Building Ontario: The Critical Role of Stone, Sand and Gravel
Is Ontario’s ambitious infrastructure plan at risk due to a looming shortage of high-quality licenced aggregates?
by: Matt Bradford
Ontario has ambitious infrastructure plans in the coming years. From adding 1.5 million new homes to building critical healthcare facilities, laying stretches of road to conducting extensive below-ground works, the Province’s pipeline is reaching capacity. Each project has the potential to impact the lives of Ontarians, but without access to high-quality stone, sand, and gravel, one wonders how they will make it off the ground.
“The simple story is that we are running out of high-quality licenced aggregate,” says Mike McSweeney, OSSGA Executive Director, citing research that indicates nearly four billion tonnes of aggregate will be needed to cover the Government of Ontario’s ambitious infrastructure plans—which the Province aims to hit by 2040. That’s no small order, McSweeney continues, and for the aggregate industry to even come close, it needs to be able to dig: “And that shouldn’t be a problem, right? All it means is finding good supply, setting up operations, and starting to dig. And yet, it’s much more complicated than that these days.”
Indeed, between extended licensing timelines, ballooning costs, political barriers, and the delays that come with addressing public misconceptions, the process of putting shovels in the ground is not as straightforward as it could be. And at the heart of the issue, says McSweeney, is a gap in public understanding: “Nothing gets built without stone, sand, and gravel,” he adds. “But we’re having a lot of difficulty doing what we need to do as an industry because of that lack of understanding and the barriers that come with it.”
Hurdles at high levels
It is no exaggeration to say the aggregate industry is one of the most regulated industries in Canada. The industry is beholden to 25 pieces of legislation and countless regulations. All may have started with good intent but are nonetheless making it increasingly difficult to get pits and quarries up and running in places where they can produce high-quality, close-to-market aggregate.
This all goes back to a lack of understanding and appreciation, says McSweeney, who adds, “It just doesn’t seem like the people who depend on aggregate but also regulate and legislate have a sufficient understanding of how important it is to their communities or our society as a whole.”
There are ample examples of current policies prohibiting much-needed aggregate operations. For example, Neal DeRuyter, Partner with MHBC Planning, says the current policies prohibiting new aggregate extraction sites within the Province’s Natural Heritage System have created significant barriers to being able to set up operations in proximity to high-quality aggregates. “I’m often asked, what’s one policy that you think should be changed that would help overall aggregate supply, and it’s removing that prohibition on new aggregate operations within the natural Heritage system,” he says, noting, “Fortunately, the province has recently announced the approval of the Provincial Planning Statement coming into effect in October 2024 which does just that.”
Further hurdles can be found at the municipal level. Local governments are increasingly hesitant to approve pit and quarry operations, even when Ontario’s provincial policy statement encourages municipalities to provide opportunities for aggregates to be located close to the markets where they’re in demand.
“There are several municipalities that don’t like the idea of having a pit or quarry in their borders because they believe it’s going to negatively impact their communities, and that sentiment seems to get elevated the closer you get to Toronto,” says DeRuyter. “They may have good deposits, but they’re close to communities and housing, so they’re conflicted about giving the okay.”
All told, aggregate industry players face a number of barriers to supplying Ontario with the materials it needs to move ahead with its infrastructure plans. In addition to causing friction on the balance sheet, these obstacles are extending the licensing process to unsustainable lengths.
Waiting decades to dig
The timeline between applying for a pit or quarry licence and starting operations stretches by the day. Where it may have taken two to four years to obtain a licence 25 years ago, today’s timelines are nudging north of a decade. To understand why the process is taking longer, it helps to have a refresher on the licensing process.
Essentially, getting approvals for pits or quarries requires obtaining a licence through the province via the Aggregate Resources Act and then approval through the host municipality. The licence application process begins by identifying a potential site and then pairing with third-party consultants to conduct technical studies to address a broad range of matters (e.g., environmental impact, noise, traffic, etc.). These studies can vary depending on several factors; for example, if the application is for a pit or quarry, if the site is above or below water levels, if it’s Class A or B, and so on.
“Usually, you need to set aside 12 to 18 months to do the studies,” offers Matt Bertram, Senior Project Engineer with Skelton, Brumwell & Associates Inc. “So, more often than not, by the time you have everything bundled up and ready to go you’re probably in that 18 to 24-month window before you even can make your application to begin with.”
