It’s an honour to rise today to speak to Bill 71, the Building More Mines Act. There are several things we could commend and recommend about this bill, and I want to be able to get through my notes because I do have some things to speak to about that.

I want to begin by just recognizing that Ontario is actually rich in minerals, and we have a responsibility to develop that. We also have a responsibility to adhere to the environment and make sure that we are good stewards of the land. We want to be able to extract resources where we can in the most responsible manner, and yes, absolutely, we want to be able to build those new batteries in Ontario, especially as we move towards the electrification of vehicles, both commercial as well as private passenger. We can do all those things, including meeting our climate goals, but we have to do it in a very sustainable, carefully planned way. We can’t be brazen about it, and I think we need to be able to work together to achieve those goals.

Every mining project in Ontario should be, at minimum, safe, sustainable, environmentally sound and beneficial to the community where it is located. Most importantly, every mining project in Ontario must also receive free, prior and informed consent from the Indigenous communities on whose territories those projects are undertaken.

Speaker, as I’ve raised in my previous remarks on this issue, the government is saying that the bill will strengthen Indigenous nations’ rights and that they would have their ability to have their voices heard. But yet, we have learned that even prior to the bill being released, Indigenous communities across Ontario had already been raising red flags about this issue; specifically, around the lack of regulations and how this bill could potentially harm their communities. First of all, let’s dig into that a little bit further. The ministry had engaged with Indigenous stakeholders about this bill only after it was tabled. I will remind all members in the House that this bill was tabled on March 2, 68 days ago, and the government has done very little to actually engage with Indigenous communities. That is not about respect. It’s not about developing relationships with the communities that will be most affected, especially since we are talking about communities that have already been left behind. We want to do everything we can to actually advance mining so it is modern, so therefore, mining companies will be able to engage with communities that will be affected in a way that allows them to drive the innovation together.

I think there are lots of willing partners that are prepared to come together, but the government has a role to play. It can’t be left to be said that mining companies that are fair-minded, modern and forward-thinking are going to do a better job of engaging Indigenous communities than even the government. Their reputation is at stake, and they recognize that. They know that eyes are on them on how they proceed about their business practice, and they understand that. They’re willing to do the work. Why on earth would the government not be willing to support them?

I know that in my practice, preparing a bill takes time. I want to be able to engage with stakeholders before I prepare the bill, so therefore I have more information and I can write a better and stronger bill. That is what the government should have done, and yet they failed to do so.

The CBC published a damning story about how, when they spoke to Craig Nootchtai, the chief of Atikameksheng Anishnawbek, he explained to them that the ministry did not respond in a fair and respectful way. How they found out about this bill was through communication that they described as cold and cruel, and that that ministry also sent out communication that explained that they did not have a duty to consult First Nations when developing legislation or actually changing the laws. Then they further cited Supreme Court of Canada rulings to back them up. The chief’s reply was such: “I believe that’s wrong.... [Ontario] has a duty to consult. These changes will have a direct impact on our community and the activity that happens in our territory.”

It’s incredibly frustrating for Indigenous communities to actually be left behind. They’ve already experienced long effects of colonization, and yet here we are again, despite the fact that we all should know better—and certainly, as the crown, as government, it should be better.

When my colleague from Sudbury advanced 20 amendments over three motions at committee, each and every single one of them was categorically refused. One of the pieces that the amendments actually spoke to provided language to ensure that there was a duty to consult, but this government voted it down. This does not inspire confidence in anyone that the government is going to be acting in good faith. In fact, the committee only accepted one technical housekeeping change during the entire committee process, despite a very long laundry list of recommendations brought forward by both northern and Indigenous communities, all to strengthen and enhance the bill. Of course, we are concerned and we should all be concerned that without clear language around consultation, it won’t be done, because we recognize that the government has opened itself to legal action and direct action in the past. It means that the bill could create obstacles and take longer for the mining of those critical minerals.

We talked about expediting the process. We talked about building relationships with Indigenous communities. If that is the intention of the government, then put it in writing. Why can’t we see it? Why can’t we read it? And certainly, Indigenous communities are looking for that. No fair-minded, fiscally responsible Ontarian would ever want to come to a place where they’re engaged in long, protracted legal action once again, and yet, this is exactly where this bill is going to take us, unfortunately.

I recognize that we need to be globally competitive, and we should be. We have the smartest people in Ontario. We’ve got all the potential pieces to build that economy from end to end, business to business, businesses to consumers, but yet, we’re failing on some very basic, fundamental processes.

