My thanks this afternoon for being able to rise on behalf of the people of Niagara West and to participate in debate on Bill 71, the Building More Mines Act. I’m very thankful to be able to stand in this chamber today and build on the remarks that have already been added to the debate about this piece of legislation that I believe is critical and very important to the future prosperity of Ontario, the current prosperity of Ontario, and continuing a legacy in this province that we have now had for generations upon generations—far before I came here, and far before my family came here some 70 years ago.

First of all, I want to thank the Minister of Mines, the strong member for Timmins, for coming to this chamber with a piece of legislation that will be a legacy not just for him but for our entire Parliament, I believe, in what it will do for so many communities, not just in northern Ontario but, as was already spoken about extensively through the debate from my colleagues—especially the member for Essex county, who spoke about the important investments that the mining sector makes throughout the supply value-added chain, especially in the auto parts sector. I know that’s a crucial part of the economy in my neck of the woods, as well.

So I’m thankful to be able to speak today about that. I’m thankful to be able to participate.

I wish to welcome all those who are watching this afternoon and wish them the ability to follow us in what can be sometimes a complex file but one that I believe is very important.

I speak for many constituents in communities across Ontario in thanking the Minister of Mines for his leadership and his tireless work to further build up and improve the mining sector.

Thank you, Minister Pirie, for all of your efforts and your labour and for helping to bring economic prosperity to Ontario.

The minister’s advocacy for this bill and his presentation earlier today make it clear that there is an urgent need for the measures in this proposed legislation, and it’s why it’s my privilege to rise for the third reading and to expand on a few of the details from Bill 71, the Building More Mines Act.

Before I begin, I want to reiterate the minister’s point that our government has been actively engaged in the process of consulting with the public, with industry stakeholders and with Indigenous communities, as well as organizations from across Ontario on our proposed amendments to the Mining Act. We have also been consulting on further regulatory changes. As the minister mentioned, which I believe is very important for me to repeat, the measures in Bill 71 are based on the recommendations and the feedback from industry and other stakeholder experts. This is not an ivory tower exercise where we went and had some academics gathered together in a room, perhaps at the Mowat Block or another downtown office and come up with what ideas should be imposed upon the north, what ideas should be brought forward for this sector. This has been the consequence of a lot of listening, a lot of meaningful engagement to get the very best ideas from the sector to support a more modern, more streamlined legislative framework and regulatory regime for mineral exploration and development. We know that all of these industry partners and leaders brought forward their extensive knowledge and expertise together to provide recommendations that we’re using as a road map to help drive the industry forward, to reduce barriers to build more mines more efficiently.

These changes are needed to help seize the economic potential of the province’s minerals, to support the geopolitical need for secure access to these resources as outlined by the minister, and to advance the transition to a more sustainable economy.

Our proposed amendments mean to save companies time and money by reducing administrative burdens and clarifying requirements for rehabilitation and creating regulatory efficiencies.

Perhaps most importantly, these changes will help Ontario attract mining investments to support the unlocking of critical minerals, including those in the Ring of Fire region, while maintaining Ontario’s strong standards for environmental protection and meeting the duty to consult with Indigenous communities.

Before I highlight some of the key proposed changes in this legislation, I do want to speak briefly to the committee hearings on Bill 71. Our government values the importance of the feedback we receive. It’s why separate hearings were held to gather feedback on the bill in two of the province’s northern mining hubs: Timmins and Sudbury.

I also want to thank the government House leader for his work on ensuring that we have these active consultations, as well as the other members of the Standing Committee on the Interior.

Our government has acted. We have listened and then moved forward on the recommendations and questions of the various stakeholders and presenters throughout the committee process. In particular, we introduced an amendment through the committee stage that will support a balanced consideration of public health and safety, as well as the environment, for the permit to recover minerals from mining waste.

I’ll be elaborating more on this in a moment, but I want to ensure that all of us who are watching today know that your government has heard the importance of listening and ensuring that we are responding to the needs of the people in making this proposed legislation even stronger.

We will always support common sense measures that balance the need to build more mines efficiently with the corresponding need to uphold protections for the public, for safety and for the environment.

This balance is exactly what Bill 71 achieves, and it’s what our partners and our global allies expect. Ontario is known globally for its world-class environmental protections, and improving the Mining Act is crucial to support the transition to a greener economy.

As the minister touched on, this proposed legislation is a very important part of our Critical Minerals Strategy. This strategy supports better supply chain connections between industries, resources and workers in northern Ontario and manufacturing in southern Ontario, including Ontario-based electric vehicle and battery manufacturing—good news for so many communities in the south.

