ARA Hearing in Kitchener - Notes

Details

Published on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 12:15

Hits: 1798

Notes Taken by Active NDACT member Donna Baylis, about the ARA Hearing in Kitchener

Monday, July 9, 2012

Kitchener-Waterloo, Holiday Inn, 30 Fairway Road South

Standing Committee on General Government

Waterloo Salon

Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) Review

Agenda

1:30pm – 6pm 18 x 10 minutes public presentations with 5 minute question period each

Attendees

Acting Chair: Mike Couteau (absent: David Orazietti, LIB (Sault Ste. Marie))

Clerk: Tamara Pomanski (416-325-3506 / This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. )

4 x Liberals – Mike Colle (Parliamentary Assistant), Joe Dickson, Liz Sandals, Mike Couteau

4 x PCs – Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock), Sylvia Jones, Michael Harris, one other?

2 x NDPs – Sarah Campbell (Kenora-Rainy River), Paul Miller (absent: Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina))

Hansard & Legislative Research

Gallery: about 100 people

SUMMARY

MPPs spent the morning touring aggregate sites (Puslinch rehabilitated site + ?) with industry representatives, and then the afternoon listening to 18 presentations.

The presentations were split pretty evenly between aggregate, government and activist groups.

The mega-quarry was the ‘elephant in the room’ with 6 of the presentations making direct or indirect reference to the proposal.

Q&A

Rick Esbaugh, Tri City Materials

• no handout

• local aggregate producer, in conjunction with a family business

• 70 people, 25 years

• noted that aggregate was delivered by rail to the GTA until the 1940s when trucking became more convenient and cost effective. Will be difficult, although not impossible, to revert back to rail.

• called for building a comprehensive transportation system

• non-local aggregate product will increase cost to consumer (public taxpayer)

• stated that contrary to popular belief aggregate production has been flat or decreased between 2001 and 2010.

• Recycling is key and Waterloo is a leader. Company recycles at Petersburgh, New Hamburgh and Kitchener sites.

• Recycled products are often specifically excluded from municipal contracts

• Province has a key role to play in leading the way

• ARA works well but needs tweaking

PCs:

• Mike Harris – What % is recycled? About 5%. We need to increase demand.

NDP:

• Sarah Campbell – What prevents municipalities from buying into recycled products? Lack of knowledge and uncertainty.

LIBs:

• Mike Colle – Why did aggregate production decrease? Economy and increased use of recycled product.

Doug Joy, Connestogo Winterbourne Residents’ Association

• 6 page handout.

• Would like to ensure resource use is consistent with rights of all citizens

• Concerned about cumulative impacts (traffic, noise, home values)

• Currently 5 pits proposed in area with more expected

• Grand River trail system in area (hiking, biking) as well as Mennonite Community, which does not speak for itself

• Study that says adjacent properties lose 30% value, which equals $20 million value decrease in community

• Recommends setbacks be increased to 1600m to reduce noise levels

• Wants greater consideration given to the rights of all citizens

NDP:

• Paul Miller – What noise? The pit they visited today wasn’t noisy. Doug answer, trucks going forward but particularly reversing (beeping) as well as crushing operations.

• Why 1600m setback? Comparable to other large class 3 industries

LIBs:

• Mike C. – MTO uses 20% of recycled product for the 400 series of highways. Should local municipalities be subject to the same type of requirement? No expertise.

PCs:

• Mike H. – What are the environmental effects of pits and quarries? Loss of wildlife habitats, loss of trees for clean air.

Garry Hunter, Rutledge Farms

• Garry reviewed his 14 page letter handout including recommendations to encourage diverse aggregate supply (vs monopolistic mega-quarry), concentrated footprint, careful site selection, haul routes, priority land use, willing host communities, long range provincial transportation planning, use of recycled product, more production data, greater neighbour notification area, longer review period, suggested site selection parameters, commercial fill accommodation. Site selection matters.

LIB:

• Liz Sandals – asked for clarification of the “groundwater divide”. Garry answered low or no flow area, which makes it easier to manage water. The impact on water can be mitigate by proper site selection.

PCs:

• Sylvia asked about size. Garry reiterated his recommendation that pits & quarries should be relegated to one township block (a square being the most efficient) with no constraints.

NDP:

• Paul commented that from his experience fractured bedrock can cause a lot of problems. He noted that Citizen liaison committees can be undermined. Garry replied that MNR needs support so that they can provide good oversight.

