New research released by Gravel Watch Ontario, Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition and Environmental Defence suggest that massive amounts of aggregates for the Bradford Bypass and 413 highways will come from pits in the 905 and the Greenbelt.
Mining these aggregates will have serious impacts on nearby communities and must be addressed in environmental reviews of the proposed highways.
According to the research, building the two highways will require approximately 3 million tonnes of new aggregate, and will increase truck traffic within affected communities by over 130,000 truckloads during construction.
The analysis shows that several communities within the 905 region are more at risk of becoming the future source of the highways’ aggregate because of their proximity to the proposed routes of the highways, the amount of potential aggregate resources available, and concentration of existing permits within particular areas.
This choropleth map is segmented by municipality, and weighted according to a scoring system that combines four scores:
PER_SCORE
For the PER_SCORE the sand and gravel mapping, which were separate files, were combined, the built up areas in the municipality were then subtracted from the combined file, and the result was then measured as a percent of the total area of the municipality. Scores are from 1 to 4, representing 25% increments.
DIST_SCORE
The distance scores are derived from the 20 kilometre and the 50 kilometre distances from the proposed projects. The 50 kilometer radius from the projects is based on a conservative estimate, provided by Gravel Watch Ontario, of the distance from which aggregate resources are normally sourced for projects, with that distance sometimes being expanded outward to 70 kilometers. A score of 2 was given if the municipality was within the 20 kms radius, and 1 if it was within the 50 kms radius. For municipalities within the 20 km radii of both projects a total of 4 was given, and likewise, if a municipality was within the 20 km radius of one project and the 5 km radius of another, it got a score of 3.
TON_SCORE
The tonnage score is based on a decile, with municipalities receiving a score of between 1 and 10, where 10 represents the highest total tonnage permitted within the municipality.
DEP_SCORE
A depth score of aggregate resources based on mapping by the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) was included to give an additional metric of impact. Depth data are provided by OGS in four categories: Less than 1.5m; 1.5m to 3m; 3m to 6m; and Greater than 6m. DEP_SCORES were apportioned from 1 to 4, with 1 for 1.5m and 4 for Great than 6m.
Sources
“Aggregate site authorized – active”, Land Information Ontario. Info updated November 16, 2018. Data updated December 15, 2021. Downloaded November 25, 2021. (Link)(Data)
Aggregate Resources of Ontario—2020”,Ontario Geological Survey. Downloaded June 30, 2021. (Link)
“Greenbelt outer boundary”, Land Information Ontario. Info updated August 6, 2021. Data updated May 18, 2017. Downloaded January 2, 2022. (Link)
“Mapbox Base Monochrome”, Mapbox (personal account). Created January 10, 2022. Accessed January 11, 2022. (Link)
“Ontario Road Network (ORN) Road Net Element”, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Info updated September 27, 2019. Data updated January 5, 2022. (Link)
“GTA_West_RevisedRoute_August2020_Lat_Lon”, Environmental Defence/As The Crow Flies Cartography. Received November 30, 2021.
“Municipal Boundary – Lower and Single Tier”, Land Information Ontario. Info updated June 4, 2019. Data updated April 20, 2021. (Link)
Bryan Smith, of Gravel Watch Ontario, has been long involved with local aggregate issues and knows what kind of burden this will place on the rural communities that could be affected.
“These highway proposals are being touted as a net benefit, but the communities where the pits and quarries would make a Swiss cheese of the landscape will not feel the same. From increased truck traffic, wear and tear on local roads, reduced air quality, to issues with groundwater, aggregate comes at a high cost to the host municipality and its residents. There is no net benefit. Consequently, many municipalities are asking the province to make aggregate pay their fair share.”
The rock, sand and gravel extraction and its impact on communities up to 50 kilometers from the proposed routes is just another example of how the province is pushing forward these highway proposals without a full examination of their costs and impacts.
The “Aggregate Site Heatmap” is meant to show clustering of aggregate sites. This map uses one source of information shown two different ways – a heatmap, which draws attention to the density of sites, and the sites themselves, shown as polygons.
The heatmap uses data from the “Aggregate site authorized – active” file provided by the provincial government, with the sites, which are provided in polygon form, converted into centroid points. The size of the polygons is calculated into “AREA” and the centroid points are weighted by this metric.
The Greenbelt boundary is included to indicate impacts that aggregate mining may have on an area many Ontarians believe is protected from development, as well as industrial, activity. While development, understood in a strict sense of housing, may be restricted, the knock on effects of road and highway construction, this data shows, are largely not.
A measure of aggregate impact on the Greenbelt was arrived at by calculating the surface area of aggregate mines located within the Greenbelt AND within the study area. The result shows that 29% or the study area is covered by Greenbelt and 39% of the surface area of aggregate pits located within the study area are to be found within the Greenbelt boundaries.
