Request to Audit the Establishment and Operation of

The Ontario Aggregate Resources Trust

 

Date: 21 April 2004

Submitted by: Ric Holt, RR1, Elora Ont N0B 1S0, 519 846 2298, gravelwatch.org

 

Terminology

 

 

1. Purpose

 

This submission is a request to audit:

a)      the establishment of the Ontario Aggregate Resources Trust, and

b)      the ongoing operation of the Trust.

 

The responsibilities of this Trust include the collection and disbursement of aggregate fees, the rehabilitation of abandoned pits and quarries, the rehabilitation of sites where licenses or permits have been revoked, the collection and publication of production statistics and other information and the education and training of those in or interested in the aggregate industry. [Quote from TOARC website, March 2004]

 

2. Background

 

MNR Mandate. The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR or simply the Ministry) through its Aggregate and Petroleum Resources division (called below the Aggregate Branch) is responsible for enforcement of the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA).

 

The MNR states its mandate this way: The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is responsible for managing Ontario's natural resources, in accordance with the statutes it administers. As the province's lead conservation agency, the Ministry of Natural Resources is the steward of provincial parks, natural heritage areas, forests, fisheries, wildlife, mineral aggregates, fuel minerals, and Crown lands and waters which make up 87 per cent of Ontario [MNR mandate]. Mineral aggregates (or simply, aggregates) include gravel, sand, and crushed rock.

 

Creation of the Trust and TOARC. MNR created the Aggregate Resources Trust on 27 June 1997 by means of an Indenture that appointed The Ontario Aggregates Resources Corporation (TOARC) to be the Trustee for the Trust . This arrangement is described in the TOARC website this way: TOARC was incorporated in 1997 to act as trustee of the Aggregate Resources Trust, a trust created under the authority of the Aggregate Resources Act and pursuant to a trust indenture between the Corporation and the Minister of Natural Resources for the Province of Ontario.

TOARC has assumed, in the public interest, the responsibilities provided for in an indenture between the Minister of Natural Resources and the Corporation as of the 27th day of June 1997. Those responsibilities include

·        the collection and disbursement of aggregate fees,

·        the rehabilitation of abandoned pits and quarries,

·        the rehabilitation of sites where licenses or permits have been revoked,

·        the collection and publication of production statistics and other information and

·        the education and training of those in or interested in the aggregate industry.

Section 101(v) of the Indenture lists most of these points, but in somewhat more detail.

TOARC's "sole purpose is to act as Trustee of the Aggregate Resources Trust" [TOARC 1999 Annual Report].

 

The Trust funds are apparently the property of the Province. The Trust consists of funds all of which are the property of the Province of Ontario. This is stated in TOARC Annual Reports. For example, the 1997 TOARC Annual Report states, The beneficial owner of the Trusts assets is the Crown, as represented by the Minister. The 2002 TOARC Annual Report states, Pursuant to Section 4.01 of the Trust Indenture, the Trust's assets and the income and gains derived therefrom are property belonging to the Province of Ontario and, by reason of Section 7.01 of the Trust Indenture, the amounts paid by the Trustee pursuant to Article 7 are paid to or for the benefit of the Crown. The actual wording of Section 4.01 of the Indenture is: The Settlor [MNR] represents to the Trustee that the Trust Assets and the income and gains derived therefrom is property belonging to the Province of Ontario within the meaning of section 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The actual wording of Section 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is, No Lands or Property belonging to Canada or any Province shall be liable to Taxation. At the same time, the Aggregate Resources Act Section 6.1(4) states that Money received or held by the Trust does not form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.  1996, c. 30, s. 4.

TOARC wholly owned by APAO. The single shareholder of the Corporation [TOARC] is the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario [TOARC 1997 Annual Report]. Hence TOARC is a wholly owned subsidiary of APAO. Section 3.04(b) of the Indenture provides for termination of the Indenture if APAO ceases be the only shareholder of TOARC.

 

APAO as industry association and as lobbyist. The Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario (APAO) describes itself in its website as follows: Founded in 1956, the APAO is the non-profit industry association representing 91 producers of sand, gravel, and crushed stone in the province of Ontario along with 121 consultants, suppliers, and distributors of aggregate industry products and services. [APAO]. APAO is a registered lobbyist organization, registration number OL0186-20011107173348, with the Ontario Integrity Commissioner. The registration states that APAO lobbies:

 

APAO receives Trust funds to do rehabilitation. Section 8.03(d) of the Indenture provides that APAO should manage the Pits and Quarries Rehabilitation Fund (part of the Trust), and this arrangement with APAO is set out in detail in Schedule A of the Indenture. This arrangement appears to bind APAO with the Trust and also with TOARC. The part of APAO which carries out this function eventually became known as MAAP (Management of Abandoned Aggregates Properties program).