Next in the process is packing the studies into an application and sending it to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), which has a legislated timeline to review the application’s completeness. Applicants that receive the greenlight then move on to the notification and consultation stage, which involves notifying all landowners within 120 meters of the proposed site as well as the local municipality, the Ministry of Environment, and a host of other stakeholders.
In addition are Indigenous Communities that must be engaged and consulted on for many proposed aggregate operations. This is a vital step to ensure plans address Indigenous communities’ concerns and align with their interests and values; however, with no hard and fast timelines to go by, these consultations can add significant time to the licensing journey.
“The process is open-ended, and you often don’t know what you’re getting into,” says Bertram. “You can be dealing with several communities with different and contradictory interests, so you really need to put aside the time and resources to help find a middle ground that makes everyone happy.”
DeRuyter agrees that this component of the consultation process is key but that it can be onerous for all parties. That includes Indigenous Community leaders themselves, who may be stretched thin consulting with organizations in any number of sectors at the same time: “Indigenous Communities are asked to review and comment on tons of things, not just aggregate. They have capacity issues, so it just takes time.”
Consultations can be tricky, no matter who the parties are. To move in the licensing process, applicants must prove they’ve done everything they can to engage stakeholders and address their concerns. Here again, says DeRuyter, this means dealing with many moving targets: “If you talk to aggregate producers, one of the most difficult things for them is that they don’t know where the finish line is.”
After the consultation phase comes a 60-day notification period, during which time efforts are stepped up to inform the public through local media advertising, signage, and public meetings. At the end of those 60 days, licence applicants have two years to work through any comments and see if they can resolve them or not.
And surely, says Bertram, “You’re always going to have opposition, no matter what. It’s a given. That’s why good community relations and early engagement go a long way at the end of the day.”
When the applicant is confident it has dealt with the feedback from the 60-day notification period, the application process is sent back to the MNR for final approval. But while one would assume this is the final stop before getting the green light, more often than not the application is deferred to the Ontario Land Tribal.
Enter: the OLT
These days, it can seem as though all licensing roads lead to the OLT. This isn’t far off from the truth, and it’s increasingly the result of politics getting in the way.
At issue is the fact that even when license applications engage in success consultations—and even though the provincial licence statement may favour close-to-market aggregates—municipalities tend to defer their approval in response to public opposition.
“What you’ll typically see now is that municipal council will vote against their staff recommendation and against the Provincial Policy Statement because they want to say to their constituents, ‘I voted against it, I protected you,’” says McSweeney. “I haven’t found a politician yet who doesn’t support aggregate, but they won’t vote for it openly because they fear it will cost them their seat, and they know the Ontario Land Tribunal will likely approve the licence anyways.”
The OLT has played an important role in the licensing process for nearly a half-century under various names (e.g., the Ontario Municipal Board). Under the Aggregate Resources Act and the Planning Act, it has the authority to deal with any disputes and objections relating to licence applications and municipal approvals for pits and quarries.
“Often, producers need to appeal to the OLT either because the council has refused the application or they haven’t made a decision on the application, and so the OLT then deals with the application and makes the decision,” explains Kim Mullin, Partner with Wood Bull LLP and OSSGA board member.
Mullin has practiced extensively before the OLT and represented many aggregate producers on their licence applications. Considering this part of the process requires more time and resources, it pays to go in prepared:
“My advice is to make sure you’re working with a good consulting team and that you’re preparing the application and all the studies with a view towards how well they’ll play in front of the Ontario Land Tribunal if we end up going there.”
Digging ahead
For Ontario’s infrastructure plans to materialize, it will need aggregate producers who have the ability to deliver the goods. There is reason to be encouraged by the Province’s moves to support close-to-market operation, as there is confidence in the aggregate industry’s ability to address the public perceptions holding them back.
As DeRuyter notes: “A lot of aggregate producers do a very good job at building good relationships with the public because, at the end of the day, they are members of the community. They want to employ local people, help build the community through their business, and do their best to be good neighbours.”
Moving ahead, there are hopes that efforts to continue fostering relationships with the public and provincial decision-makers will bring licensing process times under control and, more importantly, let aggregate producers get to work.