Sources“Aggregate site authorized – active”, Land Information Ontario. Info updated November 16, 2018. Data updated December 15, 2021. Downloaded November 25, 2021. (Link)(Data)
“Greenbelt outer boundary”, Land Information Ontario. Info updated August 6, 2021. Data updated May 18, 2017. Downloaded January 2, 2022. (Link)
“Mapbox Base Monochrome”, Mapbox (personal account). Created January 10, 2022. Accessed January 11, 2022. (Link)
Ontario Road Network (ORN) Road Net Element”, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Info updated September 27, 2019. Data updated January 5, 2022. (Link)
“GTA_West_RevisedRoute_August2020_Lat_Lon”, Environmental Defence/As The Crow Flies Cartography. Received November 30, 2021.
“Municipal Boundary – Lower and Single Tier”, >Land Information Ontario. Info updated June 4, 2019. Data updated April 20, 2021. (Link)
Tim Gray, Executive Director of Environmental Defence, is concerned that environmental assessments of the highways won’t be considering the impacts from required aggregate.
“The shocking scale of the aggregate needed to build these highways means impacts will be felt by communities across a number of regions. The federal and provincial governments have an obligation to assess and address these widespread impacts as part of a robust and thorough environmental assessment of the highway projects.”
The mapping also shows that nearly 40 per cent of the aggregate sites likely to supply material for these projects are located within the Greenbelt.
Expansion of those pits puts at risk the crucial ecosystem services the Greenbelt provides, such as clean water, fresh air, healthy food, and habitat for wildlife. These impacts of aggregate extraction on the Greenbelt are compounded by the fact that they are being used, in this case, for projects that run through the Greenbelt, and which will likely lead to increased development pressure on it.
Margaret Prophet, Executive Director of the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition, believes that the highway proposals are yet another example of how this government has targeted the Greenbelt on behalf of developers.
“We heard promises that “we’re not going to touch the Greenbelt,” and yet this government wants to run two large highways right through it. The demand for aggregate, and the fact that much of it is likely to come from within the Greenbelt, only makes matters worse. The narrow focus on localized impacts creates a situation in which the Greenbelt is left vulnerable to a death by a thousand cuts. The impact of aggregate mining for these highways is a perfect example of this.”
The coalition’s research shows there is little that municipalities can do to protect citizens and ensure a healthy environment in the face of pressure from the aggregate industry.
Tim Gray adds, “The province is knowingly putting communities and the Greenbelt at risk from increased aggregate extraction to build destructive and unnecessary highways. And thanks to recently passed legislation, they have removed almost every tool municipalities used to have to limit or control these impacts. The communities located in these extraction hotspots need to be aware that if these highways go ahead it will impact them, even if they are far from the highways’ routes.”
There are a lot of misconceptions, myths, and misunderstandings regarding the role that highways and cars play in our economy, and the impact they have on our environment and communities. Many of these are coming to the fore with the Bradford Bypass. Here we address some of them.
The provincial government is proposing a highway that would connect the 404 with the 400. The proposed route passes along the northern edge of Bradford, and through portions of the Holland Marsh.
Governments have failed to act to protect our communities and the futures of our children and grandchildren, and they continue to treat our environment as if it’s incidental to life, rather than a foundation for it.
We need strong community organizations to fight for our future, now more than ever.
Please consider donating to support our work. It’s people like you who make us possible.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
We can no longer treat land use as its own issue, nor can we always assume that growth is always a net benefit to our communities. This is simply not true. We can grow our communities in ways that provide affordable housing, protect our natural spaces and water and aspire to create healthy, vibrant centres where people can live and work.
How Did We Get Here?
The transition from 1950s sprawl development to smart growth policies as a provincial concern was really solidified by Premier Mike Harris.
Yes, that Mike Harris.
Despite his first term, which gave municipalities more freedom to grow as they wish, by the second term key grassroots movements to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine demonstrated to the public how sprawling growth patterns were hurting our water, our land and our health.
In response, the Harris government decided to get sprawling growth patterns under control and set up a series of Smart Growth Panels across Ontario.
That was in 2002.
The Central Zone panel, which included Simcoe County region, concluded early on in its mandate that the status quo sprawl and growth at all costs mentality would lead to dire consequences for the region by 2035 including: commuting trips that would take 45 percent longer, mostly due to congestion; a marked deterioration in air quality; worsening delays in the movement of goods; and higher taxes.1Neptis: Smart Growth and Places to Grow
The panel sketched out a concept of how growth in this area should go to avoid those outcomes – its vision relied heavily on compact, complete communities connected by public transit: TTC rail, GO rail, bus rapid transit, and inter-city and inter-regional rapid transit. There were also delineated areas for protected natural zones and an awareness of agricultural lands that were under increasing pressure from growth.