 

Flow of funds. Writing in the 1997 TOARC Annual Report, Mr. Roy Bertolo, serving as the President of TOARC and as a representative of APAO on the TOARC Board, stated that the original transfer of approximately 58 million dollars, representing money held for the purpose of rehabilitation, was invested in accordance with the Trust agreement. That is, the Trust originally held about 58 million dollars. Apparently these funds previously flowed, through the APAO and from there to the Trust, as Schedule A of the Indenture states, by a Fund Management Agreement made as of the 17th day of September, 1996 the Association [APAO] undertook to manage and carry on a program to rehabilitate abandoned pits and quarries in Ontario (the Program) and for that purpose undertook to manage the Abandoned Pits and Quarries Rehabilitation Fund (the Fund) pending the coming into force of the Aggregate and Petroleum Statute Law Amendment Act, 1996 and the completion of the arrangements and agreements required for the establishment and administration of the Aggregate Resources Act.

 

The 1999 TOARC Annual Report states that in 1998-1999 TOARC disbursed approximately 49 million dollars of funds to licensees and permittees.

 

Each year, TOARC collects, in the name of the Trust, about 9 million dollars from aggregate pit and quarry operators for haulage fees. Much of these collected funds flow through to various branches of government. Some (about 600 thousand dollars) flows to APAO which in turn is to use these funds for rehabilitation. For more details on the flow of Trust funds see Requests to TOARC: The Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation [Ric Holt, July 2001].

 

The Trust can be audited. The minutes of the TOARC Board meeting of 22 February 2001 indicate that Mr. Paul Camacho, an auditor from the Ministry of Natural Resources, carried out an audit of the various activities of the Trust and the Corporation [TOARC].

 

An amendment of the Indenture, dated 12 January 2004 and signed by representatives of MNR and TOARC, allows the Trust to be audited by the government, in these words,  the Trustee will allow staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources and such other persons as are designated in writing by the Director of Lands and Waters Branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources during business hours to inspect and audit the books and records of the Trust.

 

The Ministry activities, reports and procedures involved in events leading up to the creation of the Trust can be audited, according to the Audit Act, because these events use or are involved with the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

 

Since the Trust was established with the transfer (grant) of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Provincial Auditor may carry out an inspection audit of the establishment and operation of the Trust, as provided for by Article 13(1) of the Audit Act.

 

The Minister of Natural Resources signed the Indenture that states that the Trust funds are to be considered to be property of the Province of Ontario. TOARC also signed this Indenture and states in their annual reports that these funds are property of the Province of Ontario. This suggests that the Provincial Auditor may consider that according to the Audit act, that the funds of the Trust are subject to audit by the Provincial Auditor. If such an audit is not considered to be possible, it is requested that the Provincial Auditor request an amendment to the Audit Act to allow this audit. This would be in line with the Auditors earlier, successful request for an amendment to allow auditing of the Science and Industry Trust.

 

To reiterate, we note that

(a)    the Indenture amendment allows an audit of the Trust,

(b)   the Audit Act allows an audit of events leading up to the creation of the fund,

(c)    Section 13(1) of the Audit Act allows an audit of the trust, and

(d)   the Indenture states that the funds of the Trust are Provincial property.

Therefore, it seems, there is latitude between the Provincial Auditor and the Ministry to carry out an appropriate audit of the establishment and operation of the Trust.

Legal basis of the Trust. The legal basis of the Trust is established by Article 6.1 of the Aggregate Resources Act, in the following. Surprisingly, the Aggregate Resources Act apparently does not specify that the Trust is to collect aggregate charges from licencees and permittees.

Aggregate Resources Trust

6.1 (1) The Minister shall establish in writing a trust to be known in English as the Aggregate Resources Trust and in French as Fonds des ressources en agregats. 1996, c. 30, s. 4.

Terms of Trust

(2) The Trust shall provide for the following matters, on such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Minister:

1. The rehabilitation of land for which a licence or permit has been revoked and for which final rehabilitation has not been completed.

2. The rehabilitation of abandoned pits and quarries, including surveys and studies respecting their location and condition.