Bob & Kyle Hunsberger, Hunder Development Ltd.

• 3 page handout

• Two former farming families (Hunsbergers and Snyders) establishing themselves as aggregate producers.

• Take rehabilitation and commitment to neighbours and community seriously

• It is possible to rehabilitate back to agriculture

• Aggregates are an essential limited resource

• Aggregates should sourced as close to the point of use as possible

• ARA is not broken. It is leading legislation that ensures minimal social and environmental impact.

• Oppressive cost of navigating the application process.

• Real life version of Erwin Schulz’s (Karson Group on behalf of Eastern Ontario Aggregate Producers) May 9^th hypothetical example since they have committed their own financial resources to developing the aggregate application.

• 600 homes within a 2km radius of their proposed site

• Pits & quarries are temporary land use.

• “The concerns of the vocal minority should not dominate the interests of the silent majority.”

PCs:

• Mike H. was familiar with the application. He noted there was a long delay until after the election and asked whether the decision was to save a liberal seat? Answer was that they don’t know why the application sat in limbo at the MNR for so long.

NDP:

• Sarah asked about recycling. Answer was that it is the socially responsible thing tot do, although there is no financial benefit. There are concerns for potential fine dust particles particularly with asphalt.

LIBs:

• Paul – are the families were still farming? They are no longer farming the application properties.

• What about impact on neighbours? They plan to minimize impact.

Paul Hennig, Social Action Committee of the Grand River Unitarian Church

• No handout. Spoke with a story-like narrative.

• Concerns are well reflected in local newspapers and media

• Are jobs at the price of the environment worth it?

• Without ecology there is no economy.

• Recycling at 7% is too low.

• Tonnage fee is too low.

• Wants full environmental impact study.

• MNR needs to be financed to provide good stewardship.

• This is a theological issue – we are stewards.

NDP:

• Sarah commented on the cost of recycling, and the wear and tear on roads. She asked whether it is appropriate to add a charge or levy? No answer.

• Paul – noted that today on average there is one inspection in a year. Should there be more oversight? Absolutely.

LIBs:

• Mike C. noted that the demand for a higher tonnage levy is well-heard. He noted the MTO uses 20% recycled product in the 400 series of highways, should the Committee recommend ruling that municipalities use more recycled materials? Yes, municipalities need to be encouraged to use recycled materials.

PCs:

• Sylvia – [corrected Mike Colle saying that MTO uses 30% recycled material, which is inaccurate according what I have been hearing and backed by the Orangeville Citizen. 20% is the correct figure]. She noted that Quebec pays $0.50/tonne levy, what should be charged in Ontario? Answer was at least $1/tonne. She asked whether the money should be put in a special fund outside of general government coffers. Yes.

Alisa McClurg, Transition KW

• No handout. Planner. Stated that she has read SAROS report.

• Noted that Ontario uses 14 tonnes of aggregate per capita, which is third only to Finland and Ireland, beating USA, and Australia.

• Why are we using so much aggregate?

• Questions the fundamental assumption of “need”.

• We are facing an aggregate crisis.

• All aggregate applications should be subject to an environmental assessment.

• Asks the Committee to be revolutionary and protect our green space.

NDP:

• Paul noted that the EA is under attack by both levels of government. He questioned Alisa’s comparison to European countries and noted that we are “geographically challenged” since we are larger [longer road system]. Alisa maintained her “per capita” stance.

LIBs:

• Joe Dickson asked if Ontario is a leader in recycling. Alisa answered to speak with Rick Holt of Gravel Watch.

• Joe asked how could we guarantee that rehabilitation would happen? No answer and not part of her presentation.

PCs:

• Asked why per capita data is relevant in comparing two provinces? We have flexibility in planning development opportunities.

Tanya Markvart

• 3 page handout. PhD Candidate

• Certain pits & quarries may be as damaging to vital social-ecological systems as other industrial projects that trigger an EA and therefore should be subject to an EA.

• The ARA does not require an investigation of alternatives so technology, rehabilitation plans, and site plans are excluded from decision-making.

• Stakeholder familiarity with regulations and decision making processes should not prevent an EA from being mandated.

• Need to try to reduce process duplication issues.

• EA should be automatically triggered for below-the-water-table application.