When the Liberals came into power in 2003, they used a lot of the concepts from the Smart Growth Panels to form Ontario’s first Growth Plan. The award-winning Growth Plan directed growth to form complete communities and stop sprawl.
This is the most recent version of the Growth Plan, revised by Doug Ford’s government, which contains many of the problems pointed out in this post.
The original the Growth Plan, titled “Better Choices, Better Future.”
Unfortunately, these efforts were short lived.
A series of amendments and regulations watered down the objectives over the years, but at its core it still aspired to keep sprawl in check through limiting growth in rural areas, ensuring large developments were on municipal services, promotion of public transit, climate change considerations and rigorous criteria in order to expand settlement areas.
So why the history lesson on planning?
Well it’s important to note that governments, over previous decades, have been trying to avoid the situation the province is now promoting, which is sprawling subdivisions, and with a very little strategy to deal with climate impacts, water impacts, and loss of farmland and biodiversity that come with it.
It’s not hyperbole to say that the changes made recently by the province with respect to growth and planning take us back to the 1990s. Some of the problematic changes include:
This calculation outlines how efficiently we use land to house people and places of employment.
This enables development to get into more natural, rural areas, and puts water quality at risk.
The municipality must now plan for growth to 2051. This means that in the middle of a pandemic with no knowledge of how work/commute/travel patterns will change, municipalities must decide by June, 2022, how much new land to give up to development.
It also means that due to COVID restrictions this Municipal Comprehensive (MCR) process, that requires public consultations, is limited to online interactions. That’s why many communities are asking their local government to delay these decisions until people can properly consult with staff and neighbours.
Simply put, there are two ways to calculate this – looking to see what you will need in the future based on changing demographics, what you already have planned, and anticipated need (e.g. more rentals/apartments/seniors residences etc.)…
OR
…you can look back to what has historically been provided by the market (e.g. detached homes, McMansions) and then just extrapolate that forward.
The current government chose the second option.
This means that in places like Simcoe County where large homes dominate housing stock, we can expect more of that despite more people requiring smaller units and apartments (seniors downsizing, youth, low income).
This also means that more of our green spaces and farmland will be sacrificed to provide for McMansions and sprawl, while people who need housing types that are more affordable (laneway homes, stacked townhomes, apartments) will be mostly ignored.
In all of this we need to understand one simple truth – how we grow and where we grow has a massive impact on climate change, water health, biodiversity and our health consequently.
Growth patterns lock in centuries of impacts and GHG emissions. We can no longer treat land use as its own issue, nor can we always assume that growth is always a net benefit to our communities.
This is simply not true. We can grow our communities in ways that provide affordable housing, protect our natural spaces and water and aspire to create healthy, vibrant centres where people can live and work.
Or, we can grow our communities in ways that use 1950s thinking to deal with 21st century challenges – which will lead to more sprawl, more highways and less public oversight.
One path chooses the needs of the people and our natural communities, the other helps line the pockets of speculative developers at the community’s expense.
Unfortunately, the province’s policies are 60 years behind the evidence and science, and our communities, now and in the future, will be worse for it.
The debate around the carbon tax frequently misses its broader economic and environmental benefits. By effectively addressing the externality of carbon emissions, the carbon tax stands as a critical component of Canada’s strategy to combat climate change and promote sustainable growth. Clear communication and understanding of the policy’s benefits, including the progressive rebate program, are vital in navigating public concerns and fostering support for this essential environmental initiative.
Discover the benefits of smarter planning in Simcoe County. Learn how strategic planning can lead to a more sustainable and vibrant community. Explore our initiatives and join us in shaping a greener future.”
It is increasingly clear that policies that promote increased vehicle traffic should be seen as a last resort, and implemented only where no other options are possible.
Freedom of Information requests obtained by the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition show that the province is not being upfront regarding the Bradford Bypass.
Recent moves by Ontario’s government seem likely to create conditions for a number of crises in the next few decades that, when combined, are greater than the sum of their parts. This is what’s known as a “polycrisis”, a term popularized by economic historian Adam Tooze.
…value in the context of a community is achieved through livability, which in turn drives economic and social dynamism. Propinquity, or the accessibility of the areas we inhabit, whether that’s for people we socialise with or for consumer good or employment, is the key metric to achieve in this regard. Build communities for people and good things happen.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
York Region is pushing for a massive wastewater treatment facility. This facility will serve a massive increase in sprawl in the area, and will dump effluent into important water bodies.
2009 – York Region begins work on UPSS; Environmental Assessment (EA) process is started.
2010 – Terms of Reference approved.
2014 – EA completed.
2016 – Ministry review completed.
Proponents submit Stakeholder and First Nations review.
Provincial Duty to Consult determined to have not been met.
2010 – Part of the UPSS project – the York Durham Sewage System forcemain twinning and pumping station modification work – is separated out and exempted from the EA process. Construction on this part proceeds.