3. Research on aggregate resource management, including rehabilitation.

4. Payments to the Crown in right of Ontario and to municipalities in accordance with the regulations.

5. Such other matters as may be specified by the Minister. 1996, c. 30, s. 4; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.

Trustee

(3) The Minister shall appoint a person who is not employed by the Crown as trustee of the Trust and may provide for the trustee's remuneration from the funds of the trust. 1996, c. 30, s. 4.

 

 

 

3. Objectives and Scope for an Audit of the Establishment and Operation of the Aggregate Resources Trust

 

An audit of the establishment and operation of the Trust would assess whether the Ministry had adequate procedures in place to:

  1. Ensure compliance with relevant parts of the Aggregate Resources Act, notably with Section 6.1 of the ARA as given in the preceding section,
  2. Ensure compliance with the MNR/TOARC Indenture, its Schedule A and its amendment (attached below),
  3. Ensure compliance with the Ministrys policy, mandate and Environmental Impact Statement,
  4. Ensure that provincial resources are being managed in the public interest and with due regard to economy and efficiency,
  5. Measure and report on the Ministrys effectiveness in fulfilling its mandate and identifying areas where corrective actions are required.

 

This audit would review documents provided by and related to the Trusts activities, including, but not necessarily limited to:

  1. Annual Reports from TOARC,
  2. Annual Reports from the Management of Abandoned Aggregate Properties Program (MAAP),
  3. Annual Mineral Aggregates in Ontario Statistical Updates (produced by TOARC),
  4. Minutes of the Board meetings of TOARC,
  5. MNR/TOARC Indenture with any changes to it,
  6. Ministrys Statement of Environmental Values,
  7. Relevant Sections of the Aggregate Resources Act,
  8. Any other such documents related to the scope and purpose of the Trust as the Auditor deems necessary and appropriate for review.

 

4. Overall Considerations of an Audit of the Establishment and Operation of the Trust

 

An audit would, for example, consider various concerns and possible deficiencies in the Ministrys practices and procedures such as the following:

 

a.       Did the Ministry follow legislative policies and government directives on alternative service delivery in setting up a trust agreement (Indenture) between the Ministry and TOARC and with an appropriate business case to justify its creation?

b.      Did the Ministry implement appropriate controls and oversight arrangements to ensure that the collection and disbursal of roughly $9 million per year was carried out for the intended purposes? Did the Ministry implement appropriate controls and oversight arrangements to ensure that the collection and disbursal of the initial $49 million in security funds was carried out for the intended purposes? For instance, were there appropriate trust and accounting reports documenting this collection and disbursal to ensure compliance with the Indenture, with the ARA and with the Ministrys mandate?

c.       Does the Ministry have adequate procedures in place to monitor any potential conflicts of interest? A conflict of interest may occur, for instance, when ones private interests may be incompatible or in conflict with that individuals public responsibilities. Are those procedures in place sufficient to deal with TOARCs ownership by a lobbying organization? Are those sufficient for dealing with any potential conflict of interest of TOARC Directors having personal or company financial interest in TOARCs collections and its disbursals? Are the procedures sufficient for dealing with the procedures for granting funds for research by TOARC?

d.      Section 8.10 of the Indenture states that the Trustee agrees not to knowingly enter into any indenture, business or other relationship or to incur any obligations which may conflict with terms of the indenture. Do any members of TOARCs Board of directors have relationships with their employing companies or with APAO which might contravene this section? Are there any mechanisms to deal with actual or potential conflicts such as those suggested and how are they used?

e.       Apparently the Ministry single-sourced the trusteeship of the Trust to APAOs subsidiary TOARC. It should be noted that the date of the Indenture (27 June 1997) is the same as the date (27 June 1997) of the proclamation of Bill 52, which provided for setting up the Trust. Should an RFP (Request for Proposal) have been issued or should others at greater arms length have been allowed to bid on this trusteeship? Were basic principles of government procurement followed?

f.        Apparently the Indenture, Section 8.03(d) and Schedule A, de facto single-sources APAO to be funded to manage the Abandoned Pits and Quarries Rehabilitation program. Should an RFP (Request for Proposal) have been issued and should others have been allowed to bid on this management? Were basic principles of government procurement followed?

g.       Does the Ministry have in place a process to measure and report on the outcomes, successes, failures, and achievements of the Trust and TOARC in regard to their goals of funds collection and disbursement, rehabilitation, collection and publication of figures, and education and training? Are the collections done so as to serve the public interest as represented by the MNR and with efficiency and accountability? Is rehabilitation being done and done in a way that was sufficiently documented to show its effectiveness? What was done for education and training and how was this shown to be effective?