Jobs in the north lead to more jobs in the south, including important manufacturing jobs right in my home of Niagara. For example, the GM St. Catharines Propulsion Plant recently announced a transition to EV—electric vehicle—propulsion systems, securing hundreds of well-paying, secure jobs here in Niagara.

As an aside, it’s worth noting that we are attracting over $16 billion in transformational investments by global automakers; in fact, if I heard the numbers correctly, that number will soon be $22 billion. We are becoming a world leader in the supplying of EV batteries and battery materials to position Ontario as a leader in the EV supply chain.

Speaker, our Critical Minerals Strategy is helping to secure the province’s position as a reliable global supplier and processor of responsibly sourced critical minerals. The five-year road map that’s contained in the Critical Minerals Strategy focuses on six pillars, which I’d like to speak about and mention as they do set the stage and provide some context for our government’s investments and work thus far to advance that sector, including the initiatives in this legislation. The six pillars of the Critical Minerals Strategy are (1) to enhance geoscience information to support critical minerals exploration; (2) to grow domestic processing and create resilient local supply chains; (3) to improve Ontario’s regulatory framework; (4) to invest in critical minerals innovation, research and development; (5) to build economic development opportunities with Indigenous partners; (6) to grow the labour supply and develop a skilled labour force.

We heard the Minister of Mines speak about the importance of a major objective in Bill 71. That objective is to improve the Mining Act so that we can attract more investments and help secure the critical minerals that support this made-in-Ontario supply chain I know we all want. It’s why we’re bringing forward a suite of changes which will address current challenges and support a modern, robust and effective mining sector.

Ontarians have seen and witnessed project delays, increased costs and lost opportunities due to a lack of flexibility in closure planning and a lack of clarity within the Mining Act. We know that some processes and requirements can create uncertainty, which leads to a burdensome delay.

I want to reiterate the purpose of the Mining Act because it underscores and informs all of the changes that we’re proposing in this legislation. The purpose of the Mining Act is to encourage mineral exploration and development in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the crown’s duty to consult, and to minimize the impact of these activities on public health and safety and the environment.

With this overarching purpose in mind, I would like to go into a little bit more detail about some of the particulars of the amendments that we are proposing. If passed, the amendments made through this legislation would save time and money for companies and, ultimately, for workers, providing more jobs and more money for our communities.

Currently, one of the requirements to obtain a permit for mining is that the applicant must demonstrate that the condition of the lands on which the recovery would take place would be “improved” with respect to public health, safety, and the environment after the recovery and remediation activities. The proposed amendments in this bill would replace the requirement to “improve the land” subject to the recovery permit with a requirement that the condition of the land be “comparable to or better than it was before the recovery activity.” This would provide greater flexibility for recovery permit applicants. The term “improvement” is ambiguous and creates uncertainty about the degree of improvement needed. What does that even mean? How much improvement is requisite under the act? This clarification will act as an incentive to ensure that companies who are participating in this worthwhile activity can make use of previously existing materials and have greater clarity.

I would also like to note that our government did bring forward a motion to amend section 18 of the bill to further strengthen the language around the requirements for the condition of land following recovery activities. During public hearings of the Standing Committee on the Interior, a number of stakeholders and presenters shared concerns regarding the consistency of the language in this subsection of the bill as it relates to the intended purpose and the conditions of the mineral recovery permit.

Speaker, as always, our government listened. We’ve heard these concerns, and we’ve acted. Throughout the legislative process, we’ve been open to feedback from stakeholders and partners, and we remain committed to strengthening the language in this bill to ensure the legislation reflects the goals we all share: improving the Mining Act, supporting the sector and, fundamentally, supporting local communities. Our proposed amendments to the current language in the legislation address the concerns that were raised and support a balanced consideration of public health and safety, as well as the environment, for the recovery of minerals permitted. Our proposed language ensures that remediation of the land with respect to public health and safety, as well as the environment, would be carried out to a comparable standard or better than it was before the recovery of minerals took place. This amendment would still maintain our commitment to flexibility and our objective in this section of the act to ensure that there is greater flexibility for recovery permit applicants, but also ensure that all of—not any of—public health and safety and the environment would be remediated to a comparable standard or better.

We know that these proposed improvements to the Mining Act are crucial to supporting the sector and the transition to a cleaner, greener economy. This motion to amend demonstrates that we are always going to uphold Ontario’s world-class standards for environmental protection and public health and safety in the mineral development sector.

Before I continue, I’d like to point out that companies in Ontario are already making use of this tactic to retrieve critical minerals from mine waste, which contributes to advancing the circular economy within the mining industry.

