[All] Feedback on ARA Act

Mon Nov 4 12:27:08 EST 2013

Dear Ministers

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
To: "kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "mgravelle.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <mgravelle.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "ahorwath-co at ndp.on.ca" <ahorwath-co at ndp.on.ca>; "cfife-co at ndp.on.ca" <cfife-co at ndp.on.ca>; "jbradley.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <jbradley.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "dcansfield.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <dcansfield.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "bchiarelli.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <bchiarelli.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "mcolle.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <mcolle.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "gcrack.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <gcrack.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "sdelduca.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <sdelduca.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "kflynn.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <kflynn.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "ehoskins.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <ehoskins.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "hjaczek.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <hjaczek.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "ljeffrey.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <ljeffrey.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "mkwinter.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <mkwinter.mpp at liberal.ola.org>;
 "dmatthews.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <dmatthews.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "pmcneely.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <pmcneely.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "gmurray.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <gmurray.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "jmilloy.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <jmilloy.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "dorazietti.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <dorazietti.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "csousa.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <csousa.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "dzimmer.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <dzimmer.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca" <stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca>; "francis.scarpaleggia at parl.gc.ca" <francis.scarpaleggia at parl.gc.ca>; "thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca" <thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca>; "justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca" <justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca>; "Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca" <Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca>; "Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca" <Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca>; "pm at pm.gc.ca" <pm at pm.gc.ca>; "peter.braid at parl.gc.ca" <peter.braid at parl.gc.ca> 
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2013 12:14:27 PM
Subject: Aggregate Act: Please Widen the Scope of the review process. 

Currently the Aggregate Act is being reviewed in Ontario, but the scope of the review is too limited. Current recommendations lack regard for protection of prime farmland, protection of natural recharge for aquifer systems, biodiveristy, climate change variables, economic concerns and long term food and water security issues as well as public health. 

Our current system of aggregate planning is illogical, outdated and needs to be revised to reasonably consider the totality of the actual impacts that overlap with other jurisdictional sectors at the local, provincial and federal levels. As a Metis, this is the way we have always viewed issues: Based on real impacts, not limited to a man made scope based on a subscribed belief of jurisdictional limitations. Science and common sense demands that we must have regard for the total impacts of our actions. We must evolve our system to have regard to that. The findings of the Expert Panel on Groundwater by the Council of Academies produced an excellent report regarding this matter titled: The Sustainable Management of Groundwater Use in Canada. Their findings note the following; 

The Expert Panel’s report, which was published in May 2009, concluded that Canada is well positioned to be a world-leader in the development of sustainable management practices to protect and preserve groundwater supplies; however to do so, Canada must take action now. The interjurisdictional nature of groundwater necessitates the development of a cooperative approach, uniting municipal, provincial, and federal government agencies in the development of scientific programs and policies that will ensure Canada’s groundwater resources are managed sustainably. Such cooperation will be necessary if Canada is to avoid the kinds of catastrophic over-usage or contamination issues experienced by some other countries.

To view the report and supporting documents visit here: http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/groundwater.aspx

Has there been any attempt to engage First Nation's into the Aggregate Act review process? If not I suggest this be done. Fisheries and source water protection are within the jurisdiction of First Nation's to protect. It is a duty handed down by our ancestry and by way of our Treaty rights. The waters of Ontario are shared by many nations. The source of it comes from the aggregates that capture the water on lands we are discussing. Dialogue is needed on this issue. Please assure that this be facilitated in order to comply with the Canadian Constitution section 35.1 and to honour Treaty Rights. 

We need protection of  A1 farmlands and aquifers in Southern Ontario to protect jobs, food, water supplies and public health and fish. It is a matter of national and international food security as well as a source of long term economic stability if we prohibit aggregate extraction in these key areas. Please review the power point titled: Farms at Risk for details. 

(NOTE: In the ministry email I provided the actual power point. To save email space: I've posted the power point using slide share here: 
http://www.slideshare.net/Waterloomoriane/farmsat-risk )

Aggregates affect groundwater resources which is vital to protect if we are to secure local, provincial and federal economic goals and sustainability for the long term but economic variables are outside the current scope of aggregate review processes and this in my view is highly unreasonable. We must put a net value on the worth of the function of aggregate resources left in place. What is the value for the natural capital functions they provide in gathering water, controlling flow and flow rates, regulating water temperatures, recharging well systems, tributaries and our Great Lakes while providing valuable farmlands. Please review the following power points: Brantaggregate PDF and AggregateGDPWaterloo.pdf as seen in the attachments. These power points help to show how to place a money value on aggregate resources, what numbers to look at and what formula can be used. We must consider these issues before approvals are given. The need is there to
 mandate a natural capital worth analysis.  

Slideshare links:

http://www.slideshare.net/Waterloomoriane/brantwater

http://www.slideshare.net/Waterloomoriane/ara-submission-lanteigne-aggregate-risks-gdp-impacts

The Way Foward: Moving onto different sources of aggregates:

Waterloo Region intends to build a new sludge incineration facility with the goal of creating nitrate pellet fertilizer for crops to help offset Grand River nitrate issues associated with our effluent.  In response I contacted our Regional Staff and let them know that globally, many nations have successfully used sludge ash as a replacement for natural aggregate resources. These man made aggregates are used to build asphalt roads, bricks, cement etc. Some data suggests it might actually be a stronger material in some cases, because they can customize the size and shape of the pellet to reach the optimal results.  

Seeing that Waterloo Region's sludge treatment plant is in it's early planning phase, it is currently the most cost efficient time to look into the possibility of partnership ventures to explore aggregate production opportunities.  I think it would be beneficial for our community to have a source of  localized renewable gravel creation while offsetting damages to our local groundwater and surface water resources. 

Waterloo Region is the largest region in Canada dependent on groundwater and we are the second largest food belt in Ontario. Our prosperity is directly linked to our natural aggregate deposits, sediment type and natural biota. Waterloo Region is rich with raw materials to work with from sludge ash to farm and food wastes. The Grand River Watershed's cattle industry produces manure equal to a population of 5 million people. We can offset these otherwise harmful waste materials to create heat energy as well as renewable aggregates while protecting the moraine and Lake Erie from phosphate, nitrates and hormonal issues etc.  It's do-able but we need the aggregate industry to work with us to help make it happen. Waste heat can be recycled to power our community. The liquids from sludge can create methane for energy. Steam processes clean the soot before emissions are released and even that soot that can create whatever size aggregate materials we need.
 Metals once bound in the form of aggregate will not leach as they would in landfills or as partially treated sludge on fields. They are bound in the rock and can be used as construction materials.  

In the attachment is a power point featuring an incineration system for municipal waste materials in Sweden which could also be used to manage Ontario's landfill materials, sludge, manure and food wastes.  Please view the power point called: Aggregate Creation.

http://www.slideshare.net/Waterloomoriane/aggregatecreation

We must engage other ministries to have input on the revision of the Aggregate Act. It's not only about sediment and gravel, it's about jobs, municipal water supplies,  flow and flow rates impacting biodiversity and fisheries, agriculture,  public health, food and water security, economic security and energy resilience as well as energy generation. 

Creating a closed looped system for aggregates and harvesting energy from it is the way of the future. In the age of climate change, it is a vital concept to embrace if we are to secure localized gravel resources and energy security for the long term. 

Thank you kindly for your time.

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20131104/fc691e81/attachment.html>