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—

This hyperbole is not serving us well in this government—

Questions?

In 2014, during an election debate, the NDP member from Nickel Belt criticized the Liberal government of the day for failing to develop the Ring of Fire. The NDP member from Nickel Belt said during that election debate that the Liberal government was moving at the speed of “a sleepy turtle.”

That was nine years ago now, so my question to the member is this: Why is it that the NDP now wants to do exactly what the Liberals did and move at the pace of a sleepy turtle?

My question to the member is this: Why is the NDP now against roads in northern Ontario?

Point of order, Speaker.

There were a number of things I was going to say when I first stood up and talked, but I think I’m going to try to bring the temperature down a little bit on some of the things. Normally, when I stand up for these speeches, I don’t usually talk about some of the statistics on things, but I think that I’m going to make an exception today and talk about some statistics that I find rather interesting on it.

The Fraser Institute did a study back in 2014, and they looked at all the mining jurisdictions across Canada. Keep in mind, this was 2014, so some of the data is a little bit old, but there is an interesting thing on it. One of the things that they looked at was the change in time to get permit approval on mining over the last 10 years. Here’s where I want to go with it: In Ontario, up until that date, the length of time it took to get a permit either somewhat increased or considerably increased by a total of 68%—68% of mining companies who tried to get a mine approval, up until 2014, saw the length of time to get the approval increase 68% of the time. Where I find this interesting is that a neighbouring jurisdiction, Manitoba, in that same time period, saw “shortened considerably” or “somewhat” or remained “the same” 51% of the time. Why do I bring up Manitoba? The Canadian Shield represents 72% of the land mass in Ontario, and it goes through Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. The only thing that divides the Canadian Shield is the imaginary lines that we draw for provinces So here we have Canadian Shield in Manitoba that has exactly the same mineral content as what we have in Ontario and Quebec, and Manitoba found a way to do mining permits 51% of the time either the same over the last 10 years or in a shorter period of time.

Quebec had a change after this report had been done, and their change started around 2015. They saw a significant increase in funding in the mining industry. They’ve had a reduction in the length of time it takes for a mine to be permitted in Quebec.

Again, the only difference between the minerals in Quebec and Ontario is the imaginary line that we draw between them. That’s it. What’s in the ground is in the ground, and it is almost identical in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. If you find lithium in Quebec, you’re going to find lithium in Ontario and you’re going to find lithium in Manitoba. It is the same mineral makeup: It’s the Canadian Shield. What’s the difference, though, between them? That is the administrative side.

Another interesting statistic that came from that report was that 38% of the time taken for a permit was considered administrative time. Simply having the request sitting on someone’s desk somewhere—38% of that time. The average time it takes to build a mine or to get the permits to do a mine is 12 to 15 years. More than a third of that is simply administration—four to five years of administration. Where is there value in an administrative delay? It’s not consultation. It’s not studies. It’s simply administrative delay. And one of the things that this bill will do is eliminate some of that administrative delay.

One of the things that is in this bill is a change so that, for closure plans, someone can sign off on them if they have one of the proper designations. We do this already in so many different things. If you look at the building permit process, if an engineer signs off on it, that engineer is putting their designation on the line for it.

I’m going to give a personal example of it, because I spoke to the chief building officer in the township that I’m in because I wanted to build another garage at my place. I said to him, over the course of this past winter, I had a number of pine trees that died. Some kind of a disease came through. I’ve got 34 of them on my property that have died. I’ve cut down about 26 of them so far. The smallest one is around 12 inches in diameter, and the largest is almost four feet in diameter. I said to him, “This is still really good wood, and I hate to just chop it up and burn it, because there’s a lot of value in it.” Some of those trees—the one in particular that’s almost four feet around is close to 60 feet long. I said, “What can I do if I want to use this to build a pole barn? Because it’s not milled lumber. How do I show it?” And he said, “Your property isn’t zoned as agriculture. If it was zoned as agriculture, you could just go ahead and build it. You could build a pole barn. There’s no problem with that. But your property isn’t zoned as agriculture. So what you can do is get an engineer to sign off, to say that those trees at those certain widths are strong enough to hold the weight.” We do that for building permits. I can build a pole barn on my property using the trees from my property if I have an engineer come in, evaluate the wood and say, “Yes, this is fine. This is safe,” because the engineer is putting their professional opinion on it and their professional record on the line. That makes sense. That’s why the engineer went to school—to do those things.

What we’re proposing in this bill is basically the same thing, on the closure plan. Instead of having to go through an administrative process on it, if we have someone who’s qualified to review the plan and say, “This is safe. This makes sense. This will improve the environmental perspective of the area or improve the land itself,” and they sign off on that, what they’re saying is, in their professional opinion, this makes sense. We do that with doctors. We ask a doctor, “What should I do about whatever ailment?” And the doctor says, “In my professional opinion, here’s what you should do.” I’m a type 2 diabetic. My A1C levels were increasing because the drugs I was on were no longer working. I went to my doctor and I said, “Doc, what can I do about this?” And he said, “In my opinion, this is the drug we should change you to.” And we accept that, because he’s a qualified professional. We’re asking his opinion. This is no different than what we’re proposing here, and yet if you listen to the opposition, not only is the sky falling, but the sun will never rise again if we do this.