For example, we heard recently that Vale Canada is moving to accelerate commercial recovery of critical minerals from mine waste in partnership with the Mining Innovation, Rehabilitation, and Applied Research Corp. at Cambrian College. According to the company’s news release, “The industrial research chair program ... will develop, pilot and work towards commercializing bioleaching and bioremediation processes including efforts to recover nickel and cobalt from ... tailings and other wastes.” I appreciated hearing more from the member for Sudbury about the important advancements that are being made in this technology. Our government is supporting this groundbreaking project. We’re contributing through the Critical Minerals Innovation Fund, which Minister Pirie outlined in his remarks, as well as contributing through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. To quote the Minister of Northern Development and Indigenous Affairs, the member for Kenora–Rainy River and the chair of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp.: “The ... Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. is supporting innovative solutions in the resource extraction sector that will change the way we see mining. By partnering with Vale,” MIRARCO and Cambrian College, “we are committing to made-in-Ontario solutions that will reduce mine waste and enhance value for materials already involved in the mining process.”

Our government’s support of this type of innovation to recover critical minerals from mine waste demonstrates our steadfast commitment to helping to move the industry forward in an environmentally sustainable way. This program is just one example.

Our proposed amendments would also simplify and improve closure plans by strengthening qualified professionals’ certification of plans and allowing companies to conditionally file a closure plan while deferring certain elements to a later-approved date. A conditional filing order would be issued by the minister on request from a proponent and may include terms and conditions for those elements as determined by the minister.

We are also proposing to eliminate the need for proponents to file a notice of material change for minor site alterations, which will help to alleviate unnecessary burdens.

There are more changes, changes to allow more flexibility in the techniques used to rehabilitate mines once they’re closed while continuing to uphold Ontario’s world-class environmental protection standards; our proposed changes to remove administrative burdens, to simplify processes with respect to closure plans and address ongoing concerns we’ve heard from this industry for years, including at public hearings before the committee. We know that we have to make these changes, because current processes are creating uncertainty, resulting in long delays, cost overruns and lost opportunities for mining proponents. We know that better is possible, and with this legislation, we are accomplishing that.

I do want to speak very briefly in the minutes I have left about those closure plans, because I think that’s something perhaps not everyone is aware of in what is entailed within the closure plan process. The Mining Act requires that mining companies have a filed closure plan before starting advanced exploration or mine production. A closure plan describes the measures that the proponent will take during the life cycle of the mine to rehabilitate the mine site.

There is currently no flexibility within the Mining Act to allow for a closure plan to be filed without all of the required materials, regardless of what features will be built or brought online during the life of the mine’s operations. Closure plans are supposed to be conceptual, forward-thinking plans for how to close out and rehabilitate a mine. It’s not always practical to provide information for features that, frankly, may never be built and for rehabilitation measures which can’t be predicted, let alone which innovative future technologies could be used. This is why we’re proposing measures to provide mining proponents with more flexibility.

Currently, the term “rehabilitate” in the Mining Act means to take measures so that the use or condition of the site is restored to its former use or condition, or is made suitable for a use that the ministry sees fit. We’re amending the definition of “rehabilitate” as well as the related definitions of “protective measures” to allow an alternate use or condition or feature to remain on the site post-closure. This, again, will provide greater flexibility and certainty to industry by allowing alternate post-closure land uses and rehabilitation measures while simultaneously upholding our environmental standards.

We’ve said it before, and I believe it bears repeating in this chamber: When issuing authorizations under the Mining Act, where those authorizations have the potential to trigger a duty to consult, Ontario will always assess and reassess the potential impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights and remains committed to meeting its constitutional obligations, including the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples.

These proposed changes would also create more options for companies to pay financial assurance. Instead of paying financial assurance up front, it could be paid in phases tied to the project’s construction schedule. Currently, companies have to provide the government with financial assurance, the estimated cost of the rehabilitation measures described in the closure plan. This allows the province access to the money to carry out rehab work outlined in the plan. But the up-front cost can be sometimes unnecessary as proposed changes or proposed features may never be built, and associated rehab costs never materialize. Amending the Mining Act would update this process to allow proponents to submit financial assurances in a more reasonable timeline.

Speaker, I do see that I’m running close to the conclusion of my comments this afternoon. I just want to wish again, to all members of this Legislature, to remind them of the importance of this legislation and thank the Minister of Mines for taking the leadership that was need-ed to ensure that we have a strong mining sector, as we have had for generations in the past, for generations to come. Thank you so very much for listening to me this afternoon.

I’m pleased to be able to ask the member, who just gave an hour speech about mining—I appreciated that we all probably learned a couple of things about Sudbury, but about mining in a community: the good, the bad and the ugly; the historical and the potential here.

