate and when inspecting for one inspect for the other.

I applaud that you are addressing farmland. However, can language be a bit more clear? What exactly does "within a prime agricultural area" mean. Should it be 1000 metres given winds that blow and potentially cause PH and alkalinity changes and risk the ruination of the limited prime agricultural land available? Please spell this out as give the quarry operators an inch, they will take a mile. Contrary to popular belief, or at least in my circumstance, quarry operators are not always mindful of their impact on the community. As I said in one of my presentation: Kind of like a skunk at a garden party. ...nothing wrong with skunks but put them in the wrong setting they are not welcome.

It is wonderful to see that finally flyrock has been addressed. Thank you. However, again can you put some actual parameters around the language so operators and citizens are both clear of the rules. Also, for new quarries is there any reason that this cannot be incorporated now, rather than to approve, and then have to back track? If they are going to need to do it in 18 months, why not put it into effect immediately for all new or expanded quarries. That would save time and effort and be more efficient in my view.

Thank you for the opportunity to have my voice heard.