It makes sense to cut down on administrative time if we have someone who is a qualified professional to stand up and say, “This is appropriate.”

Questions?

To the member, response?

Please continue.

Interjections.

I want to thank the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas. She spoke about mining investment, and she talked about the lack of consultation from the Conservative government with First Nations in Ontario. I’d like her to expand on how these two are related.

The member opposite was talking about investment in the Ring of Fire, and I’m wondering, to the member who had the debate today: Do you think that the Ring of Fire will be processed any quicker, knowing that there are 10 First Nations that are in a lawsuit with the government around the Ring of Fire? Is that going to help people’s investments come forward quicker? Is that going to help the mine develop any faster? Do you think this will slow it down, and the government basically stepped on a rake and hit themselves in the face?

I’m just going to try to find some reason in the debate. What I understand the member for Essex is saying is that he believes, for some reason, based upon a website from six years ago, that we’ve aligned ourselves somehow with a glacial pace in projects. Actually, I’ll just remind the member for Essex that the only government in this province that has historically built co-operative and communal housing at a rapid pace was an NDP government, not this government, not the Liberal governments beforehand.

Do you know the way we did it, Speaker, and the way to tie it into a question to my friend? We did it in consultation with the municipalities we serve. We didn’t read out edicts to them. We didn’t tell them their development charges were withdrawn. We didn’t sever their revenues. We worked with them.

Friend, could you explain to the member for Essex how an NDP government would work with Indigenous nations to make sure they were informed, that they consented to development and that it worked in the best interests of the people of Ontario?

The member for Essex, earlier today, said that Wheatley, which is a town that blew up—he disagreed with that. The member said that Dudley George, who was killed by a sniper at Ipperwash over a confrontation—he disagreed with that. So yes, I also disagree with that. We need a government that prevents those kinds of confrontations and does it right, not like this government, which is rushing to develop the Ring of Fire in the most irresponsible way when it comes to both the environment and our Indigenous nations.

As we’ve said before, you can do the right thing now. You’ll always have time to fix it. Get it right the first time.

There’s no lesson that we would take from the Tories or the Liberals when it comes to building the Ring of Fire, because we are not going to be like an 800-pound gorilla tromping over First Nations’ rights.

Interjections.

You’ve had time to build roads. You’ve had time to provide those in First Nations communities with the prosperity that you’re dangling in front of them right now. So, you know what, your words ring hollow when we see the true circumstances of people in First Nations.

Just trust us.

The member from Hamilton said, “Just trust us.”

I’m going to trust a professional engineer. I’m going to trust a doctor. And I think our entire professional university system is based on the fact that these highly educated people are trustworthy; otherwise, we wouldn’t have a single building built in this province—because someone signs off on it and says, “Yes, this is safe.” We wouldn’t have any of the things that we have, because if we didn’t trust the scientists, there would be no scientific advancement. This makes sense.

Another piece of opposition that the NDP has put forward on this is that the closure plan assurance should be paid for up front. They should put the millions of dollars right up front. But we know that it can take, as I said earlier, up to 15 years for that mine. Is it reasonable to say you should put, on day one, millions of dollars up front before you know what’s going to happen, just in case? Or is it possible that over the course of time for the development of the mine we will have technological advancements and it makes more sense to do things slightly differently at the closure? And at every step of the mining process, then, before you get to that next step, you would put down that financial assurance. That, to me, is reasonable. That, to me, says, as the mine is being developed, as there are enhancements, as we know more, you can make the adjustments on your closure plan before the mine opens.

I’m going to come back to something locally, for me. In my riding of Peterborough–Kawartha, we have the only nepheline syenite mine in Ontario. Nepheline syenite is used to reduce the amount of energy required to make glass. It’s used to make latex paint more scrubbable. So when you go into Home Hardware or Home Depot or Pro Hardware or any of the hardware stores and you buy paint that says it’s scrubbable, so that you don’t wash the paint off when you’re washing the wall, that has nepheline syenite in it. That nepheline syenite mine has been operating now for close to 60 years; they believe they have another 105 to 115 years’ worth of nepheline syenite. Does it make sense, today, to say, “Your closure plan in 100 years must be identical to what you said it was going to be 50 years ago,” or does it make sense to make adjustments to those closure plans as technology changes?

One of the things that we know is, the side effect or by-product, a waste product from silver mines, when we first started mining silver—there’s a big chunk of silver downstairs in the museum part of Queen’s Park; it’s a really nice big rock. When we were mining silver, silver was a mineral that people wanted. It was a valuable mineral. The waste product from mining silver is lithium. At the time that the silver mines first started in Ontario, there was no use for lithium. Does it make sense to have a closure plan that says, “You’re going to throw that lithium out,” or does it make sense to say, “You can adjust your closure plan. You can go to that tailings pond and you can remove the lithium that is one of those critical minerals that we need for the green evolution to move to electric vehicles”?