As he mentioned, this bill was tabled without free, prior and informed consent of First Nations. We have heard a lot about the fact that the Premier used the term “bulldozing” and is essentially bulldozing relationships. When we see a government that is playing First Nation off First Nation, I have concerns. Obviously, we on this side have concerns. Even today, we heard the government refer to “our First Nations” or “our Indigenous communities,” and they’re not ours. They don’t belong to us. Why is it so hard for this government to realize that they’re not stakeholders but that they are partners and should be properly consulted?

Questions?

Further debate?

Madam Speaker, Ontario has seen literally billions of dollars of automotive manufacturing investment as a result of the efforts made by this government, and one of those multi-billion dollar investments is from Volkswagen, in the city of St. Thomas. I’d like to hear from the member for Sudbury, why would he want to jeopardize that multi-billion dollar investment by wanting to stop the development of more mines in Ontario?

To the member from Sudbury: Thank you for your presentation. I always learn so much listening to you, especially on the subject of mining.

As part of the deregulation amendments that government Bill 71 contains—I recognize that there are some measures in there that certainly weaken the environmental protections, but there are also measures in there that release companies from financial obligations. One of them is, of course, the rehabilitation of the mines once the extraction is done. There seems to be not a lot of information in here—and perhaps it’s coming in the regulations—on who will pay. You’ve touched upon it that the taxpayer will most likely end up picking up the bill if the mining companies are released, but is there anyone else who could pay besides the taxpayer? Is there someone else you think the government has in mind who will pick up the bill besides the mining company?

This is a good aspect of the bill. I mentioned earlier complimenting the minister about the funding for Dr. Mykytczuk’s work from MIRARCO. Basically, to shorten it—when you mine, there’s a by-product, there’s a sludge, and there are valuable materials and also pollutants that are there. She has explained the process to me, and I usually end it by saying, “Exactly.” That’s why she has a PhD and I don’t. The process, basically, will use, I think, biological leaching to extract these and also capture some of the pollutants. It’s a way that we can shrink the liability of the tailings pond but also allow mining organizations to be profitable for stuff that they already brought to surface, and be able to mine that and process that in the future. So it’s a win-win for the environment, the community and the mining company.

I’m going to be fair to people: Our journey and knowledge when it comes to Indigenous communities, First Nations communities in Canada, I think for most of us of a certain age, has been stilted. You only know what you know. But we’re at the point now where we need to know more, and we know that we need to know more, and so we can’t pretend anymore—any of us—that we didn’t know any better.

I don’t understand why the bill didn’t have the consultation. I don’t know why we’re not moving towards free, prior and informed consultation. I don’t know why, when mining companies are asking for a framework, the Conservative government isn’t making that commitment to build the framework so mining companies can be more successful with this process. We really are in a stage where we should be doing this, and it makes perfect sense to me.

So I think it’s a great question and something we should be moving forward on.

The other thing is, you can say that there’s a good relationship with Indigenous communities, but there isn’t—there is for some mining companies who have worked individually to build a nation-to-nation agreement, nation-to-nation relationships, but the Conservative government hasn’t done a good job first-hand on this. If they had, we wouldn’t have chiefs saying, “You have to drag dead bodies off the roads to develop through my land.” This isn’t something that chiefs do off the hop; that is something they do when they’re being ignored. We’re urging them to build this relationship that the rest of the mining communities are asking for, have established, but the Conservative government has to be here and be an asset for mining companies when it comes to nation-to-nation relationships with First Nations.

There are some good aspects to the bill. Just to clarify, they’re changing the surety so you don’t have to pay for the whole project up front; you can do it in stages. So before you start the first stage, you have to have the money up front, and before you start the second stage, you have to have the money up front for the second stage—and the third stage. I think that’s a good part of this bill.

The part I’m concerned about is, when you change the aspects of leaving the land at the end of the day “better than” and you weaken that, it allows lawyers to get involved and arguments to happen.

I think, as well, that if you don’t have a good structure in place when things fall through, the public pays through taxes, and taxpayers have to pay for it. This is what we saw in the past with it, and I lived this in my own community. We’ve seen this with other abandoned mine sites, where the community, the taxpayers through all of Ontario have to pay for it.

So we want to make sure we’re not weakening those laws. Those laws were written for specific reasons and to insure them.

So there is some good, but there is some bad.

I’m very glad that Volkswagen chose to invest in Ontario. I met with auto companies during my first term, in 2018-19. I don’t want to say which auto company it was—not Volkswagen, but one of the other large auto companies—that said, “You need to speak to the government. What I need as an international company when I go and say to invest in Ontario is—I need to tell them we have more than a sign at the border that says, ‘Open for business.’ I need to know what that means and what to spell out.” And the government wasn’t able to do that for four years. So I’m glad they’re able to attract. I’m glad that Volkswagen chose Ontario. We have a lot to offer.