PCs:

• Laurie noted that the EA for Melancthon is unprecedented. Tanya noted that the EA process needs a thorough study and public input to determine aggregate related triggers.

NDP:

• Paul commented on initial use versus end use. It is difficult to cover both with one EA.

LIBs:

• Mike C. commented on duplication and competing oversight. Is an EA the magic bullet? Tanya answered we need one process with a high level of [?].

James Parkin, MHBC Planning

• Handout booklet of Aggregate Rehabilitation Examples. Planner specializing in aggregates.

• Worked on development of the ARA in 1980s.

• Certified to prepare site plans.

• Author of SAROS report “paper 2 SAROS”

• We need to plan to make aggregate available.

• “not possible” [to rehabilitate] “deep quarrying below the water”

• Aggregates need to be close to market

• Process is too confusing already and needs to be streamlined

• Hundreds of sites have been rehabilitated. The process is good.

NDP:

• Paul listed problems with a rehabilitated site in his experience. James noted that landfill is an “after use” and such issues should be controlled by zoning. Municipal zoning provides the check and balance.

LIBs:

• Liz asked how communities can be compensated when multiple adjacent below-the-water-table rehabilitation [back to lakes] means the loss of long-term economic development. James noted examples in Puslinch and Australia where the lakes became recreational areas. It is up to the community to decide what after-use is suitable for their area.

PCs:

• Sylvia asked what is “interim” land use. Is 100 years considered “interim”? James replied yes, although it can be beyond the lifespan of a person. He noted that time limits are not a good idea, although you don’t have to change the Act to implement them.

Mark Reusser, Waterloo Federation of Agriculture

• No handout.

• Waterloo region is losing significant acreage to aggregates

• 1/3 of farmland is identified as an aggregate resource

• Farmland is a non-renewable resource.

• Aggregate operations cannot be rehabilitated back to equivalent land use therefore is not “interim”. Results in permanent conversion of productive farmland to another use.

• Aggregate is a one-time economic injection.

• Provided a list of recommendations.

• “Farmland is a non-renewable strategic and perpetual resource”

[Liz Sandals took over as Acting Chair for Mike Couteau]

LIBs:

• Joe Dickson asked for clarification re: farmland across Canada.

PCs:

• Mike H. asked how 2,000 acres disappears per year? Mark answered that he did not have the percentage breakdown. re: the exact cause. His own experience suggests significant quantities are converted to aggregates in the North Dumfries area.

NDP:

• Sarah commented that we need to protect prime farmland and look toward the future, which includes getting serious about recycling. She asked how should the Municipalities be compensated? Mark noted that a company can extract a resource and cause damage and never compensate the Township.

Nancy Davy & George Sousa, Grand River Conservation Authority

• Two handouts (‘Best Practices Paper’ 21 pgs + 4 pg presentation)

• Best Practices Paper is entitled “Cumulative Effects Assessment (Water Quality and Quantity) Best Practices Paper for Below-Water Sand and Gravel Extraction Operations in Priority Subwatersheds in the Grand River Watershed”

• ARA does not require that cumulative impacts should be studied.

• Best Practices Paper is voluntarily followed by industry.

• ARA does not require pre-consultation.

PCs:

• Sylvia noted that the licence approval process is already long. Pre-consultation would make it longer – how can we fix the process? Nancy answered, using consistent data. It is recognized that 1-2 years is required study time to get a baseline so it would be a parallel process.

NDP:

• Paul M. asked, in your professional opinion are there too many pits and quarries in the area? Nancy answered that we need aggregate but that the cumulative effects should be studied.

LIBs:

• Liz stated her pride in the GRCA, and asked for confirmation: Do we need the ARA to take cumulative effects into account? Do we need to consciously collect the data? Yes.

Todd Cowan, Township of Woolwich

• 3 pg. handout

• Township does not want to see the so called “strengthening” of the ARA to come at the expense of a new and better balance between the ARA and the Planning Act.

• Township gets roughly 37,000 per year from tonnage levy. This does not cover OMB costs or road and infrastructure costs.

• ARA should be reviewed to ensure better compliance by operators with public consultation.

• The Minister of Natural Resources can unilaterally change conditions on an ARA site plan.

• What minimum separation distances between proposed sites and settlement areas.

• Stronger rehabilitation including tighter timelines and maximum disturbed area provisions.

• Municipalities are bearing the brunt of the expense and of the impacts.