The member from Sudbury also talked with Mr. Steve Lines of First Mining Gold during the committee process. First Mining Gold employs 51% Indigenous staff on the ground at their site. The member from Sudbury asked Mr. Lines what advice his company has for the government in order to improve the relationship with Indigenous communities. This is what Mr. Lines had to offer: “I think in the time over the years that I’ve spent on various different projects, the one thing that always is truly helpful and meaningful is the time spent with the communities and the community members. It’s really, at the end of the day, I think, a lot about building trust and relationships, sharing information and doing that on a sustained basis. Sometimes it happens from project to project when issues become difficult, when there are obstacles in the way, and then discussions take place. But it’s sustaining that communication and relationship-building evenly across time so that when things do happen and challenges arise,” you can go back to the discussion and “there’s a basis and relationship” to build from. That is how you build relationships. That is what is missing from this bill. Mr. Lines was extremely gracious and polite in his answer—and I would add to the fact that if a small mining company can spend the deep, long-term investments of time in relationship-building and employment in the community, there’s no reason why it can’t be replicated, and there’s no reason why this government can’t act in the same benevolent but truthful manner in building true partnership.

It’s also troubling that this bill would remove the ministerial positions of the director of mines and the director of rehabilitation; instead, it invests the powers in the minister directly. Chief Nootchtai asked the question on everybody’s mind: “I don’t understand how” the Minister of Mines “expects to do all that work. Is he going to just rubber-stamp everything? I think so.”

It’s admirable to propose legislation that would reduce administrative burdens for companies, for governments, even for communities, but only if the outcome is better than what we have today. And so, although there are things in this bill that could be what I would describe as fair, and could be good, we can’t necessarily just bulldoze through—as the Premier has said he would just jump on a bulldozer if anybody gets in his way. If that’s the mindset and the heart of the government that actually wrote this bill, then I would say it’s wrong-headed. I’m certainly not satisfied with the government’s red tape reduction in proposing reduced administrative burdens, especially if people and communities are going to be harmed, and especially if it’s going to take longer because of protracted legal action or direct action that may come out of bulldozing over community and Indigenous rights.

Linda Byron of Blue Heron Environmental brought this up, and I thought it was worth sharing. She has this to say:

“Some of the issues that we encounter when we’re offering mine closure plans”—and she is a consultant in the sector—are because there are things that have to be done. If there’s a lack of clarity, that’s not helpful. “The Mining Act and the mine closure plan and the rehab code—some of the parts of them are not clear or they’re contradictory, which leads to confusion when we’re submitting closure plans” and they’re being asked by Ministry of Mines personnel. “Some reviewers will take things a certain way and some reviewers will take it a different way, and so we will literally offer the closure plan based on who we know the reviewer is going to be because they’re going to look at it from a different perspective. So that leads to some confusion, especially when the public or Indigenous communities are looking at it. We’re like, ‘Well, this section of the province is doing it this way and this section of the province is doing it another way.’ So there’s a definite lack of clarity” in Bill 71 that needs to be worked on.

It’s great to hear from Ms. Byron, a mining industry consultant who feels that the bill needs to provide additional clarity and, in its current state, does not. I’m glad that even mining consultants, mining experts are coming forward saying, “Do better.” Provide the clarity that’s necessary so that they, as businesses, have certainty so they know how to invest and move forward. Certainly, I think that that’s something that everybody with a business background can agree on.

I have a business background. I want to know before I put my money into any investment: What’s the environmental situation I’m walking into? What are the regulatory controls? Who am I speaking to? What do I need to achieve to get from A to B? If I’m going to have lots of questions because of the lack of clarity, it makes me think twice about investing, especially if I want to be a good corporate citizen.

Ms. Byron also stressed the importance of a qualified person signing off on the plans, that that person should be truly qualified and that they should use their expertise to provide constructive feedback and/or to approve the plan. She agreed that a checklist, including a person’s level of education, professional experience and an ethics exam, would be a good place to start. It’s concerning that none of that is being spelled out in the bill, despite the fact that members of the government have stood up and said that it is in the bill. Or they allude to the fact that it’s in the bill, but it’s actually not contained in the bill.

I also find it troubling that rehabilitation and protective measures are not defined in the act. Instead, their definitions are being set out in regulation, which is going to take place weeks, if not months, later. The critical pieces that actually help shape how the bill is going to be operationalized are not before the House today. If the government is asking us to just trust them, unfortunately, their track record is not very solid, which is why there are so many people, including and especially Indigenous nations, that are saying, “We can’t trust you. You haven’t earned our trust.”