One of the things we have to offer that’s being jeopardized today is—we have a universal medicaid system that has been weakened. That’s what makes us more attractive than the States for these companies to invest in—but as we get towards the American medicaid system, we’re not going to be as competitive, and we’re going to lose those jobs.

Questions?

We have a lot of questions around this bill, because part of it—they’re eliminating the director of mine rehabilitation, and replacing them with the minister to have sole discretion in some of these functions.

Then there’s also the question around the number of changes to the act that loosen rules around what financial assurances will be required after these changes become law. The financial assurances in the act are essentially a surety that the miner or the company has the necessary funds to remediate the site upon closure.

When a mine comes in, does its business and then leaves, the community is left with those residual environmental issues. Why is this government loosening up those sureties where mining companies are guaranteeing the remediation of that property, the land?

My question for the member for Niagara West: The legacy of the Liberal government for the years 2003 to 2018 was to ignore the mining sector and refuse to enable Ontario to become a supplier of critical minerals and a manufacturing hub for electric vehicles. The NDP supported the Liberals for three of those 15 years. I guess they must believe that we need to purchase minerals from China or Russia, and I don’t know how they would expect us to be ready to build electric vehicles with these critical minerals. How does that contrast with this proposed legislation in terms of prosperity and electric vehicle production?

Questions?

I really appreciated the member from Sudbury speaking with poise and experience—direct experience—and even nostalgia, especially about the camaraderie and the fellowship of good-paying jobs, those opportunities that he had—careers, like you said, the member from Niagara West. But there are a lot of blurred lines in among some of the other dialogue.

I’d like the member from Niagara West to please explain a very quick summary and overview of what the actual changes are—what we’re proposing—and what they hope to achieve.

I want to thank the member from Niagara West for his speech. I know last fall I had the pleasure of visiting the member and speaking to many members of the supply chain in the Niagara region, and I know that, like my community, Niagara West has a supply chain industry that is part of a very competitive economy, and Ontario does need to be competitive with other jurisdictions.

I’m wondering if the member could describe to me what the changes to the act or this act will do to ensure that Ontario is the number one jurisdiction for mining globally.

Well, Ontario already is the number one destination for mining globally, but we know that there’s always more that can be done. We’re not content to sit there and rest on our laurels. I know that the minister has demonstrated through his active engagement with this sector the necessity of recognizing how all these pieces fit together. We know, at the end of the day, it’s not enough simply to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, as the proverbial Canadian archetype might seem; we really need to ensure that we have value-added processing here in Ontario, and I know in Niagara West, with a broad diversity of economic opportunities that exist, seeing the Critical Minerals Strategy as tied in with our local auto parts manufacturing sector is really part and parcel of creating an integrated supply chain from end to end that provides for well-paying, secure jobs—careers, in fact. I don’t know if even you just want to call them jobs because these are really careers for so many men and women who are able to put food on the table, pay their mortgage, ensure that they have a better life for them and their children as a result of having this supply chain right here in Ontario.

We’ve said it before and it bears repeating: When issuing authorizations under this legislation, the Mining Act, where those authorizations have the potential to trigger the duty to consult, I know that Ontario will always assess and reassess the potential impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights, and will remain committed to meeting its constitutional and other obligations, ensuring that we’re treating the Indigenous peoples of this land with the dignity and respect that they deserve and ensuring that the continued commitment to consultation with all partners is part of the very DNA of this government.

—approve mines faster by eliminating duplication, providing operational flexibility and reducing costs;

—advance critical minerals permits by making it easier for companies to get a permit to recover minerals from mine tailings and waste;

—improve closure planning by having more qualified professionals available to certify plans and allow companies to conditionally file a closure plan;

—allow more flexibility in techniques used to rehabilitate mines once they’re closed;

—create more options for companies to pay financial assurance—instead of paying financial assurance up front, it could be paid in phases tied to the project’s construction schedule.

All of this is to ensure that we have good jobs, good careers, money to put food on the table, pay mortgages and ensure that we’re building up our communities.

I can speak more broadly to the importance of consultation and partnership that I know the Minister of Mines has demonstrated and I know all of my colleagues, regardless of their consultation. I know for myself, working in the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction, one of the key pieces of the role I’ve been blessed with is reaching out to people who might not otherwise have the opportunity to come into downtown Toronto, to go into the ivory tower or the bureaucracy or the academia to make their recommendations, but to go out into community and get their feedback on the ground about what the processes are in place that are perhaps creating roadblocks or barriers or challenges to being able to make the investments that are needed for our communities.