Present – Waiting for a decision by the Province.
York Region is planning to increase its capacity for wastewater treatment. The rationale is that this is required to meeting a projected increase of roughly 150,000 in population by 2031.
A key aspect of this project that is important to recognize that it is more than the sum of its parts. The EA for the project, on its own, does not capture the impacts the wastewater treatment facility will have on the region.
While the impacts of the wastewater treatment facility on its own are of concern, the knock-on impacts of increasing capacity for development in the area, which is what this project accomplishes, cannot be separated out from the wastewater treatment facility itself. One leads to the other.
Lack of Consultation with Georgina Island First Nation
The duty to consult with First Nations that has not been fulfilled.
Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Chief, Donna Big Canoe, has outlined concerns that the project would infringe on hunting and fishing rights, and stated that the province and region have not done enough to explore alternative solutions.
Sprawl
One of the biggest problems with this project is the financial justification is not on solid ground. This is a major reason why, as the thread embedded below outlines, the Region has had a on and off approach to implementing it.
This was key reason why York Region, chose to delay the Upper York Sewage Solutions Project. At one point there was $1 billion gap between anticipated DCs & actual collections! York, at one time, anticipated $229 million in water & wastewater dev charges & collected $62 million
— Neptis Foundation (@NeptisRegions) November 28, 2018
As the thread notes, York has put a lot of money into servicing areas closer to the GTA, but the development in the area didn’t materialize to the extent that justified this cost, putting York deep in the red financially.
The UYSS, however, is intended to service an area to the north, bordering on the southern shores of Lake Simcoe.
There is the potential for increased development that this project opens up, as mentioned above. Without a strong commitment to build complete communities, and to focus on the sustainability of the region those communities are situated within, this project simply doubles down on business as usual for developers in the GTA, which is to build cheap sprawl on farmland.
Learn more about the threats facing Lake Simcoe and take action to protect it.
Currently, approximately 3 out of 5 residents in York Region commute more than 30 minutes each way to work every day, and just under 1 out of 5 drive more than an hour.
While York is starting to work towards increased intensification, it is important that its ability to direct growth beyond these areas remains constrained. The Region, for example, states that towards the end of the anticipated planning period to 2041 employment growth will shift towards what are currently less populated, and less integrated in the regional urban fabric, ares of Georgina and East Gwillimbury. It also states that additional urban lands will be required to accommodate forecasted growth.1York Region: Preferred Growth Scenarios – 2041
The capacity of the UYSS is 1/3 unfilled through 2031, allowing for continued growth through the projected lifespan of the facility.
It is increasingly clear that policies that promote increased vehicle traffic should be seen as a last resort, and implemented only where no other options are possible.
Freedom of Information requests obtained by the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition show that the province is not being upfront regarding the Bradford Bypass.
…congestion will worsen on highways 400 and 404, the province continues to intentionally mislead Ontarians using unverified traffic studies.
Research by Gravel Watch Ontario, Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition and Environmental Defence suggests aggregates needed for the Bradford Bypass and 413 highways will come from the 905 and the Greenbelt.
There are a lot of misconceptions, myths, and misunderstandings regarding the role that highways and cars play in our economy, and the impact they have on our environment and communities. Many of these are coming to the fore with the Bradford Bypass. Here we address some of them.
York Region is planning to increase its capacity for wastewater treatment. The rationale is that this is required to meeting a projected increase of roughly 150,000 in population by 2031.
A key aspect of this project that is important to recognize that it is more than the sum of its parts. The EA for the project, on its own, does not capture the impacts the wastewater treatment facility will have on the region.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
1997 – Route Planning and Environmental Assessment Study
2002 – Environmental Assessment
2008 – Simcoe County includes link in its Master Transportation Plan.
2008 – Highway is not included in the Growth Plan.
2020 – Province announces the Bradford Bypass will proceed.
2021 (March) – Bradford ByPass is mentioned in the provincial budget in section outlining money to be spent on highway construction and maintenance.
2021 (October) – Bypass is exempted from the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The government says this will help “ensure appropriate environmental protection.”
2021 (October) – The Toronto Star and the National Observer publish an investigation on ties between developers and the provincial government and how developers stand to gain from building the Bypass. The piece also notes that, through information obtained by SCGC via a FOI request, the government was intending on making the highway a toll route.
2022 (January) – Petition of more than 10,000 signatures released opposing construction of the Bypass.
2022 (February) – The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada decides not to designate the project.
2022 (March) – Lawsuit brought against the federal government by seven ENGOs challenging its refusal to designate the Bypass for a federal impact assessment.
2022 (April) – Contract awarded by provincial government for the Yonge Street bridge. This is part of the ‘early works’, which are to be started prior to all the studies being completed.
