Thank you to the member from God’s country—

Interjections.

In his debate, he said that the role of the opposition is just to say no to everything, and it’s not; it’s to improve bills.

One of the things he talked about was infrastructure being removed at the end of the mine site closing. I spoke about this in my debate, and we’ve spoken about this very clearly—that it doesn’t make sense to remove everything. However, the way it’s spelled out is that either you remove everything or you have the option to leave it “better than or equal to.” So now people can decide that if they’re going to leave behind facilities and buildings and infrastructure, well, they’re leaving it “equal to” and it’s fine. What we heard from the communities in the area was that sometimes they don’t want this infrastructure because they inherit the liability that it has as well, and they can’t afford the liability. We proposed an amendment that would allow them to have the two parties agree to leave things behind if they both agreed they could do it, but it was voted down by the Conservative Party. Instead of just saying no, why can’t we work together and pass amendments like this?

Actually, I had the pleasure in 2019 to be at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada conference, where we announced a historic event. It was an MOU that had been signed by Webequie and Marten Falls to lead the environmental assessment for that all-season road to be built up into their territories. No government before had ever signed something like that. That was a historic event. I can’t emphasize it enough: No government before ours had ever signed something like that with the Indigenous community to ensure that the pathway to prosperity went into their communities, so that those communities that have fly-in resources, that only have road access by winter roads, will have full access with an all-season road, led by Webequie and Marten Falls.

What this bill will do is pave the way for us to make sure that Webequie and Marten Falls can continue down the path that they have started to build that all-season road and provide the same level of supports that we have in southern Ontario for those rural, remote and Indigenous communities. It’s a game-changer for them.

A road coming in would have to be removed; buildings that were there would have to be removed to bring it back to the state that it was prior to the mine being built. What this allows us to do, though, is leave things where it makes sense to leave it. As I said in my speech, in my riding, when the nepheline syenite mine closes, there’s the option for that cell tower to actually remain because it’s servicing everyone that’s there. I talked about Cordova Lake and the road that was there that feeds more than 300 residents. These are the things that this bill will allow to us do that do not happen right now.

The mistake was “prior to the mine being built.”

I go to my doctor and I ask him for medical advice; he gives me the medical advice. If he does something wrong, if my doctor makes a massive mistake on it, the doctor has the opportunity of no longer being a doctor through a malpractice suit.

This makes sense—having qualified professionals review it and say, “Yes, this makes sense,” or “No, you need to make an adjustment here; you need to make a change there to it.” We’re asking those professionals who have the education, who have spent their life learning about this, to weigh in on the decision on it because that is what they are trained to do.

We take our role as opposition very seriously. At committee, we proposed 20-plus amendments to this bill. One of those was an amendment that would require the government to create a formal framework for free, prior and informed consent consultations between the crown—which is you, signatories to Treaty 9—entities seeking permits under this act, including mining companies big and small, and impacted First Nations. This was a tripartite process that would facilitate development, but your government turned it down, even though the Ontario Mining Association wants this kind of framework and certainty. Why did you vote this down?

I’m just wondering if the member for Peterborough–Kawartha can explain a little bit further about that ethical, green way of doing things, because as I read the bill, what I don’t see in the bill is a commitment to free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous neighbours in this province. What I fear is what the member was talking about earlier, about these five- or six-year delays towards getting a mining project open. You’re going to make that even worse if you’re being led by a Premier talking about hopping on bulldozers, if you’re saying, “This is what we are going to do,” instead of inviting our neighbours up north, who know the land, who want to be consulted on their land about the impact of the projects. I’m wondering if the member can explain to this House this green and ethical way of does things if this government won’t even show up in the territory being impacted to talk honestly about the projects they’re proposing.

To the member for Peterborough–Kawartha, if I may—and I do appreciate his very thoughtful remarks, engaging in this debate in a very helpful way.

We know that this government is engaging with industry, Indigenous communities and Indigenous organizations on all the proposed changes. We know that this is an act—if passed, it would be compliant with section 35 of the charter and the Constitution Act, 1982. Based on that, could the member explain what this will do, if passed, for northern and Indigenous communities?

