I thank the member for his comments.

We’ve heard from mining companies and Aboriginal communities that the government’s approach to free and informed prior consent is not one that is going to work, and that it’s going to lead to conflict. The member is justifying their entire approach by the number of jobs—but if their approach is one that leads to conflict, won’t that jeopardize the investment itself? If I’m an investor and I see government taking an approach that leads to conflict—that’s going to scare away investment. It’s not going to draw investment.

Thank you to the member from London North Centre for his question.

We can differ, with a lot of reasons, on this legislation, and obviously that’s our job—to debate and have healthy discussion, which I think we’ve been doing.

I always come back to the reality, and the reality is, this is a game-changer. We’re going to create 33,000-plus jobs.

The Minister of Economic Development has been travelling, talking to numerous other companies that are interested in coming to our region to set up shop, and that is going to, again, add to the opportunity.

I can tell you other communities within our ridings are also looking at strategic investments, changing how they can do business, attracting these investments.

I can say my answer is going to consistently be “33,000-plus jobs.”

We’re going to do it right. The duty to consult—making sure we speed up this process and do it right as we speed it up is the commitment I know the minister has, the parliamentary assistant has and the Premier has. We will continue to communicate, to collaborate, to listen and learn—but again, 33,000 jobs.

From my world, this being my first year in public service—doing a lot of business in southwestern Ontario, I might add—it was pretty easy to hire people in the late 1980s and 1990s and through the beginning of the century, because there were a lot of unemployed workers. At our feed plants, at our offices, it was easy to find workers. It’s not so easy today.

I always maintain that the best social program we can have is a good job—not just a gig job, but a job that has benefits and has a pension. That’s what this investment is bringing—not only for southwestern Ontario; it’s going to happen in northern Ontario, too.

I would say a rising tide lifts all boats. The rising tide here is strong economic investment, and the boats lifted up are going to be the people working, sailing magnificently throughout this great province.

Again, I always use the analogy of the proof is in the pudding. People are investing, people are calling, people are knocking on doors. Throughout this, when everyone was wondering what the investment was going to be in Elgin–Middlesex–London or St. Thomas, specifically, I always said, “Just listen. Wait until the proof is in the pudding.” When people invest $7 billion, and you’re going to see a five-year return, and you’re going to see 33,000 jobs, and you’re going to see economic prosperity, I say that’s a pretty good deal—and again, that’s not only southwestern Ontario; it’s throughout this entire province, including northern Ontario.

I’d like to thank the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London for his comments. I have a great deal of respect for the member and absolutely agree with many of the member’s comments.

Here on the side of the official opposition, we want to see more projects which result in good-paying union jobs with benefits and pensions. The official opposition is also very respectful of the principles of free, prior and informed and consent of all affected First Nations, as well as environmental sustainability.

My concern, however, with this legislation, Bill 71, is section 7(1)—applications with closure plans that don’t meet the requirements.

So my question for the member is, what is the point of having standards, what is the point of having rules, what is the point of having requirements if the minister can ignore them and undermine them altogether?

Further questions?

We do have time for further debate.

The natural resources of northern Ontario have played a key role in the economy of Ontario, and our government recognizes the generational opportunities that exist.

What will this act do for northern and Indigenous communities specifically?

I think it does a few things. Number one, it takes advantage of a natural resource that is renewable and recyclable. We can take these critical components and put them into batteries and then again create future batteries after they’ve been recycled. That’s a wonderful opportunity for northern Ontario.

It’s going to create jobs. Again, I’m assuming the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan likes the idea of a lot of jobs in his riding and in his community, having been the mayor for, I think, 30 or 40 years, or 50 or 60 years—whatever it was, it was a long time that he was mayor of Thunder Bay. Economic prosperity is key to northern Ontario. I know that’s why he ran. That’s why I ran. And that’s why we’re proud of this historic announcement. It’s generational in nature, and that generational change and economic prosperity will benefit people in his riding and throughout northern Ontario.

Let me point out that two million vehicles have been taken off the road with the environmental actions of this province. It is a green economy. We are working hard. We are working strong. This is going to enhance that, and the changes within the provisions of this act, including remediation, enhance that.

I don’t think it’s going to stall any investment. It’s not going to put any tax burden on any Canadian. In fact, it will lower taxes. It will lower the burden. It will create income. It will put money in people’s pockets to enjoy a higher and more prosperous standard of living.