So, you know what? I know there’s a lot of different avenues that participants provide their feedback through. I’m happy to go take a peek and see what we can come up with as it pertains to the particular section and then get back to her.

Speaker, through you to the member across: The government’s Bill 71 makes a consequential change in replacing the title of director of mine rehabilitation with the word “minister.” At the same time, I note that senior ministry staff couldn’t confirm or would not confirm at the committee where those proposals were coming from. Can the member share some light on where that proposal came from?

It’s always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas and particularly to speak to such an important bill that we have in front of us.

Just to be clear, the Ontario NDP wants to see projects develop here, that improve our province, that create prosperity for everyone in the province. We know, and we’ve talked about this in the House, that Ontario’s historic commitment to mining, our history when it comes to mining, was important many, many years ago—it helped form Bay Street—and it’s still important today. We understand that.

We’ve heard from members from our side of the House who have worked in mining. We’ve heard from northern members whose communities are primarily composed of mining. We understand the importance of mining but, most of all, we understand the importance of getting it right, and I’m here to say that this bill does not get it right. There are many parts of this bill that are ill-considered, if you will, and had the government been prepared to listen to reasoned amendments, we would be standing here with a much better bill before us.

I’m going to talk about two things that could have been done better in this bill—actually, could have been done better in all aspects of this government’s tenure—and that would be their relationship with First Nations communities and their failure when it comes to their duty to consult.

I also want to talk about the colossal failure of this government when it comes to your role when it comes to protecting the environment, climate change and biodiversity. We have seen a government that does not have a good—actually, has a terrible—reputation when it comes to the environment. I don’t know what world this government is talking about when they say they have world-class environmental protections. It’s not the case. Your government has dismantled many, many of the protections for the environment, and in fact is short-cutting them as well.

I can’t imagine an industry where it would be more important than mining to get those two things right: consulting with First Nations communities—their duty to consult—and protecting the environment.

I’m happy to hear that government is investing in a Critical Minerals Strategy, that the government understands that we are looking forward to an electric vehicle future. We need to decarbonize all aspects of our province. What I have to say to the government is: Welcome to the party, because when this government first got elected, they wouldn’t say the words “climate change,” wouldn’t acknowledge that there’s climate change, didn’t have a climate plan, and dismantled protections. This is a government that took away—that literally ripped charging stations out of the ground. So we’re happy that you’re here now. A little bit late, but we’re happy that you’re here now, understanding that this is the important future that we need to be moving towards. But again, we need to set out on the right road.

As an aside, I’d like to say that I am actually a proud owner of a very small, completely electric vehicle and I bring that to Queen’s Park. There’s no charging station here at Queen’s Park; I don’t understand that. I wonder: Was there one? Did the Premier rip that out when he ripped out the other charging stations? But in an effort as people are trying to do the right thing, trying actually to be in lockstep with your government’s plan to build EVs and EV batteries, I, and I believe the MPP for Guelph, have an electric vehicle and there’s no place here to charge it. So I just think there’s some pieces missing in your understanding of how we actually build out a true EV future in the province.

The things that I’m talking about when it comes to understanding the importance of protecting the environment and consulting with First Nations are not just important on this side of the House; they’re important for the industry, because the mining industry has done a phenomenal job of de-risking, if you will, the industry. They’ve come a very long way and are continuously improving the way that they conduct their business, continually improving safety measures for their employees and, as we heard from the member from Sudbury, really understanding how you need to make sure that the legacy of mining across the province is looked after, that we don’t leave behind a legacy for our children and our grandchildren. Those are important to the people of the province of Ontario, but those are also important considerations for the mining industry itself.

The mining industry, they rely on good corporate reputation. Really, they need to have the moral authority to operate in communities all across Ontario. In order to do that, they need to operate in an environment that is not controversial. They have to operate in an environment that is regulated properly. So when we look at an environment where First Nations are opposed to this in a significant way; when we look at an environment where some of the protections are being taken away; when we have decisions made in the minister’s office—which is risky, when it comes to unilateral decisions being made. This is not the kind of move that makes the mining industry—it doesn’t work in parallel with what the mining industry has been doing all these years. We’ve talked about the risk to the environment, we’ve talked about the risk to people that work in the industry, people that live in communities in and around the industry—those risks need to be taken into consideration.

I think a very important part of this industry are the financial risks that are borne by many people in Ontario. Mining is big business: It costs a lot of money to own, to operate, to open and properly close a mine, and that requires this industry to attract investment. Investment does not like risk. We’re not going to see investments coming to this industry when there’s controversy and when there’s disruption. So it’s important to the mining industry, when it’s looking to attract finance and investment, that the industry is solid and sound and is a good investment for investors.