Several members across the entire House have spoken in favour of roads for the north, including several members from the NDP caucus. The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane ant the member from Kiiwetinoong spoke in favour of roads for the north, and part of the plan for developing the Ring of Fire is to build roads in the north.

So my question to the member from Toronto Centre is, is the member from Toronto Centre going to vote in favour of roads for the north?

It says, “During question period Tuesday ... the NDP’s critic for northern development and mines denounced the Wynne government for abandoning northern families and communities counting on the Ring of Fire.

“Premier Kathleen Wynne did not allocate a single dollar in the budget to the job-creating and economy-building development.”

That’s straight from the NDP website of 2017.

My question is this: Why didn’t the NDP vote in favour of our budget which actually did put money towards the Ring of Fire?

I want to continue with that train of thought. I’m wondering if any one of us would appreciate any government, anywhere coming to us, as elected representatives, and saying, “Do you know what? If you support this bill, I’ll give you potable water. If you support this bill, I’ll build a school in your community.” Sadly, when I talk to Indigenous neighbours, these are not imagined circumstances. They only get to talk about core services for their communities if they co-operate with a development project which is prefabricated and already mostly designed. I’m wondering if the member for Toronto Centre could enlighten the House about how you actually build in a collaborative way as opposed to a forced-fed way. Are we not setting ourselves up for disaster if we do what the members are proposing we do in this bill?

I listened carefully to the member for Toronto Centre. I assume when she speaks about looking to the future decades ahead, that she would agree that it was a terrible mistake for the NDP, a decade ago, to prop up the Liberal government that was ignoring the mining sector and refusing to ensure that Ontario could become a supplier of critical minerals. Does the member now agree that we should not be ceding the field to China or Russia; that instead we should bring prosperity here, and in particular to the north and Indigenous communities, and create the environment for critical minerals to be mined here to increase the ability to be a leader in electric vehicle manufacturing? Does she agree that her party was wrong 10 years ago, and that the future can be better by passing this act?

I’m not interested in racing to the bottom with China or Russia, where there is no consultation with their Indigenous communities, where there’s no regard for environmental protections. I’m certainly not interested in that race. I am interested in the race for prosperity for all, building better relationships with our Indigenous communities and responsibility in modernizing the mining sector. That’s what I’m interested in, and that’s what this party is interested in.

We also know that there are many people who once worked in the mining industry or mining lobbyists who are now in the position of government, and perhaps even in other places. We want to be able to depoliticize that process and make sure that the very best, most qualified people are there to make the decisions that are impartial and good for the province.

The member has made reference to the consequential changes that are happening when they’re replacing the director of rehabilitation—anywhere it occurs in the act, they’re substituting it with the minister to have basically sole discretion around that. They’re also eliminating any reference to the director of rehabilitation altogether in some other clauses.

You had mentioned how we need to think in the future and look towards making sure generational changes are made now. Governments come and go; ministers come and go. Can you expand a little bit about how this is perceived by consultants, by constituents, when you’re applying the—I believe you said it was the—

I want to thank the member for her speech. I know this bill is quite important for my region, my community. We are reliant on the critical minerals arising from northern Ontario in order to provide for the new NextStar electric vehicle battery plant and St. Thomas’s Volkswagen up the road. Understanding this, that it’s still going to take a long, long time to get the next mine open, if this bill is not passed, it will leave an unnecessary regulatory burden on companies, driving them out of Ontario into other jurisdictions which are our competitors.

I’m wondering if the member could explain why there isn’t a sense of urgency to provide the supply for our plants which are employing thousands of Ontarians going forward.

Thank you to the member from Toronto Centre. Near the end of her debate, what she talked about making good legislation and getting away from the rhetoric of one party agrees and one party is against it in this really childish conversation you hear sometimes.

Just as a very simple question, what are one or two very basic things that you think would move forward this bill, make this bill better?

Questions?

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1800.