 

 

5. Specific Considerations for an Audit of the Establishment and Operation of the Trust

 

Various specific considerations that an audit of the establishment and operation of the Trust may take into account are now listed:

 

  1. Collection of haulage levies. How fiscally effective is the collection of Trust funds by TOARC? The payers of the levies (the pit/quarry operators) and the collectors of the levy (APAOs TOARC) in some cases seem to be connected or intimately related. Writing as President of TOARC, in the 2000 TOARC annual report, Mr. David J. Sterret stated that reviews of some production reports yielded an extra $43,000, suggesting that collection of these haulage levies may be problematic. An audit could determine whether there are any significant problems.
  2. Reporting of haulage levies by operators. How fiscally effective is the reporting of haulage tonnage? Accounting is largely by the individual operators, as monitored by TOARC. These payments are determined by operator controlled accounts, which are monitored by TOARC, which appears to leave little gap between payer and collector of these government funds.
  3. Lobbying versus education. What Trust funds have been spent on education and what was the nature of that education? According to the Integrity Commissioners registration of APAO, the latter does grass roots lobbying. TOARC carries out interactions with the public and with politicians. For example, TOARC has created a video called New Life in Old Places which might be seen as lobbying and/or promotional rather than education. The minutes of the TOARC Board meeting of 20 August 1998 state that The Board is looking to create some good public relations through cheque presentations that would draw some attention and perhaps some favourable press for the aggregate producers in the province. In a letter of 4 February 2004, David M. Sterrett, as President of TOARC, writes While the Aggregate Resources Act is silent on the matter of how municipalities spend the monies they receive from aggregate licence fees, it was intended that the monies would be used to offset certain costs that municipalities claimed they were experiencing as a result of mineral extraction activity. Things such as road maintenance and repair, planning issues related to aggregates and so on. The 1998 TOARC Annual Reports describes cheque presentations of such monies at seven municipalities, showing a picture of aggregate producers presenting such monies to the Mayor of Flamborough, with the statement in the report that Although the monies are not specifically designated for a purpose under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Board [of TOARC] hoped the funds would be allocated to support road projects and maintenance. Can such statements be taken as lobbying by TOARC in indicating to municipalities how they should spend funds that flow through TOARC? The minutes of the TOARC Board meeting of 1 May 2001 state that TOARC will provide funding on an annual basis for a student design competition to be known as The Aggregate Resources Fund Student Design Competition and administered by the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario. According to an APAO press release (1 March 2004), The Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario (APAO) presented nine bright and creative university students with monetary awards for creating innovative after-use plans for a gravel pit in the Associations third annual Student Design Competition. Do the Trusts financial records show whether such funds were spent on education or whether any of this was de facto promotion or lobbying?
  4. APAO versus MAAP (Management of Abandoned Aggregate Properties) expenses. The Trust, operating under control of APAOs TOARC, pays APAO to carry out rehabilitation under APAOs MAAP program. What reports and procedures does the Ministry use to determine that the expenses reported by MAAP are distinct and separate from other APAO expenses, such as APAOs expenses as a lobbyist? Are MAAPs reports and publications identifiably independent from APAOs work and from APAOs other activities or publications that may involve lobbying?
  5. Granting of research funds. TOARC makes grants of Trust funds to outside agencies and to academics. Is it possible that control of this granting has the potential to influence those receiving the grants, and could it possibly guide the research to conclusions favourable to APAO? What are the mechanisms for awarding such grants and are they reasonably and objectively done? Is adjudication for awarding grants done in a reasonably accountable fashion? Are there mechanisms to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided or are reasonably foreseen and dealt with? Are appropriate records kept of granting activities?
  6. Transfer of Trust funds to the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario. Each year a significant amount of funds (six hundred thousand dollars in 1999) is transferred from the Trust to APAO. APAO through its sub-organization MAAP (Management of Abandoned Aggregate Properties) is expected to use these funds for research and for rehabilitating pits/quarries. Are those activities done in a reasonable way that can be monitored and be seen as accountable in an objective fashion?
  7. Funding for rehabilitation. TOARC spends Trust funds on rehabilitation projects. How are projects chosen? How are funds allocated for rehabilitation projects? How can political favouring be avoided? The minutes of the TOARC Board meeting of 13 December 2000 state that there was concern about high equipment rates for rehabilition and that the Board felt there should be an opportunity for competition and that market pricing should apply in future projects. Is such spending of Trust funds accountably and transparently done? Is the evidence clear that rehabilitation of pits and quarries has received sufficient attention, both for recently revoked licences and permits or for older abandoned pits and quarries?