The provincial government is moving forward with building a highway connecting highways 404 and 400. The route passes along the northern edge of Bradford, and through portions of the Holland Marsh.
The highway is controversial due to the route running through portions of the Greenbelt and the Holland Marsh, which is a significant wetland and agricultural area, as well as the fact that it is based, largely, on an environmental assessment that was done more than 20 years ago. (More recently the provincial government decided to exempt most of the project from environmental assessment requirements.)
Opponents also argue that highways should not be prioritized in a climate crisis.
Finally, the government argues the highway is needed to ease congestion. Highways DO NOT accomplish this, though. This is well known, as outlined by the video we share below, yet they continue to push the project. If congestion is indeed the primary concern, it is clear that the government is mismanaging public money, throwing good after bad, with the project.
There are a number of major concerns with respect to this project:
Early Works
The province would allow so-called “early works”, which include bridges, so proceed before key studies on the impacts they might have on wildlife are completed. This is putting the cart before the horse, to use a well worn analogy, and in effect is saying that the project will proceed regardless of the outcome of studies. This is the opposite of evidence-based planning.
Outdated Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment the project is using was done 23 years ago, before the two major land-use plans in the area, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and the Greenbelt Plan, had been created.
These plans exist for a reason. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is intended to enhance and protect the health of Lake Simcoe, and the Greenbelt Plan delimits lands to be protected from urban growth, which is most often in the form of sprawl.
Basing a project on an EA that pre-dates these plans, such that the concerns these plans address aren’t taken into account, effectively nullifies them.
Further, the EA was contingent on the completion of further studies, including archaeological assessments, stormwater management, hydrological systems, noise, and compliance monitoring. The province is proposing that the highway be exempted from these additional studies.
Issues of concern that are have received support from necessary levels of government and are currently being implemented.
Issues that have the support of the municipality but are waiting on approval from the province or another entity.
Issues that have been proposed but have not yet received the support of the municipality.
Issues of concern, such as MZOs, that have been denied by the province but that are still progressing at the local level.
Issues that have been successfully resolved.
Subject Lands Outline
Greenbelt
GO Train Line and Stops
Road/Highway Construction
500 m High Risk Air Pollution
Evaluated Wetlands
Unevaluated Wetlands
Negative Impacts
The proposed route is anticipated to negatively impact high quality woodlands, the Holland Marsh, Provincially Significant Wetlands, and significant wildlife habitat. These are the direct impacts.
There are additional, and perhaps far more significant, impacts that will result from building infrastructure that enables an increase in single vehicle car use.
At a time when we are facing a climate emergency, when it is becoming increasingly clear that our inability to address it is leading us towards a worst case scenario, continuing to base our communities around a reliance on cars as the primary mode of transportation is extremely irresponsible.
All major infrastructure projects – all publicly funded projects – should require a full climate change assessment. It could not be more clear that the public interest is directly tied to addressing the impacts of climate change, and accordingly no public money should be spent that exacerbates the crisis. This project profoundly misses that mark.
This is a rendering of what a four-lane highway bridge could look like crossing over the East Holland River looking to the north and Lake Simcoe.
The bridge crossing of the East Holland River is likely to disturb one of the most significant archeological sites in southern Ontario, where artifacts have been found dating back nearly two-thousand years.
Image: Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition
There are also costs that communities built around cars have that aren’t evident or easy to see.
Negative health impacts, such as obesity, can be correlated with communities built for cars as people drive to get basic amenities, such as groceries, rather than walk or bike. There are more direct consequences, though perhaps less acknowledged, as well, such as the fact that cars are a leading cause of death in the United States for children.
It is also likely that there will be economic impacts to the town, with development being drawn toward the highway and associated traffic, and away from the downtown. This form of development is most suited to larger commercial operators, and the jobs offered often pay less than what a smaller, locally based business provides.
This development pattern has been repeated just about every time a highway has been built near a town, and it can seriously impact the ability of local businesses to remain viable.
One of the main argument proponents are making in favour of this project is that it will reduce commute times. It is highly unlikely this will be the case in the long term. Evidence shows, repeatedly, that building and increasing car infrastructure does not ease congestion, rather the opposite happens. This is known as “induced demand.”
Basically, induced demand is when the increased capacity of a road leads to increased development along the road and increased use of that road. Think of what happens with Waze and the alternate routes it shows drivers to help them get around heavy traffic – before long those alternate routes become clogged themselves.
For a more detailed explanation watch the video below.
With induced demand what we will end up with is over a billion dollars spent (which could otherwise be spent on enhancing transit options such as the GO line), increased sprawl, and increased congestion. In other words, after all has been said and done it is highly likely that we will find ourselves confronted with the same dilemma, though with a greatly degraded environment.
