Food and Water First
Food Water FirstParty Responses to Questions Regarding Aggregates
- Details
- Published on Monday, 09 June 2014 22:54
- Hits: 1437
PitSense posed a series of questions to all four Dufferin Caledon candidates and requested responses by June 6, 2014.
The questions and answers follow. Please note that the Green Party candidate was the only one to respond.
If elected, what will you do to influence government policy regarding aggregate extraction to ensure that environmental and community impacts are given much greater importance in determining whether or not applications for aggregate extraction licences are granted?
Response from PC incumbent MPP - no response
Response from Liberal candidate - no response
Response from NDP candidate - no response
Response from Green Party candidate - Our environment and communities do not have a champion to protect them from the adverse effects associated with aggregate extraction. I want to be that champion.
· There are a few key policies we need to correct in order to address the inequalities inherent in the approvals process.
· The first hurdle is the "no need to show need." Aggregate is being consumed heavily in this province and being sold off at "rock bottom" prices.
· This policy has to change.
· The Green Party, in its platform, has acknowledged the need to increase levies on aggregates.
· The second policy revolved around the "close to market" requirement. Certainly pollution can be reduced by limiting transit but this is not the only solution. This policy is used to excuse the destruction of many rural communities who happen to lie adjacent or near to major urban centres.
· Third, the "interim use" definition. Until we are adequately rehabilitating aggregate mines at a rate comparable to approvals being given, this policy is not necessarily reflective of the true nature of these operations.
· To better enable local decision-making, the Green Party is advocating for the overhaul of the Ontario Municipal Board. Citizens should not have to fear bankruptcy in order to stand up to protect their homes and their environment.
· Air quality and water protections are other key aspects of the approval of operations that does not receive adequate attention.
If elected, what will you do to ensure that proper studies of potential adverse impacts are done and that appropriate safeguards and setbacks are put in place that ensure that aggregate recycling operations are treated as Class 3 Industrial operations and only permitted in sites that are appropriate for such operations?
Response from PC incumbent MPP - no response
Response from Liberal candidate - no response
Response from NDP candidate - no response
Response from Green Party candidate -
· The non-transparent implementation of the new PPS policy which seeks to implement "aggregate recycling facilities" within pits and quarries "where feasible" is troubling. These sites were approved based on risk assessments that did not account for any risks presented from secondary processing facilities.
· While we need to increase aggregate recycling, we need to do it properly. We need to consider how we process these materials as well as where. This policy does not require that we consider any potential impacts.
· We need to first define "recycling" and seek to make all aspects of the operation safe. Exempting these facilities from following guidelines for Class III industrial uses is exactly the kind of loophole Greens are seeking to address.
If elected, what will you do to require demonstration of need for new aggregate sources as a criterion for licence approvals?
Response from PC incumbent MPP - no response
Response from Liberal candidate - no response
Response from NDP candidate - no response
Response from Green Party candidate -
· Citizens like those who are members of PitSense, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, and not-for-profit groups alike all advocated for the removal of this policy in the PPS. Those concerns were ignored by the status quo politicians. We need an advocate at the table who will stand up and be that dissenting voice for the thousands across the province being overshadowed by industry influence on this issue. I will be that voice.
If elected, what will you do to support a just plan of compensation for damages that are incurred by citizens in the vicinity of pits and quarries and their haul routes?
Response from PC incumbent MPP - no response
Response from Liberal candidate - no response
Response from NDP candidate - no response
Response from Green Party candidate -
· Our current approvals process does not account for many of the adverse effects incurred by host communities or impact on neighbours. Nor are there adequate contingency plans or financial assurances to account for any damages. We agree that this is unacceptable and must be fully accounted for in the approvals process.
· Not only should this be addressed in the approvals process provincial staff need to be available to do the monitoring when called on.
· In the construction of subdivisions, developers must leave a deposit of some sort so that if the project is not completed, it doesn't fall back on taxpayers to complete. Aggregate producers should have to pay a deposit so that if people or the municipality experience damages (wells, roads, etc.) it is the aggregate producer who pays, not the taxpayers.
· Property devaluation which results in reduced assessments on homes and therefore less taxes payable to the municipality should be the responsibility of the aggregate producer.
If elected, what will you do to ensure that there is a "level playing field" or intervener funding available when aggregate applications such as the Olympia or McCormick case are taken to the OMB?
Response from PC incumbent MPP - no response
Response from Liberal candidate - no response
Response from NDP candidate - no response
Response from Green Party candidate -
· The Greens are advocating for a significant overhaul or abolition of the OMB.
· The flaws run deeper than what intervenor funding may assist with, although such funding would indeed somewhat even out the playing field. For example, we must also account for the time citizens are investing as well.
· I would champion that intervenor funding be paid for through a levy on the extractions of our aggregate.
· The OMB is failing to adhere to its own mission and core values. There is no accountability nor transparency. I know who my MPP is, I know who the Ombudsman is, who are the OMB adjudicators who are making decisions for our communities? What are their qualifications? It is undemocratic and the need to reform is dire.
As an elected official how do you intend to determine the risk and protect the public from fine silica dust and other toxic air emissions?
Response from PC incumbent MPP - no response
Response from Liberal candidate - no response
Response from NDP candidate - no response
Response from Green Party candidate -
· Air quality is only recently coming on to the radar as an area of concern. Applications should be required to carry out monitoring and better management. What's more, we need adequate enforcement measures so that what we see happening to citizens in Beachville is resolved and not repeated.
Do you support a periodic licence review of all gravel strip mine licences and/or sunset clauses with mandated site rehabilitation and ARA licence removal of all mined out areas?
Response from PC incumbent MPP - no response
Response from Liberal candidate - no response
Response from NDP candidate - no response
Response from Green Party candidate -
· Periodic review should be ongoing in the monitoring process. However this comes down to the need for adequate monitoring and enforcement, which we do not have. Progressive rehabilitation plans are not consistently followed through and sites will sit dormant for decades without forcing the surrender of the licence. This is bad for our economy and our communities.
Do you support extended notice to property owners recognizing the true areas of influence of gravel strip mines?
Response from PC incumbent MPP - no response
Response from Liberal candidate - no response
Response from NDP candidate - no response
Response from Green Party candidate -
· Yes. The notice requirements in the Planning Act do not adequately notify those in a rural setting. The ARA license applications share similar notice requirements, which do not adequately inform those who may be experiencing adverse effects.
· In addition, the time periods to respond should also be extended.
Do you support the collection of development charges from all aggregate applications upon approval?
Response from PC incumbent MPP - no response
Response from Liberal candidate - no response
Response from NDP candidate - no response
Response from Green Party candidate -
· Development charges are charges imposed by municipalities on developers to pay for increased capital costs to growth related capital costs of providing important services like roads, water and wastewater services, police, fire and transit.
· The growth relates to the increase in population.
· It can be argued and probably would in court by aggregate producers, that an aggregate operation doesn't create any increase in population, but it certainly does create additional wear and tear on the roads.
· We feel that by raising the per tonnage fee with an amount proportionate to the number of trucks per day on the road and that money going directly to municipalities would solve the issue of the wear and tear on the municipal road infrastructure
· In Melancthon where we produce a lot of aggregate (Strada among others) the entire tonnage fee collected by the municipality doesn't even pay to cover paving 1 kilometer of road. This is just another form of taxpayers subsidizing big business.