I appreciate the comments from the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London today.

I’ve lived and worked in northern Ontario, and I worked very briefly in the mining sector up there, so I really appreciate the contribution that mining makes to Ontario’s economy.

One of the concerns with this legislation, though, is that in section 7(1), as my colleague was just pointing out, it says that the cleanup—so when a mine is going to open, it’s going to run for 15 to 20 years on average, and then there’s the cleanup that has to happen. They have to have a fund for that cleanup. But this government’s legislation allows the minister to exempt the company from having an adequate cleanup plan. What this means is that the cost of the cleanup will be downloaded onto taxpayers. Is that a fair burden for future taxpayers—to pay for the cleanup of these mines?

I apologize to the member.

I recognize the member from Essex.

Point of order, Speaker.

I’m calling on the Speaker to make a ruling as to whether or not this member should be allowed to proceed in light of rule of 25(g), as he’s making extensive reference to subject matters of a legal proceeding.

Meegwetch. Just for reference, I know it’s not in the courts yet, but they were just making a—I think they had 60 days when they announced that they would put it in the courts.

I think it’s important to understand the impacts on—how the approach this government is doing is very colonial. I’m going to go back. I’m going to speak a little bit about treaties—because it has an impact on the treaties that First Nations signed. I want to go back to this date: July 7, 1977. Grand Chief Andy Rickard of Grand Council Treaty No. 9 stood in front of Premier Bill Davis’s cabinet to announce the declaration of Nishnawbe Aski Nation to Ontario. This is some of what was said:

“We declare ourselves ... a free and sovereign nation. We bring you a declaration of independence.... Your government has failed to live up to the terms, and the spirit of the treaty.

“We agreed to share. We lived up to the terms of our agreement. We kept the peace, paid honour to the European sovereign, allowed the white man to settle and live according to his laws, and permitted his religions and cultures to be introduced to our people.

“You agreed to share. You said our rights would never be lost. You did not live up to the agreement.”

That was in 1977.

The late Grand Chief Rickard said that it was not that the Ojibway and the Cree were opposed to all development, but that “we are opposed to being offered the so-called choice between massive development schemes which will ruin our land and our way of life, or the equally unacceptable choice of welfare dependence.” He goes on to say, “This is like being asked which method of suicide we prefer.”

Speaker, it is 2023. These words were said in 1977. Tell me what has changed.

I was part of the committee process when we went to Timmins, when we went to Sudbury. I had hoped that there would be more First Nations voices represented, but I was glad to be able to hear what was being said. This included Mike Koostachin from Attawapiskat, Chief Craig Nootchtai from Atikameksheng Anishnawbek, and Chief Christopher Moonias from Neskantaga.

I want to share a bit of what Chief Moonias told the committee:

“The treaties with the crown, Canada and Ontario have never been honoured. We have never been treated as partners in sharing the land and resources.

“As partners, our nation would have played a role in drafting amendments to the Mining Act which heavily impact our lands, resources and future way of life.

“Instead, I am allowed to comment on Bill 71 and related regulatory amendments as an afterthought. Where is the respect here? Where is the long-term relationship-building which would move us forward together in a good way? Building meaningful nation-to-nation relationships between First Nations, Canada and Ontario is a foundation of free, prior and informed consent. This is the only way mineral development will move forward on our land.

“The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes that mining projects and closure plans need to be reviewed by Indigenous people, whose consent is required. The world is moving forward in terms of Indigenous rights, and here in Ontario, you are recklessly jumping backwards.

“This is also the case for the environment. Already, Ontario doesn’t require mining projects to conduct environmental assessments, and the Building More Mines Act will rip away the little protection we had left for the environment and the people of Ontario and Canada.

“It is in the best interests of all parties to strengthen our economy, create good jobs and improve everyone’s quality of life, but we can’t rob our future of clean water and our precious carbon-storing peatlands, which help protect our environment, just for the rich to get richer.”

I think when we talk about the announcement of the legal action that they plan to table, it’s a warning to mining development companies that they need to lobby both the provincial and the federal governments to work with First Nations and make co-jurisdiction happen.