NDP:

• Sarah asked about recycled material. What percentage does the Township use? Todd answered that the Township has extensive use of peel and pave processes where old road surfaces are reconditioned and re-paved. He did not know the percentage.

• What are the barriers to other municipalities using recycled product? Use of materials and where recycling takes place. Municipality gets nothing out of using recycled material so should be part of the levy process as well.

LIBs:

• Mike C. noted that the Committee “can’t visit all 10,000 pits and quarries but we are at least trying”. He asked whether the strengthening of planning should include a greater collaborative role with municipalities. Todd answered that the MNR has a role to play with approval and oversight. He noted that the MNR initially has a lot of input (80%/20%) where the municipality has little input. Later, after approval, the roles are reversed (20%/80%) where the municipality has the most responsibility.

PCs:

• Mike H. stated that the levy is 11 cents per tonne. What should it be? Todd answered $50 – but that is not realistic. Then he answered, at least $1.

Gordon Masters, Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists

• Handout – folder of literature.

• Gordon reviewed his school’s program and the skills of the graduating students noting that the government should be comfortable to call on these certified technicians.

• He wanted to ensure that members have the opportunity to be recognized in their fields.

• [turned out to be a short 5 min. commercial break]

PCs:

• Unknown MP asked what skills do members have that could streamline this ARA process?

NDP:

• Paul gave suggestions as to the proper venue for Gordon to promote his students.

Hans Pottkamper, West Montrose Resdidents’ Association (Bridgekeepers)

• 8 pg handout.

• Key goal is to protect covered bridge.

• Noted that MNR’s initial role is to check applications for completeness only thus putting the onus on lower-tier governments.

• Suggested that the original intent of the ARA was not to have the OMB make all the decisions.

• Since MNR is not making decisions on aggregate applications, the Department is not fulfilling its mandate.

• The process is not working.

• Intervener funding is an option.

• Recommends changes to the MNR and to the operating practice.

PCs:

• Mike H. asked about the public consultation process. Hans answered that it should be meaningful with direct involvement from MNR and the municipality.

NDP:

• Sarah asked what process changes should be made. Answer that MNR should take charge of dealing with legitimate issues.

LIBs:

• Mike C. stated that he is not a fan of intervener funding since it is a long process. He stated that the MNR should have teeth so they don’t need to defer to the OMB. Hans commented that it should be a transparent process that the public trusts and that involves municipalities and residents.

Ken Zimmerman, Cambridge Aggregates

• No handout.

• Partnership with local family business, North Dumfries.

• Services Waterloo area primarily

• Noted that time limits on sites are view by the industry as a “red herring”. The aggregate operation is dependent on construction industry and fluctuates based on demand.

• “Close to Market” should be consumed first.

• ARA is highly effective and environmentally sound but a long process.

• “Room for tweaks”

• Current process is uncertain and costly.

• MNR is not getting enough funding for proper oversight which gives the impression that the Act is flawed.

• Do not need more layers of government.

• ARA principals are sound.

NDP:

• Paul asked about recycling. Ken answered that company is interested in getting into the market.

• Ken noted that company is not opposed to increased inspections – that would be good for the industry.

• When pressed Ken acknowledged that the company could give a range for when remediation could start.

LIBs:

• Liz knows of a quarry that is working on a very old licence (100 years). She asked how to review such a licence especially when it comes to science? Ken answered that all site plans were updated in 1997 and the science is addressed whenever there is a major site plan amendment.

PCs:

• Unknown MP asked when communications with neighbours is not good, how can it be improved? Ken answered open houses, open door policies, newsletters.

• How often does such communication happen? Larger companies do it regularly. Depends on the size of the site. Industry could promote better.

Malcolm Matheson, Steed and Evans Ltd.

• No handout.

• Road building

• 1. PPS “Close to market” is a long-standing policy. Resources must take priority in rural areas.

• 2. Streamline approval process. Legislative timelines are excruciatingly slow. Do not add more confusion.

• 3. Industry supplies Demand. There is an “infrastructure deficit”. It is in the public interest to keep price low.

• “Don’t make gravel travel.”

LIBs:

• Mike C. asked how is the ARA like an EA for the aggregate industry? Malcolm answered the process is already thorough and exhaustive.

• Mike speculated how can we build a transportation system for aggregates if we can’t build a subway or an LRT? At least local supply for local use creates a real connection.