This bill loosens regulations that currently require mining companies to have the necessary funds secured to remediate the lands that they are working on upon the closure of the mine before they start mining. I think that’s okay at times, largely because some mine and extraction processes can be long—sometimes years, if not decades, as we have seen. We know that sometimes it makes sense, especially with respect to the way money flows and capital is moving along stage by stage on when funds from a lender are advanced.

It does sometimes make sense to not necessarily have all the money in the bank right up front. I get that. Certainly, I recognize that anybody who has worked with tier lending will understand that. I can see my friend nodding there.

However, it becomes a major issue if the miner is not a well-resourced operation with multiple projects and streams of revenue that allow them to ebb and flow where the cash flow is. Who are we letting off the hook if we don’t have some type of guarantee somewhere along the way that is measured in a fiscally responsible manner? Because what we do know is that junior miners, newer companies, companies without the deep pockets will see a fluctuation of change in ownership, and they also may become insolvent over time. That’s not uncommon. So then who is left to pick up the pieces when the mine has to be rehabilitated? Who is going to be ultimately responsible for the cleanup of the mine as we move towards reclamation of the land? There’s nothing in the bill that actually protects the taxpayers at the end of the day. I think that as government and opposition members, as the stewards of the Ontario purse and the reserves, we have to be mindful of that. We can’t think about what is politically beneficial for me today; we must start thinking in generations. We must start thinking and governing in 50-year increments. We cannot think about what is expedient and politically advantageous to us and perhaps our local community only. That is not what makes a good parliamentarian. We need to be able to do better, and we need to be able to do it smarter.

There are thousands of abandoned mines right now in Ontario where the cleanup has been left to the province. So we already, unfortunately, are inheriting a problem that has been left behind by previous governments and parliamentarians who were not able to think in that long-term vision and act with that type of long-term interest of Ontarians.

The cleanup of these mines will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which is why they’re not being cleaned up, as far as I can tell. Nobody wants to pay because the miners have already extracted the profit—both financial profit as well as environmental profit—and they’ve walked away. So we’re left with abandoned mines which are, I would say, environmentally unsound and creating a lot of havoc in those communities. Those communities are left with the problem. They have to drive by it. They’re hunting on it. Perhaps they’re fishing adjacent to it. That’s the legacy previous governments have left them. I don’t think that we want to be in the House when we’re going to further exacerbate that problem, and yet here we are.

I’m certainly not saying in any way that we need to get everything right, and for sure, legislation is going to evolve, especially as the conditions out there continue to change, whether it’s the condition of meeting our environmental goals or the conditions of making sure that we are globally competitive, regionally competitive in the long run. But we can’t take any shortcuts, and regrettably, this bill has a number of shortcuts.

We can’t simplify things to the point—or dumb it down—that it’s a matter of creating polarizing effects, that one group is for mining and one group is against mining. Surely, parliamentarians can be much smarter than that when they talk about creating legislation that is good for generations to come. I entirely reject that preface, that you are either for something or against something. That’s what the committee process is for. That’s why we move amendments. That’s why we talk to each other across the aisle. That’s why we talk to consultants. That’s why we talk to Indigenous community members.

We have a responsibility. I know that the environment is top of mind for everyone that I speak to in my community. They are so concerned about the next generation and what we leave to our children and our children’s children.

Speaker, when we’re talking about mineral extraction and we’re talking about the Critical Minerals Strategy, I get that; I totally do. It’s big-boy talk. But I also want to talk about the kind of world that we want to leave behind. I also want to talk about what our relationships are to Canada and provincial Indigenous communities. I sincerely want to make sure that we meet our truth and reconciliation obligations. And I know, Speaker, in my heart, that every single member here truly cares about whether communities have clean drinking water, whether communities are going to thrive because the economic conditions and the environmental conditions are there.

I truly believe that this bill could be better, and right now, it’s not ready to be adopted. It cannot be supported.

Questions?

Further debate?

I want to thank the member from God’s country, Peterborough–Kawartha, for, to start with, his very kind remarks.

I’m a proud professional engineer and, really, the designs that I’ve undertaken over my career lasted a lifetime. If I’ve messed up, I’m held accountable for it forever, and so my career is gone if I take shortcuts or do anything that compromises the integrity of the process.

Why do you feel it’s important that qualified professionals certify all aspects of a closure plan for a mine?

Thank you to the member from God’s country—

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s straight from the NDP website of 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions?

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1800.