Let me be clear, Speaker: If you do not have the free, prior, informed consent of all First Nations, this will not work. It will lead to conflict. The Ring of Fire will not happen. I know it. You are all speaking from southern Ontario, but I live in the north. I live in those communities. That’s what is going to happen. There is no way the mining is happening without, again, the full consultation.

I think there’s a huge amount of uncertainty for these companies. I do not see how they will be able to go ahead with any mining in Treaty 9 without, again, the full, prior, informed consent of First Nations, because the more oppressed we are, the stronger we became as nations. Oppression, colonialism: Bring it on.

What I don’t like about this bill is the approach that you have, where you divide and conquer, where you do not talk to all First Nations in the affected treaty territories, their traditional territories.

I think Neskantaga has been very clear: If you’re going to build that road up there to the mine, up to the First Nation—it’s through their traditional territory. There is no way it is going through there.

I think with the divide-and-conquer approach, which is very colonial—that will not work. I cannot support colonial legislation.

I think, again, passing this bill, with the colonial way of doing things where you divide and conquer, where you do not speak to all First Nations affected—what that does is, people will start to get together as First Nations, and it will be harder to have these agreements with the mining companies. It will be this government’s fault that they cannot move forward. In passing this bill, the government is shooting themselves in the foot. Meegwetch.

We’ll move to questions.

I want to thank my colleague the member for Kiiwetinoong for his very enlightening remarks about the meaning of free, prior and informed consent. He walked us through why this legislation violates those principles of free, prior and informed consent, why it undermines the principles of reconciliation, why it goes against the spirit and intent of Treaty 9.

I wondered if the member could summarize what free, prior and informed consent would have looked like if the government had respected those principles in developing this bill.

I appreciate the member opposite’s thoughts and views. We shared some time together when we were in the north. I took that time to listen and learn about his concerns, and I respect them.

That being said, my question is simple: Should it take 15 years to open a mine in this province? In the meantime, while we’re waiting 15 years, we’re losing jobs, not only in southwestern Ontario but in the north—good-paying jobs, sustainable jobs that could benefit your peoples, the economy of the north, everyone.

I want to thank the member opposite for his statement. He talked about good jobs and the environment and the future of our province. I agree; we need good jobs, and the environment is so important, and the world needs what this province has—the critical minerals required for the EV revolution and to support our transition to a green economy.

The opposition has seen the numbers. They know Russia and China have a stronghold on the market—which begs the opposition, why will you not consider approving this act?

I want to thank the member from Kiiwetinoong for an excellent speech—one that I hope millions of people will see, because I think they need to understand the issues that are at hand here.

I also have to say I was very shocked at the attempt to shut you down, because I think people need to have the historic background in order to actually come to grips with this issue.

Having listened to you, my sense is that passage of this bill will further undermine any ability to actually negotiate in an even-handed way between, on the one hand, First Nations and, on the other hand, the government of Ontario, to actually develop minerals in places where environmentally it might be possible do so. Is it fair to say that passage of this bill will make it more difficult to actually come to an agreement in a future on mining?

The Ontario government is investing an additional $202 million annually in the province’s Homelessness Prevention Program and Indigenous Supportive Housing Program. This new funding builds on the government’s investment of nearly $4.4 billion over the past three years to grow and enhance community and supportive housing.

As part of this funding, the region of Durham will be receiving $18.6 million. This is an increase of more than $7.1 million, or about 62% over the last year. Durham Regional Chair John Henry, who participated in a recent announcement made by Durham-based government members, had this to say: “This investment will help fund supportive housing programs, community outreach services and housing-focused shelter programs ... critical supports” that “address the needs of Durham region’s vulnerable residents.”

Once again, Durham-based government MPPs are standing up for residents in the region of Durham.

Thank you. That’s time for the answer.

We’ll move to the next question.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Next members’ statement.

I want to thank the member again for his questions, and I want to revisit something that we talked about.

The environment is important. The jobs are important. I talked about Russia and China having a stranglehold on the market. And 15 years is a very long time to wait to get something done for the economy, for the environment, for anyone who wants a job. This is literally going to stop things from moving in our province.

We talked about Russia and China. I really think that the member opposite needs to consider—does he think that they’re viable trading partners for critical minerals? If not, can you explain why you’re continuously creating obstacles? We want to create solutions rather than put up more obstacles. All of the respective consultations—