  8. Transferring $48.7 million of funds to operators. The largest single transaction of funds out of the Trust was to transfer security funds of approximately $48.7 million to individual aggregate license and permit holders (the operators). If any potential conflicts of interest could exist, were measures in place to make clear whether such transfers have been effected in a reasonable and correct way? Is it possible that the transfer of approximately $48.7 million to operators has effectively removed an incentive for those operators to rehabilitate their pits and quarries, even though such rehabilitation is required by the Aggregate Resources Act? Is it possible that the transfer may have benefited certain operators by sparing them from otherwise paying the cost of rehabilitation?
  9. Transparency of the Trust. TOARC runs the Trust in a closed fashion, meaning that it does not necessarily answer queries from the public, instead referring these queries to the MNR. MNR in turn recognizes that TOARC is a private company which does not need to answer queries about the Trust. As a result, both TOARC and MNR can avoid answering queries about the Trust. Freedom of Information queries do not apply to TOARC as a private company. Could an audit determine the appropriate degree of openness of TOARC and the Trust?
  10. Accuracy of collected statistics. TOARC as the Trustee is expected by MNR to collect and publish annual statistics on aggregates (the Mineral Aggregates in Ontario Statistical Updates). Are these statistics sufficiently accurate for the purposes of the Ministry and the Trust? These figures are apparently the basic information for the current and long term rehabilitation of pits and quarries. However, these figures seem not to be reconcilable from year to year, in that in these reports the yearly figures for disturbed and rehabilitated areas do not add up to the cumulative disturbed and rehabilitated figures. Reported rehabilitation figures are apparently based on individual operators annual production reports and apparently are not reconciled with figures from the separate annual Conformance Assessment Reports. Are such data being used by the Ministry or TOARC for planning the future environmental care of pits and quarries? If so, are such figures adequate, appropriate and sufficiently reliable for the purpose?
  11. APAO partnership as related to lobbying. The arrangement between APAO and the Trust provides APAO with continuing intimate interaction with the highest levels of the Aggregates Branch of the MNR. The minutes of the 20 August 1998 TOARC Board meeting state that TOARC has been identified as an official partner of MNR APAO, as a lobbyist organization, has among its stated goals influencing the government. Most officers of TOARC are or have been Directors of APAO, and all Directors of TOARC are appointed by APAO. Since APAO/TOARC and MNR are partners, is it possible that APAO/TOARCs role as the trustee for the Aggregate Resources Trust has or might become blurred with APAOs goal of influencing the government?
  12. Openness and public accountability. Does TOARC maintain an appropriate degree of openness and transparency in relation to the public in its operations? When asked in writing for information about rehabilitations, TOARC responded in writing that such information is not available because it is proprietary. Has the Ministry, in its general responsibility to promote openness and accountability, provided the public with sufficient and appropriate transparency in the operation, reports and procedures of the Trust?
  13. Possible termination of arrangement with TOARC. The Indenture provides no calendar date for review for subsequent renewal or termination of the arrangement between MNR and TOARC. Assuming that TOARC does not violate the terms of the Indenture, it appears that there is no mechanism for MNR to cancel the arrangement as given by the Indenture. Does that kind of arrangement accord with basic principles of government procurement?
  14. Use of Approved Investments. Section 6.04 of the Indenture requires that any investments by TOARC should be Approved Investments. Was this the case and were there mechanisms and reports to assure that such was the case?
  15. Protection of confidential information. Section 5.03 of the Indenture requires TOARC to protect sensitive information about licensees and permitees. Could such information be used by APAO in recruiting membership or for other purposes? Could the information provide a competitive advantage to Board members and their companies? What mechanisms are in place to protect sensitive information?
  16. Original $58 million dollars. Writing in the 1997 TOARC Annual Report, the President of TOARC, who also was a representative for APAO on the TOARC Board, stated that the original transfer of approximately 58 million dollars, representing money held for the purpose of rehabilitation, was invested in accordance with the Trust agreement. Page 1 of Schedue A of the Indenture, appears to indicate that part of this $58 million was from the Abandoned Pits and Quarries Rehabilitation Fund, which was managed at the time by APAO. Could an audit determine how and by what means APAO came to be in possession of such funds, which apparently originally were Provincial property?. It is to be hoped that the Auditor can clarify whether these funds were reasonably managed by MNR and by APAO. It is hoped that the Auditor can clarify that the transfers were reasonable, documented and followed accepted standards.
  17. Potential conflict of interest. Several potential conflict of interest situations have been described in the foregoing paragraphs. In a response to a request under Freedom of Information (MNR Reference Number A-2001-00103), Ms. Laura Lee May, as Coordinator of Information and Privace, Peterborough, MNR, wrote on January 16, 2002, With respect to your request for records relating to declarations of conflict of interest by members of the TOARC Board or its officers, please be advised that no records exist. Should such records have been created? Should the Ministry have such records? Should the Ministry have reviewed and evaluated such records?