Finally, the costs associated with car dependant communities1Report – The Unbearable Costs of Sprawl (Congress for New Urbanism)2Report – Suburban Sprawl: Exposing Hidden Costs, Identifying Innovations (Smart Prosperity Institute)3Report – The High Costs of Sprawl (Environmental Defence) – the key characteristic of sprawl – are higher than those associated with complete, walkable communities. This cost is passed on to taxpayers.
Official Plans are among the most important components of planning and building our communities, the places where we live, play, and work. They deserve to be given the highest level of consideration, which includes the best possible process of deliberation.
Corporate sponsorship opportunities for the “Gather for the Greenbelt” event in Barrie, Ontario, featuring in-person storytelling from Margaret Atwood, special guests Sarah Harmer, Jeff Monague, and poetry from Barrie’s Poet Laureate, Tyneisha Thomas.
Art installation by Rochelle Rubinstein will be featured, as well.
Join us for an in-person organizing session to advocate for protection of the Greenbelt.
Governments have failed to act to protect our communities and the futures of our children and grandchildren, and they continue to treat our environment as if it’s incidental to life, rather than a foundation for it.
We need strong community organizations to fight for our future, now more than ever.
Please consider donating to support our work. It’s people like you who make us possible.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
The Province is opening consultations on growing Ontario’s Greenbelt. SCGC, along with 90 other organizations, plus a number of prominent individuals, have released a report in response.
Steve Clark, Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing, announced this morning that the province is opening a consultation about Greenbelt expansion. Specifically, it was suggested that the Greenbelt be grown over Urban River Valleys and to protect the Paris-Galt Moraine.
The Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition and allies across the region and province have strongly advocated for the expansion of the Greenbelt since 2017. In fact, over 90 groups including prominent individuals such as David Crombie released a report earlier today which outlines five requirements the provincial government must follow to ensure that Greenbelt expansion improves the environmental and financial health of Ontarians:
Margaret Prophet, Executive Director of the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition says, “In early 2018, we participated in the province’s consultation to expand the Greenbelt into Simcoe County. It was clear then that our aquifers, forests, shorelines and wetlands needed to be off limits to sprawl.
At that time, the province agreed and proposed expansion plans were ambitious for this area.
Three years later, the only thing that has changed is that the threats have increased as policies that protect our natural spaces from sprawl and protections for endangered species have weakened considerably.
We have seen development applications threaten provincially significant wetlands, floodplains, pristine forests all while our local lakes and rivers become increasingly sick.
We have reports from local Conservation Authorities that predict with a changing climate, we may see sources of water run dry and may not be able to keep up with current demand.
So if this government is truly serious about protecting Ontarians it is time to be genuine with that and ambitiously expand the Greenbelt to stop greed from threatening our water supply with overzealous sprawl.”
The message to the government is clear: our water and environment is a shared heritage and should not be sacrificed to benefit a few; water is core to our identity as Ontarians; the Greenbelt has been successful in protecting landscapes and water for over 15 years; and people care about their communities and want to see them succeed in a way that ensures they continue to be healthy and vibrant into the future.
We feel that includes expanding the Greenbelt over landscapes that provide drinking water and help us adapt to climate change.
We look forward to continuing to build a better Simcoe County and working with the government to recognize that if they are true to protecting Ontarians into the future, their Greenbelt expansion need to grow accordingly.
Official Plans are among the most important components of planning and building our communities, the places where we live, play, and work. They deserve to be given the highest level of consideration, which includes the best possible process of deliberation.
Corporate sponsorship opportunities for the “Gather for the Greenbelt” event in Barrie, Ontario, featuring in-person storytelling from Margaret Atwood, special guests Sarah Harmer, Jeff Monague, and poetry from Barrie’s Poet Laureate, Tyneisha Thomas.
Art installation by Rochelle Rubinstein will be featured, as well.
Join us for an in-person organizing session to advocate for protection of the Greenbelt.
Dear MPP Downey, MPP Dunlop and MPP Mulroney,
In December of 2022, you and your cabinet colleagues signed off on removal of 7400 acres of Greenbelt lands.
Thanks to a thorough investigation by the Auditor General the public now knows that the process that led to your approval of Greenbelt takeouts was “biased” and gave “preferential treatment” to a select few developers…
Local MPPs complicit in $8.3 billion dollar Greenbelt land grab.
It is increasingly clear that policies that promote increased vehicle traffic should be seen as a last resort, and implemented only where no other options are possible.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
Ramara has requested a MZO for developments in the Rama Road Corridor. Without an official letter from the municipality rescinding that request it remains in play.
As you are aware, we have grave concerns about the power of Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZO) – how they cut out public consultation and undermine the role that environmental studies play in ensuring developments don’t result in a net loss of value to the public, being two key issues.
The use of a tool that is as blunt and powerful as a MZO is especially concerning in places where landscapes and watersheds are shared, with their ecosystems or flows extending beyond a single jurisdiction.