What a novel concept: to take a step back and say everything that we do in our legislation has to be mobile enough so that, as technology changes, that technological change that is to the benefit of people can actually be implemented in that mining closure plan.

Does it make sense to say, “If you’re making adjustments to that closure plan, there will be a change in what the financial assurance is, so you should make adjustments to that financial assurance as you’re developing it”?

A number of the mines that will be closing shortly—and we do have some that are getting close to the end of their life—have certain infrastructure that has been put in place. Previously, all of that had to be removed, regardless of whether there was a benefit from it.

Again, I’ll come back to the mine in my riding. Perhaps there’s a cellphone tower there—I actually know there is a cellphone tower there. But hypothetically speaking, let’s say that there’s a cellphone tower that’s there. When that mine was developed 50 years ago, they would have torn down everything in 100 years when that mine is no longer commissioned. Is there a value to the community for that cellphone tower to remain? It’s providing service to the greater Cordova area. Under the previous incarnation of the Mining Act, that cellphone tower would have to be torn down. This change allows for that cellphone tower to remain, so the mining company can go back to the community, can go to Bell or Rogers or Telus or any other cellphone provider and say, “This tower exists. Would you like it?” If they were to say yes, there’s a benefit to the community for it. “We would love to be able to take that”—under this proposed change, they would.

We’ve got a number of places in northern Ontario—and my good friend from the riding of Kiiwetinoong and I have had a number of conversations about this, and he has talked to me a number of times about how there is that lack of road access to a number of communities.

You have road access going into every mine because you have to get the product out. Under the current legislation that we’re changing, once the mine closes, you would have to find a way to remediate that road and remove it and put the area back to the state that it was in prior to the road being put in.

Again, I’m going to come back to my riding on this, because I think it’s important that we actually look at that from a realistic perspective. I’m near the Cordova mine. I’m on Cordova Lake. The Ontario government built a fish hatchery in the 1930s on Cordova Lake, and they built a road in to the fish hatchery. In the 1990s, that fish hatchery was closed. But from the 1930s to the 1990s, land was severed off, and there are more than 300 residences that are fed by that four-kilometre-long road. If we had followed the Mining Act when we closed the fish hatchery, we would have removed that road. Obviously, a fish hatchery is not the same as a mine, so it didn’t fall under that jurisdiction. But think about that: You have more than 300 residents in my riding who have access to their property, who have built homes, who have built cottages, who have raised their families for the last 90 years, and the Ontario government would have come in and ripped the road out. That doesn’t make any sense.

I get that there is opposition to some of the things that we do. I get that the NDP’s job is to say no to everything, because that is what the opposition is supposed to do. They’re supposed to stand up and say, “Whatever you’re doing is wrong, and you should look at it a different way.” But sometimes what they should be doing is looking at it and saying, “These are good things. We’re not going to talk about that. We’ll talk about something else instead that’s in it.” Sometimes there are good things in a bill that—even if you’re on opposite sides of the political spectrum, you can look at it and say, “Yes, this is something that makes sense.”

I would like to think that most of the NDP members are looking at this bill and saying, “If there is infrastructure that’s in place already, if there is something that is not going to cost the community anything for it to remain and it has a benefit to the community for it to remain”—members of the opposition are going to look at that and say, “Let’s avoid talking about that, because that one actually has some value.” I think this is one of those cases where that has significant value.

We know that we have some First Nation communities that flood consistently. We also know that in just about every mine, there is a mining camp that has been set up. Staff members, mine workers come in; they stay in those residences during the time that they are working in the mine. They go home, the next shift comes in, and it’s a rotation through. They’re typically modular homes, and it’s set up so that multiple people can live. They’re almost university dormitory style or college dormitory style. To me, if we know that we’ve got communities near the mine that seasonally have to be evacuated, if we know that there’s the potential for forest fires in the area and that we’ve got communities that have to be moved out of there for a short period of time, perhaps—and it’s not every case—it makes sense to leave that housing to be used on an emergency basis when it’s needed on those seasonal opportunities.

When you look at what’s happening in this bill, everything in here is about expediting the process in an intelligent way so that there is benefit to the community, there is benefit to the supply chain in Ontario, there is benefit to the green economy. You cannot be green without having mining in your jurisdiction.

Thank you to the member from Whitby for that question.

We know right now that electric vehicles are something that we’re transitioning to. The federal government has said that by 2030, all new vehicles need to be electric. Ontario has an opportunity with our manufacturing might in the south and our raw materials in northern Ontario to put the two together, to have the full life cycle here in Ontario, so that you mine the materials in an ethical, green manner, you process it in Ontario in an ethical, green manner, you build it in Ontario in an ethical, green environment, and what you end up with is a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Ontario is the only jurisdiction in the entire world that has everything together in its borders to make sure that we lead the world in that green revolution.