By Kevin Powers
July 28th, 2025
Burlington, ON
No Need for New Quarries? Tell That to the Free Market
Across southern Ontario, the battle over new quarries rages on. Local opponents—armed with “No Quarry” signs and cries of “No Need”—paint aggregate operators as reckless profiteers tearing up the land for no reason. They argue the province has more than enough gravel, sand, and stone to go around, so why approve more pits?
Here’s the flaw in their logic: they don’t understand the basic laws of supply and demand. No operator in their right mind spends millions chasing a new license and risking rejection, unless demand is there—and it is.
The signs are seen along rural roads. Few if any are seen in the urban areas.
Let’s break it down. Applying for an aggregate license under Ontario’s Aggregate Resources Act isn’t a weekend project. It’s a grueling, expensive slog—think at least $2 million or more for studies, site plans, and legal battles, often stretching five to ten years. Then there’s the gauntlet of public consultation, environmental hoops, and the very real chance of a “no” from regulators or a tribunal.
Look at Burlington’s Nelson Quarry: five years into an expansion bid, a family-run business is still tangled in the Ontario Land Tribunal, bleeding cash with no guarantee of approval. That’s not pocket change—it’s a calculated bet.
So why do it? Because operators aren’t digging for kicks—they’re digging because there’s a business case, and a business case only exists if there’s a need. Critics who say “there’s no need” didn’t take high school economics.
The Nelson quarry provided the aggregate that built Burlington.
Aggregate isn’t a vanity project; it’s the backbone of Ontario’s growth—highways, homes, schools. The Greater Golden Horseshoe’s population is set to hit 14.8 million by 2051, and Doug Ford’s plan for 1 million new homes by 2031 needs 235 million tonnes of the stuff. Close-to-market reserves—like those in the Greater Golden Horseshoe —are running thin, jacking up costs and emissions if we haul from farther away. Operators see the math: demand’s steady, supply’s tight, and new pits and quarries are the fix.
If there were an oversupply, you’d see it—prices crashing, pits shuttering, companies bailing. That’s not happening. The Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association pegs annual consumption at 164 million tonnes, and the number of licenses has dropped by 28 since 2013. Operators aren’t flooding the market; they’re scrambling to keep up. The free market doesn’t lie—businesses don’t risk millions on a hunch when gravel’s piling up unsold.
These buildings need aggregate – that’s the business case. The province needs to build a million new homes – the majority will be in high-rise towers.
Opponents might mean well, worried about dust, noise, or nature. Fair enough—nobody wants a quarry next door. But crying “no need” defies economic sense and assumes operators are either dumb or masochistic. They’re neither. They’re businesses, not charities, and they’ve got data—construction forecasts, infrastructure plans, population trends—telling them the juice is worth the squeeze. If they see demand drying up, they’re not going to risk millions of dollars trying to bring on new supply.
The irony? By stalling new quarries, critics could choke the very growth they take for granted—roads they drive, homes they live in. The Greater Golden Horseshoe is not swimming in aggregate; it’s rationing a shrinking stash.
The Aggregate Resources Act doesn’t ask for a “market need” test because it trusts the market to sort itself out. Maybe it’s time opponents did too. Operators aren’t the enemy here—they’re just reading the room. If there’s no need, they won’t dig. But the numbers say otherwise, and the free market’s already placing its bets.
Kevin Powers is an energy and infrastructure consultant
Having niche quarries with quality aggregate close to projects makes economic and societal sense to me. Lower cost, overall reduction in noise and carbon footprint. We need local development of accommodation, road infrastructure, etc.
Unless I am mistaken this privately owned quarry has operated for decades. What makes no sense to me is that Burlington taxpayers at large are footed with millions of dollars in legal fees over the objections of a few to contest what is ostensibly an approved expansion project of the quarry.
Crying Greenbelt and danger to citizens on this are red herrings. We are all free to sell and relocate.
“We are all free to sell and relocate” is a hell of a thing to fellow members of your community. Their argument isn’t something like the “apartments change the character of the neighbourhood” nonsense – its concern over dangerous flyrock, degrading air quality, and sensitive ecology they rely on for fresh drinking water. They’re not ‘red herrings’, they’re quality of life issues.
You telling them in order to maybe save a few dollars per tonne of aggregate, with no guarantee those savings will be passed on to buyers or even be used locally, they need to be subject to a threat of physical harm, sounds like you’re a villain straight out of an Erin Brockovich-type movie. “The gas company saving money by dumping runoff into the water table makes economic and societal sense to me. Crying about ‘sick children’ and ‘cancer’ on this are red herrings. We are all free to sell and relocate.”
‘Community’ either means something, or it means nothing. Hope your attitude isn’t returned Ted whenever its your home and neighbours up on the block for ‘savings’.
Kyle,
If you actually think quality of life and or character of a neighbourhood in Burlington or anywhere for that matter is not affected by massive plans for apartments and condominiums the majority of the planned units are not large enough to accommodate families there is nothing much more to be said.
I will stick to my convictions that less travel time, less road dust, less carbon footprint, and yes lower costs and let’s throw in local employment and tax revenue remain important community considerations.
Cool story and all, but none one of this changes the fact there remains, what was it, four decades or so of reserve supply left at the current consumption rate before the need to open new pits comes up? Even at an accelerated rate, we’re not burning through that quickly. Nevermind the numerous untapped pits out beyond the GTHA just waiting for eager little beavers to gather up their rocks.
And there’s the rub. What the market actually wants is cheaper costs to pad profit margins. Builders want close-at-hand sources for aggregate due to the lower transport costs, and the industry wants to compete on that basis—but we all know they’re not going to pass the savings onto us in an inflated housing market.
Nelson Quarry’s expansion is teeny-tiny compared to some of the bigger pits out there, and while the rock itself is of good quality, it isn’t so special that there is just nothing to do but crack in. It’s just closer to the job sites. Personally, I don’t find giving a bit of cushion to Molinaro’s actuary tables a good enough reason to tear up more of our Greenbelt and put residents in danger.