To ensure development provides a benefit to the community, by which we mean both our human communities and the natural communities that we are a part of and rely upon, it is crucial that they meet a high level of rigour in determining their ‘fitness’ in a given location. Projects such as what is proposed for the Rama Road Corridor must, at minimum, meet the requirements set out under the Planning Act process.
Confusion remains, however, regarding whether a MZO has been requested by Ramara for projects in the Rama Road Corridor. Our coalition was relieved to hear, during the Orillia special meeting this week, that Ramara does not want to proceed with a MZO request.
It is important to be very clear that the Township of Ramara has initiated a MZO request, and that until and unless Council officially rescinds this request with a letter to the Minister, this request stands.
The fact that Ramara has initiated a MZO request, which is all that is required since there is no formal application process outlined under Section 47 of the Planning Act for MZOs, is evidenced by the following:
First, a motion was passed by the Township of Ramara on November 2, 2020. In item 6.1 of the agenda council passed a motion to allow Mayor Clarke to sign a letter to accompany the Rama Road Economic Employment District package. Although the letter does not mention a MZO application in its body, within the package the request for a MZO for this project was bluntly stated:
“The municipality is requesting that the Minister enact a Minister’s Zoning Order for the three proposed developments in order to commence the growth and development within the Rama Road Corridor.”1Township of Ramara. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting Dated: Monday, November 2, 2020. (Emphasis added.)
With a motion of council to endorse this package, it most certainly can be considered an official municipal request for a MZO. Further, it doesn’t state it wants to explore a MZO discussion or open up the feasibility of a MZO, but enact one.
Second, a request was made by the Township of Ramara to the County of Simcoe Council to endorse Ramara’s MZO request.
It first went to the Committee of the Whole on November 10, 2020. Mayor Clarke moved a motion “that the County of Simcoe supports the letter dated November 3, 2020, titled Rama Road Economic Employment District.”2County of Simcoe. Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting Dated: Tuesday, November 10, 2020. As a reminder, this letter accompanies the Rama Road Economic Employment District package which explicitly requests a MZO to be enacted.
Next, this recommendation was brought forward to County Council at a Joint Committee of the Whole and Council Meeting on November 24, 2020. From there, Resolution 2020-705 was passed by County Council which resulted in a letter dated December 7, 2020 to MMAH Minister Steve Clark from the County of Simcoe. The body of this letter further outlines that, in fact, a request to enact a MZO was made by Ramara Township AND that County Council supports their request:
“Recommendation CCW-132-20
“That the County of Simcoe supports the letter dated November 3, 2020, titled Rama Road Economic Employment District.”
The County of Simcoe is pleased to inform you [Minister Steve Clark] that County Council supports the above proposal within the Rama Road Corridor, in the Township of Ramara, and their request for a Minister’s Zoning Order.”3County of Simcoe. Letter to Minister Clark – Subject: Township of Ramara – Rama Road Economic Employment District: Request for Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO
Ramara’s MZO request now has two – township and upper tier – of the three approvals it needs to proceed. The only approval authority remaining is the province.
Evidently, if Ramara is reconsidering its MZO request for the Rama Road Corridor, then it is clear that the procedural motions that have been put in place need to be rectified.
Officially, regardless of intent, two levels of government have endorsed this MZO request. Saying otherwise is disingenuous to the process both councils have undertaken since November 2, 2020.
Public platitudes about intention do not rectify the official acts of council that have been completed thus far. Therefore, we are requesting that the Township of Ramara rectify this situation officially to align with its comments publicly that a MZO was not applied for. Specifically, the Township of Ramara should reopen the issue before council and pass another motion to send written correspondence to the province directing it to disregard its Rama Road Economic Employment District package and that Council will proceed with these lands through the standard process outlined in the Planning Act, not through a MZO.
Further, since the County of Simcoe is the recognized planning authority in the region, its endorsement of the MZO must also be rescinded. We suggest that a recommendation be made within the Committee of Whole for County Council to notify MMAH that County Council is revoking its support of the Rama Road Corridor MZO letter it sent to Steve Clark dated December 7, 2020. From there, County Council must adopt this recommendation and send formal written correspondence to Minister Clark.
We hope that the Township of Ramara does not break faith with its public comments in the media and in front of a neighbouring council about not wanting a MZO for these properties. By not officially undoing councils’ actions, this MZO request will still be considered by the province. Further, the developers of this project will still have two levels of endorsement for their projects under a MZO and therefore the province could proceed with the MZO request without further input from either the County or Ramara.
Finally, we must go on record that regardless of the MZO application for the Rama Road Corridor, this project, as it stands, is incompatible with a net benefit for Lake Couchiching, Ontario’s significant wetlands, climate, residents of the Lake Couchiching area or the long-term fiscal health of Ramara Township.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to council actions that ensure this MZO application does not proceed.