PCs:

• Mike H. asked how the process could be streamlined? Malcolm answered that the process is 25 pieces of legislation right now, and while it works reasonably well it could use some improvement.

• Malcom cited an operational aggregate site which is also a golf course under progressive rehabilitation.

NDP:

• Sarah noted that “close to market” is adversarial for residents. What is the compromise? Increased setbacks? Malcolm suggests identifying resources, and not building residential estates or trailer parks or anything that is not a good use of the land. [Aggregate Master Plan]

Ron Norris, Concerned Citizens of Brant

• 5 pg handout.

• Group is working to stop the implementation of a licence that has been dormant for 38 years.

• Group is suggesting amendments to the ARA including expiration date on permits, a comprehensive transparent approval process, and full cost accounting.

• Artificially low prices mean artificially high use and artificially low introduction of alternatives.

PCs:

• Unknown MP lives in Ayr, close to site. He asked how to get around these concerns when urbanization forces pits closer to people’s homes? Ron answered by adding time limits to licences.

• MNR states that only 10%-12% of operations get visited in one year. When the pit in Zoro township breached the water table against the licence, there was 12 months with no action.

NDP:

• Paul suggested that the MNR should have more punch.

LIBs:

• Mike Colle commented that the Act allows dormant pits to go on indefinitely. Ron suggested that an expansion should be considered a new application.

Della Stroobosscher, Friends of the Winterbourne Valley

• 4 pg handout.

• “Piggy-backing” of recycling operations in extraction sites, especially near residential areas, is not always appropriate.

• Recycling can occur anywhere.

• Adverse effects on residents include noise, dust, diesel fumes, airborne crystalline silica (carcinogenic).

• Aggregate recycling is a class 3 industrial activity and should not be permitted in aggregate extraction or processing sites under the ARA.

• Recycling should be outside the mandate of the MNR.

• Zoning for recycling should be addressed through the Planning Act as a Class 3 industrial operation.

NDP:

• Sarah asked where should recycling operations occur? [missed answer]

LIBs:

• Joe Dickson asked whether it would be ok for recycling operation to be contained on an aggregated site that is zoned in an industrial area. What setbacks? Della answered 1600m would be more acceptable than 300m or 500m.

PCs:

• Mike H. asked what other important issues are? Della answered property values, noise, dust and the Grand River.

Ken Serling & Rob Horne, Region of Waterloo

• No handout.

• Waterloo is currently 500k people; 700k+ in 20 years.

• 6^th largest aggregate producer in Ontario.

• Concerns are water quantity and water quality

• Public is perplexed about process

• Provincial and municipal roles should be integrated – ARA is provincial while the PPS is municipal

• Public interests are conflicting (need clear vertical zoning)

• Royalties are inadequate especially for two-tier governments

• Need a more balanced approach toward aggregate extraction.

LIBs:

• Mike C. repeated comment that only 24% of pits in Waterloo region have been rehabilitated. He asked why are municipalities reluctant to use recycled aggregate? Answer was that they will ask the Engineering Department to follow-up with the Committee although more peel and pave operations are taking place.

PCs:

• Mike H. asked about the water recharge in Manheim. Waterloo artificially recharges the groundwater in a former pit site. Answer was that sourcewater protection should not be challenged.

• Unknown MP asked about the proper levy for a two-tier government? Answer was that the issue should be researched. Need to mitigate costs associated with fighting new licence applications; there is a lack of clarity on every front; 80% of Waterloo’s water comes out of the aquifer. If there was greater clarity there would be fewer OMB hearings.

NDP:

• Sarah asked how to encourage municipalities to use recycled product? Answer was that they would ask the Engineering Department.

• What are Municipalities concerns re: recycled product? Answer: (1) no levy is received for using recycled products. (2) Contaminated materials.

Sylvia requested that Reseach investigate how many applications have been declined by MNR since the ARA was enacted (1990).

Meeting ended around 6:00pm.

Next meetings:

Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) Review - hearings to be held in:

- Ottawa and Sudbury during the week of July 16, 2012. Deadline to request to speak is 12 noon on Tues., July 3, 2012.

Link:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee proceedings/committees_detail_participation.do?locale=en&detailPage=participation&ID=145

Written comments accepted until 5pm on July 17, 2012.

• < Prev
• Next >