The following are my…

The following are my comments on the proposed changes outlined in ERO 025-0216 Updates to Aggregate Policies, using the numbering system MNR used:

1 Purpose

2.0 Considerations in Issuing a Licence

2.1 (a) Effects on the Environment

The EPA defines air and land while the WRA defines water; these acts are MECP legislation.

The ARA defines the environment as the air, land and water or any combination or part thereof… What is the meaning of “natural environment” as used in this Draft Policy for Consultation?

Why isn’t the “air environment” considered under the ARA? As a minimum existing “background” at the proposed new aggregate site should be measured or other local sources included in the analysis, potential adverse effects on air quality and human health assessed, and a confirmatory monitoring survey carried out to demonstrate compliance with standards.

Relying on a BMPP as the solution to potential adverse effects is not sufficient given the poor performance of some operators, the lack of inspections by the provincial government and the paucity of charges, all according to the 2023 Auditor General’s report on aggregates.

2.2 (b) Effects on Nearby Communities

Why are impacts related to “fly rock” not listed nor considered?

Are we to assume that a generic blast design report will be submitted with the licence application or that every planned blast will require a blast design report which addresses specific details of the rock formation being blasted? What are the qualification requirements for blast designers, and blasters? Who inspects and monitors on a regular basis to confirm that approved plans are in fact being followed and have the desired effect of reducing adverse effects to acceptable levels?

Why are the cumulative impacts of other pits and quarries as well as road dust, other industries, etc. within, say a 5km radius, not taken into account in these assessments?

2.3 (c) Comments from the Municipality

In all likelihood, the zoning bylaw amendment would still be outstanding at this stage, in which case the comments from the municipality should be treated as conditions that shall be met by the licence holder. That is, the Planning Act should prevail over the ARA.

2.4 (d) Rehabilitation Plans

Progressive rehabilitation standards need to be tightened up. Rehabilitation should in fact be “progressive” by ensuring that as the extraction of a new phase starts, rehabilitation of the previous phase starts also, and there isn’t more that one extracted phase un-rehabilitated. Accommodation should be made for processing equipment, haul roads and other infrastructure.

2.5 (e) Effects on Groundwater and Surface Water

Need clarification on the meaning of “mitigate.” While avoidance is preferred, the decision to accept mitigation can be a subjective matter. Need further guidance on acceptable levels of mitigation. This cannot be left to MNR and instead determined by subject-matter experts at, say, MECP.

How will MNR determine that the measures are satisfactory, i.e., on its own or by reference to subject-matter experts at, say, MECP?

2.6 (f) Effects on Agriculture

Need clarification on whether or not an AIA is required when the land is BOTH prime agricultural land and in a provincial plan area, or EITHER one of these land designations.

MNR acknowledges that the land zoning of a licensed site may be changed in the future. How is this change approved - by an amendment to the Site Plan, approved by MNR? If so, what role does the municipality, which is responsible for issuing zone change bylaws, play? It is my position that changes to the final land use zoning for a licensed pit should only be approved by the municipality.

The experts are of the opinion that prime agricultural land develops over centuries or millennia and that levelling an exhausted pit and adding 5 cm of topsoil does not come close to returning the land to the original prime agricultural condition. Aggregate extraction in prime agricultural land essentially converts the rehabilitated land to a poor agricultural land condition or other non-agricultural use. The analysis of whether or not to issue the original license should be decided by qualified provincial and national decision makers considering long-term and sustainability factors.

2.7 (g) Planning and Land Use

It appears that MNR’s bias is to issue licences and it is citizens groups that raise concerns in opposition to the proposed new aggregate pit or quarry. In practice this means that it is those citizens groups that can muster the resources to oppose the proposal that slow down the approval process for further study and consideration. Proponents then refer the matter to the OLT and the ultimate decision is made by this body on the basis of evidence presented by the opposing sides. This is a David and Goliath context which is usually resolved in favour of the proponent. A much more credible process would be to refer the matter to the Superior Court and the necessary funds provided mainly by the proponent.

2.8 (h) Haulage Routes and Truck Traffic

It is more precise to replace the first sentence with: Aggregate truck traffic adversely impacts the neighbouring communities - congestion, noise, diesel fumes, dust, safety, etc. Many of these impacts are not considered by MNR! Instead, the municipality or Ministry of Transportation (or Citizens Groups) are expected to do this at their cost.

The traffic impact report should continue to be a requirement of the proponent and accepted only when the municipality, with input from local residents, and the Ministry of Transportation are satisfied with the report.

2.9 (i) Quality and Quantity of Aggregate

A requirement to also determine other properties of the aggregate deposit (e.g. silica, silt and moisture content) should be required so that assessment of potential adverse air quality and health impacts can be estimated more precisely through modelling studies. The current practice of modellers in Ontario is to rely on old, generic data generated in the US decades ago.

2.10 (j) History of Compliance

Given the findings of the Auditor General in their 2023 report on aggregates, MNR rarely does inspections of operating pits and quarries, nor charge operators with penalties for infractions; this is not a deterrent for bad actors! As a result, most applications are rubber stamped when it comes to history of compliance!

2.11 (k) Other Appropriate Considerations

This is open-ended! Why doesn’t MNR look at the “big picture” and consider the long-term sustainability of the current aggregate planning and approval regime (aggregate extraction is a provincial priority, the need for specific new pits does not need to be justified regardless of available licensed supply, mined land in prime agricultural land is lost to this category and productivity for centuries, potential impacts on drinking water supply amount and quantity, etc.) and revamp its entire planning, review, approval, inspections and enforcement processes, with a long-term focus on the sustainability of the Province? This should be the top priority of MNR and MECP, not continually weaken regulatory requirements requested by industry!