…learning about how planning works is important because it helps us get climate justice happening on the local level. It helps us understand how these changes can actually play out through local government.
But there’s a lot to learn and not a lot of clear information, so how can we learn more?
Public platitudes about intention do not rectify the official acts of council that have been completed thus far. Therefore, we are requesting that the Township of Ramara rectify this situation officially to align with its comments publicly that a MZO was not applied for.
Ramara Council must uphold its duty to the public it serves by acknowledging the MZO request, by rectifying it with a motion that would send a letter to the Minister revoking the MZO request, and re-committing to a planning process done in good faith, with full public participation and due diligence paid to environmental and other necessary studies to ensure no negative impacts.
In Innisfil, the proponent of a controversial development, The Orbit, has successfully sought backing from council to seek a Minister’s Zoning Order, or MZO, from the province.
If the province grants this request the developer gets a short cut through rules meant to ensure the public is consulted, environmental impacts are studied, and financial consequences understood.
We hope that the City of Orillia will take a stand for the interests of its residents and the lake and officially oppose the MZO application request.
…if this government is truly committed to these initiatives, by which we mean that they are not being used as cheap politics to deflect from the criticism, fully deserved, that they are receiving with regard to the policy changes noted above, then we expect the following
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
Residents are fighting to protect what tests have shown is some of the more pure water in the world. The threat? Aggregate mining.
On January 14, 2021, a permit to take water (PTTW) was granted allowing CRH Canada, and more specifically its subsidiary, Dufferin Aggregates, to take nearly 1.5 million litres of water per day to wash aggregate extracted from their mining operation.
On January 27th Tiny Township Council unanimously voted to appeal the PTTW to the Environmental Review Tribunal.
There has been a long fight to protect what some tests have shown to be some of the most pure water anywhere in the world. The primary threat to this water is aggregate mining.
An application to expand the pit was submitted in 2012. You can see the area proposed for expansion, outlined in yellow, on the image below.
Expansion of the quarry would cause an increase in traffic to and from the mine, with an estimated 40 trucks an hour passing through the area. This is nearly one large truck per minute.
The aggregate industry has a terrible record of rehabilitation.
This is something they are required by law to do, but, for the most part, they don’t, and they get away with it.
In their 2006/2007 report, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario noted that 100 out of 121 operations surveyed had not done the rehabilitation activities required under the Aggregate Resources Act.
The debate around the carbon tax frequently misses its broader economic and environmental benefits. By effectively addressing the externality of carbon emissions, the carbon tax stands as a critical component of Canada’s strategy to combat climate change and promote sustainable growth. Clear communication and understanding of the policy’s benefits, including the progressive rebate program, are vital in navigating public concerns and fostering support for this essential environmental initiative.
Every month we send out our newsletter, in which we include a poll, as well as results from the previous month’s poll. Open polls, as well as completed ones, are below.
Subscribe to our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss out!
Join us for an hour-long conversation, including a question and answer session, that will cover topics including the current state of Canada’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions, how we can think about progress to combat climate change in the presence of political uncertainty, and the role of women in public life, particularly in an era that seems to be one of increasingly toxic discourse, including around gender.
Discover the benefits of smarter planning in Simcoe County. Learn how strategic planning can lead to a more sustainable and vibrant community. Explore our initiatives and join us in shaping a greener future.”
Our approach to our work has always been how we can make an impact in long-lasting and effective ways. We hold ourselves to high standards — how can we create better rules, better systems and better communities?
Internally, that means we reflect to ensure that we’re putting our values into practice. This year, we decided to adopt a different way to assess our impact.
Official Plans are among the most important components of planning and building our communities, the places where we live, play, and work. They deserve to be given the highest level of consideration, which includes the best possible process of deliberation.
We send out a once-monthly newsletter full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, including information on how you can take action to protect the health of your community.
The content on this website, by
the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition,
is licensed under
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Hi there!
Use this form to send an email to our general inquiries address.
Hi there!
Use this form to send Adam an email.
Hi there!
Use this form to send Julie an email.
Will you give a small amount to help us continue to do the work that we do?
As a small, grassroots environmental organization, each contribution we receive truly makes a big difference.
A monthly missive, full of information on what’s happening in Simcoe County and beyond, community polls you can vote on, and deep dives into key topics.
Friends. Online censorship by unaccountable tech companies, combined with an all-out assault on the Greenbelt by Ontario’s developers/government, make this a perilous time for the future of democracy and the power of the people in Ontario.
We need to build new ways of empowering those who believe in accountability, in a healthy environment, and in communities ready to thrive in the economy of tomorrow.
Join our supporter network and stay informed about efforts and actions to protect the Greenbelt, to build communities that support the health and well-being of people, and to lay the foundations of a resilient, climate friendly future.