 

 

6. Serving the Public Interest

 

TOARC has assumed, in the public interest, the responsibilities provided for in an indenture between the Minister of Natural Resources and the Corporation [TOARC] as of the 27th day of June 1997. [From TOARC website] From a laymans point of view, the question that arises is this. Does the existing arrangement, involving the Trust, APAO, TOARC and MNR, serve the public interest?

 

 

7. Related Documents

 

The following documents may be of interest to an audit of the Trust:

 

  1. Requests to TOARC (2001). In 2001, the Ministry was sent the document Requests to TOARC: The Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation, by Ric Holt, 11 July 2001, but they provided essentially no response to the author [Holt]. That document presents many of the same concerns that are presented in the present Request to Audit.
  2. Ministry Review of Rehabilitation (2004). In 2004, the Ministry agreed to carry out a Review of pit/quarry rehabilitation (or possibly, the lack thereof) in response to a Request for Review under the Environmental Bill of Rights by Ric Holt and Edward James. As of March 2004, this Review is in progress by the Ministry. That Review concentrates on the protection of the environment in terms of how well actual pit/quarry rehabilitation is meeting the purposes of the Aggregate Resources Act. This is distinct from the present document which requests an audit of the various procedures, arrangements, measures, and reports of the Trust and its establishment and operation.
  3. Environmental Commissioners Annual Report for 2002/2003. Ontarios environmental watchdog, Gord Miller, lists aggregates as one of his significant issues. In the 2002/2003 annual report from his Environmental Commissioners Office, he lists the negative environmental impacts of aggregate extraction, the increasing use of aggregates in roads without corresponding long term planning, and calls on us to conserve aggregates. He recommends that the Ministries of Natural Resources and Transportation collaborate on a strategy for conserving Ontarios aggregate resources. This strategy, which should be developed with public consultation, should consider both road construction needs and the need to conserve aggregate resources.

 

8. Accuracy

 

Considerable effort was expended to try to make this submission thorough and factual. Please send any corrections to author.

 

9. Bibliography

 

TOARC/MNR Indenture with Schedule A, dated 27 June 1997 as amended and restated 6 December 2004, between TOARC and MNR. http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~holt/pit/audit/indenture.htm http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~holt/pit/audit/sched-a.htm

See also amendment of 12 January 2004 allowing audit of the Trust. http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~holt/pit/audit/amendment.htm

Available from MNR, for contacts see:

         http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~holt/pit/gravelwatch/misc/org-chart-ont-aggregates.htm

TOARC Website, www.toarc.com Provides access to TOARC Annual Reports, and to Annual Mineral Aggregates in Ontario Statistical Updates..

Statement of Environmental Values and Mandate of Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/sevs/sb4e0001.htm

APAO Website, www.apao.com Provides access to MAAP Annual Reports.

New Life in Old Places, video produced by TOARC with Trust funds, available from APAO, www.apao.com

Requests to TOARC: The Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation, 11 July 2001, http://www.gravelwatch.org/orig-gw/audit/audit-req.htm

Gravel Watch Website, http://www.gravelwatch.org

Request for Review of Ontario rehabilitation of aggregate pits/quarries: Rehabilitation of Ontario's Aggregate Pits and Quarries: Who Will Pay for It?, Ric Holt and Edward James, October 14, 2003. http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~holt/pit/gravelwatch/ebr-review/eco-applic-review.htm

Aggregate Resources Act, http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca

Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, registration of APAO (Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario) as registered lobbyist organization number OL0186-20011107173348, http://www.gravelwatch.org/orig-gw/toarc/requests-to-toarc.htm

Audit Act, http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca

 

10. Attachment

TOARC/MNR Indenture with Schedule A and amendment.