AGGREGATE IN ONTARIO
Planning Act (online version)
Though the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) administers the licensing of quarries in Ontario through the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA), it is Ontario’s Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 that sets out land use priorities and determines the decision-making principles according to which the MNRF will grant or deny quarry applications.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (online version)
The current Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides direction to decision-makers on matters of provincial interest that relate to land use planning and development, and promotes provincial policy objectives. The PPS is issued under the authority of Ontario’s Planning Act, section 3. All decisions on land use planning that are made at the provincial and municipal levels, including decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must be consistent with the PPS.
Between 1997 and 2005, the key provision of the PPS governing aggregates had read:
2.2.3.1 As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible will be made available to supply mineral resource needs, as close to markets as possible.
In 2005, the language of the PPS was amended to state as follows:
2.5.2.1 As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible shall be made available as close to markets as possible. Demonstration of need for mineral aggregate resources, including any type of supply/demand analysis, shall not be required, notwithstanding the availability, designation or licensing for extraction of mineral aggregate resources locally or elsewhere.
The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement is currently undergoing a five-year review. During the review process, it has been argued by the Niagara Escarpment Commission that the lack of requirements to include an analysis of supply and demand is a barrier to undertaking comprehensive planning that would ensure that establishment of new pits and quarries is justified.
KEY TERMS & CLAUSES
“Close to Market”
“2.5.2.1 As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible shall be made available as close to markets as possible.”
The Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (OSSGA) claims “without replacement of licensed aggregate reserves within close proximity to the consumer, the transportation distance from source to market will significantly increase causing an undesirable increase in the cost of aggregate and greenhouse gas emissions, all of which are contrary to Provincial objectives.”
At first glance this “close to market” clause appears to make sense –- governments are the largest users of aggregate and therefore taxpayers benefit from cheap product, as well as from reduced greenhouse gas emissions. However, the reality is that the clause undermines the use of recycled product and product that is sourced from land unsuitable for other uses. In effect, the clause makes it too easy to setup operations on good farmland, close to residences and source water areas.
Also aggregate sourced “close to market” is not necessarily cheaper. For instance, the Emil Kolb Parkway in Bolton was constructed using aggregate products sourced in the Orillia area because the cost was lower than closer sites. There are no restrictions on where aggregate suppliers can sell their products. The determining factor, like other economic markets, is profit.
Wayne Roberts of NOW Magazine (Toronto) observes, ““close to market,” a stand-alone piece of stupidity that would be laughed out of court if applied to uranium, computers, steel or coal, let alone food.” (article)
“Demonstration of Need”
“2.5.2.1 ... Demonstration of need for mineral aggregate resources, including any type of supply/demand analysis, shall not be required, notwithstanding the availability, designation or licensing for extraction of mineral aggregate resources locally or elsewhere.”
In other words, prospective aggregate extraction businesses do not need to make a case for building a pit or quarry. They need not demonstrate, for example, that aggregate extraction is of greater value to the province or the local community than agriculture. The default assumption is that aggregate is valuable and that it may be extracted unless a reason can be shown not to do so. (article)
Additionally, the cumulative impacts of multiple local aggregate operations are not taken into account.
The aggregate industry needs no justification.
“Interim Nature of Extraction”
“2.5.3.1 Progressive and final rehabilitation shall be required to accommodate subsequent land uses, to promote land use compatibility, and to recognize the interim nature of extraction. Final rehabilitation shall take surrounding land use and approved land use designations into consideration.”
Ultimately extraction may be of an interim nature, yet most aggregate sites measure their operational lives in decades. In terms of a single human life and family unit, aggregate operations tend to have significant long-term impact.
“Rehabilitation”
“2.5.4.1 ... On these prime agricultural lands, complete agricultural rehabilitation is not required if: (a) there is a substantial quantity of mineral aggregate resources below the water table warranting extraction, or the depth of planned extraction in a quarry makes restoration of pre-extraction agricultural capability unfeasible;”
Simply put: if you dig a hole deep enough to make rehabilitation of the land unfeasible, you are freed of the obligation to rehabilitate it. (source)
It can be inferred that rehabilitation of land below the water table is not required, and the hole will revert to a lake. (Link to more rehabilitation information.)
MISSING CLAUSES
Activists are quick to point out that there are significant issues not addressed by the Aggregate Resources Act or its underlying policies:
- Social Licence Clause – requiring that existing operators earn the right to continue extraction through responsible operations, timely and progressive rehabilitation and ensuring that the local community is happy with the way business is conducted. Social licence becomes particularly important when the operator is applying for expansion.
- Justification Clause – prospective aggregate operators should be able to justify need for product. Aggregate is a “commons” asset, belonging to all Canadians. It is extracted at a cost to the people and to future generations. Comprehensive analysis and full cost accounting should take place to justify further extraction and the costs incurred by society.
- Food and Water First Clause – food and water is of extreme importance to Canadians – we literally cannot live without either. Food and water security should not be trumped by aggregate extraction.
- Greenspace Clause – currently the Aggregate Resources Act trumps all other legislation including the Green Belt, Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment protections. Are these greenspaces being preserved today for aggregate extraction tomorrow?
- Commitment to Conservation - aggregate is a non-renewable resource and extraction is destructive, yet we price, ship and use virgin product as if supply is boundless. Section 2.4.1 “Minerals and petroleum resources shall be protected for long-term use” should require conservation, recycling and alternate materials use.
- Commitment to Recycling – in accord with Section 2.4.1 “Minerals and petroleum resources shall be protected for long-term use” should require use of recycled and alternate materials where possible. The current policy statement does not encourage new technologies since it increases market supply of non-renewable virgin aggregate through ease of restriction, and favours traditional aggregate industry operations by attempting to keep the price low.
- Cummulative Impacts Clause – in recognition of the more than 3,700 licences and 3,300 permits (www.toarc.com) of active aggregate sites currently in Ontario, new aggregate proposals should be required to assess the cumulative affects of dust, noise, air quality, traffic, emissions, and effects on water sources on their local area.
- Sunset Clause – providing communities with a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ for when an exhausted aggregate operation will cease to function and become rehabilitated to the promised use. Operators have a tendency to keep a near exhausted site active enough to avoid rehabilitation, which is expensive or applies for an expansion (Walker Industries, Duntroon) or accepts commercial fill. The promised park or estate housing never materializes. (Brock Aggregates - Tottenham pit)
OTHER INFORMATION
Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources – Aggregates Online
Return to AWARE-Ontario.ca Home Page
List of Ontario’s Issues
*** Notice that the information on this web page and the associated website have been compiled through private amateur research for the purpose of allowing the reader to make an informed and educated decision. However, while the information is believed to be reliable, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. ***
APPENDICES
Link: https://awareontario.nfshost.com/AWARE-Ontario/Issues/Aggregate_ARA/Planning%20Act.htm