But it’s not just big investors; we need to look at shareholders. Many of us, if we dug into our RRSPs, if we looked at some of the mutual funds or ETFs that we hold, there’s most likely mining in there. If some of your investments are domestic, Canada and Ontario has a huge resource sector. Resource is huge for our economy, so my guess is the average Ontarian who doesn’t have a defined benefit plan, who purchases ETFs and mutual funds to support them in their retirement—we want to make sure that the risk in the industry doesn’t fall on those people, people who have put their hard-earned money into investments in this industry.

Finally, we need to protect taxpayers. We have heard time and time again here the unfortunate and rare times when mines have failed, when there have been disasters in mining, and those disasters have cost millions and millions and millions of dollars to correct. So we do not want to be free and easy with taxpayers’ money when it comes to protecting their investment but also protecting them from having to step up and cover the cost of mining disasters.

I’ve talked in the House that a cautionary tale about this are the abandoned oil and gas wells that are all across the province of Ontario. This is a legacy of an oil and gas industry that now—the companies that in fact operated those oil and gas wells have abandoned their obligation. We did see that in the town of Wheatley one of those gas wells blew up. The downtown core was flattened. There were people that were hospitalized, and the city still hasn’t recovered from that. That cost millions and millions of dollars.

We need to learn from that example that we need to make sure we’re doing this right and that we do not want to water down the requirements of industries and companies that profit and invest in our community. We need to make sure that the legacy of those kinds of extractive industries—the cost of that does not fall onto taxpayers, whether it’s their tax dollars or whether it’s their property or their lives that have been put at risk.

It’s the government’s responsibility to make sure that we protect people now and into the future with legislation. It’s my considered opinion that some of the aspects of this legislation water down that importance.

The government keeps talking about their record, I suppose, when it comes to the environment, and it’s not a good one. You don’t have to take it from me. I’ll just read a little bit from the Auditor General, Bonnie Lysyk. She has been issuing report after report to say that this is a government that’s failing to meet its duty under the Environmental Bill of Rights. In fact, this is a government that has been found to have broken the law two, perhaps three times when it comes to the Environmental Bill of Rights. Standing up in the House and saying that none of this bill will impact your environmental protections is not exactly accurate when it comes to your past track record.

The Auditor General found that the government did not properly consult the public about three major policy changes that affected the environment. That’s just three. She said while there have been some minor improvements to the public consultation process, she also found that 20% of the Ministry of the Environment’s decisions last year were made without giving the public timely notice and failed to make serious consideration of the public’s knowledge or perspective.

She went on to say, “Fully embracing the intent of the EBR Act and following transparent and meaningful consultation can only help government make informed, long-term environmental decisions that benefit all Ontarians, while building public understanding and support.”

Again, I will re-emphasize that in Ontario, we have few environmental protections left. The government continues to shortchange them. We now see that the government wants to take away consultation periods when it comes to environmental assessments. But the spirit of the law—not just the letter of the law, but the spirit—when it comes to the Environmental Bill of Rights is that the people of Ontario have a right to be consulted and informed on decisions that impact the environment, and that in fact this does build a better Ontario. So the government is, in my opinion, moving in such a short-sighted way to sidestep these regulations that have served us so well and that are important to making sure industries like the mining industry operate in a way that people have confidence in.

I would just like to—these are sort of the highlights of some of the things that this government has done when it comes to the environment. We know Doug Ford is cutting into Ontario’s greenbelt; that’s clear. Ontario has been making it easier to build on wetlands; that’s a fact. Ontario is gutting conservation authorities to speed up development on lands, perhaps on wetlands and protected lands. This article says that the government “is forcing Ontario municipalities to open farmland to development.” We know that that’s happening. Ontario has greenlit a contentious sewage plant for York region. This is something that we’ll be hearing more about, but the fact that this government is rushing to develop certain areas and doesn’t have a solution for sewage when they look at these developments, but instead is creating a sewage solution that will impact our waterways very, very negatively—Lake Simcoe, Lake Ontario—this is a government that needs to be more mindful about what they’re doing when it comes to the environment.

We also know that the government has started construction on the Bradford Bypass, despite the fact that a federal court has ruled that the federal environment minister has an obligation to look at an environmental assessment for that. I’m sure this is another thing that this government will fight in court, because as we know, there’s nothing that this government likes more than to spend taxpayer dollars fighting decisions in court—decisions that don’t benefit the government and their friends and associates, but certainly decisions that negatively impact the people of the province of Ontario. It’s kind of ironic that people’s tax dollars are going to fight decisions that will work against them.

But I would have to say, there’s nothing more egregious to hear than this government and the minister saying, “There’s nothing in this bill that impacts our duty to consult First Nations.” No, that’s true; there’s nothing in this bill that does that. But guess what? Your government is not consulting with First Nations. You are breaching your duty to consult. So you can say it all you like, but it’s quite clear that you are failing—failing—to consult. Your obligation for free, prior and informed consent is something that—you are a signatory to treaties that require you to do that, and in this case, Bill 71, there’s no better example of how you are failing your responsibility.

Your breach of duty when it comes to consulting First Nations is causing real harm. It’s causing real harm in First Nations communities. It’s probably going to cause real harm when it comes to economic development, when it comes to the mining. Not only is it unlawful; it’s been described as an abuse of power.

We hear from the MPP from Kiiwetinoong, who has asked the question, does this government not understand that failure to consult is old colonial ways that we need to be moving forward from? Does this government not understanding that dividing and conquering First Nations is colonial in its approach? Time and time again, the government is failing in this responsibility, despite what we hear in this House.

We’ve had people in this House come from First Nations communities across Ontario and voice their objection to what this government is doing when it comes to the Ring of Fire. We had a guest of the MPP for Brantford–Brant who was here, who stood and said that they are opposed—it was a guest of the government who was so opposed to what this government is doing. It was quite shocking to hear that their own guest was so incensed by this government’s rushing to develop without consulting that they felt compelled to speak out.

We had 10 First Nations chiefs here, members from 10 First Nations here in the House, who were quite clear, when they said, directly, actually, back to the Premier that there will be no Ring of Fire road, nothing will happen on their First Nation land without free, prior consent. This confrontation—this is a mess of this government’s making. There’s no need for this. A good government would not rush this through. A good government wouldn’t divide and conquer First Nations. A good government would make sure that the mining industry, that the Ring of Fire operates in a way that there is not controversy, but that is not the case.

In fact, we now have 10 First Nations that are taking this government to court. They are suing this government because of their failure to consult, particularly when it comes to the Ring of Fire. The lawyer for these 10 First Nations said that this “lawsuit will enable them to bring motions to seek injunctions under it to stop alleged unilateral decision-making, ‘especially where those decisions threaten the way of life of the First Nations.’ Those threats include ‘things that may destroy the peatlands, which are locally necessary up in James Bay, Hudson Bay to prevent worsening, catastrophic climate change.’” First Nations communities call these the breathing lands, and they’re important to the First Nations’ way of life. This government needs to step up and understand that this is the kind of controversy that we could avoid by fulfilling your obligation, by fulfilling your duty to consult, by not skirting it, by not dividing and conquering.

I’ve heard time and time again members from this side of the House say that 15 years is too long to build a mine. That may be, but do you know what’s too long? Too long is waiting 28 years to get clean water. This month is the 28th-year anniversary of Neskantaga’s boil-water advisory. That’s too long. Sandy Lake have been waiting almost 20 years. That’s too long. So while you talk about prosperity and you’re rushing into First Nations territory, you’re not fulfilling your current obligations, and it really is shameful.

And I would say that there’s no more clear evidence that you do not want to hear from First Nations than the fact that you held committee hearings in Timmins and Sudbury. I just want you to know that Sudbury is 1,500 kilometres from the Ring of Fire—you could drive from here to Florida—and those are the lands that you’re talking about, but you didn’t have the common decency or you didn’t fulfill your obligation to make sure that people were able to weigh in at committee on this important bill. So I would say that this government has failed in its duty not only to First Nations, not only to protect our environment but to all Ontarians.

I’m wondering if the member for Niagara West could make an important distinction, as I see it, pertaining to mining, and that is the work that needs to be done with Indigenous neighbours in Ontario to make sure that we have actually achieved free, prior, informed consent. Canada has an obligation, under international covenants we’ve signed, to achieve that, but there’s a debate right now all over the country about whether a duty to consult is adequate. What I heard from the Neskantaga people when they were certainly here was that their consent needs to be informed and the consultations need to happen on their territory.

I’m wondering if the member from Niagara West can make that distinction for us today. Does his government believe in the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous folks before projects have—

As a preamble to my question, I’ll read something from the Ontario NDP website from 2017. It said the following: “The Ring of Fire is one of the largest potential mineral reserves in Ontario and, if developed, could create thousands of jobs and create massive economic growth and opportunity—both for northern Ontario, and for the rest of the province.

“‘Why are the Wynne Liberals abandoning the Ring of Fire, and abandoning all the people and communities who are counting on it?’” That’s from the Ontario website for the NDP in 2017.

So my question to the member is this: Why are the NDP now doing exactly what the Wynne Liberals did and abandoning the Ring of Fire and abandoning all the people and communities who are counting on it?

This hyperbole is not serving us well in this government—

Questions?