On va passer aux questions. Questions?

Superior North.

Fait que ces communautés-là qui font ça ont dit : « Assez, c’est assez. » Puis je peux vous dire qu’il y a beaucoup de communautés qui regardent ce qui se passe. Va-t-il y en avoir d’autres qui vont se joindre? Peut-être. Mais le message est clair, parce qu’on voit qu’il y a une tendance à aller pour ça. Pourquoi? Parce que c’est un manque de respect, continuellement, contre les Premières Nations—continuellement. On signe des mémorandums d’entente. Je vous ai parlé d’Attawapiskat, qui a eu la De Beers. They’re landlocked. Ils sont pris dans leur réserve. À cause qu’il y a un chemin qui se rend au quai et la mine a mis une dispute sur le chemin, ils ne peuvent pas agrandir. Le ministère s’est rangé sur le bord et a dit : « On ne peut pas vous donner l’accès aux terres ou au terrain parce qu’il y a une dispute sur le chemin. » Pourtant, le chemin existait avant que la mine n’existe, puis ils sont sur leurs territoires ancestraux.

Après ça on se demande pourquoi on a des injonctions et qu’on amène le gouvernement en cour. Bien, expliquez-moi, madame la Présidente, combien de fois vas-tu dire, « Oui, oui, oui », que tu veux travailler avec le gouvernement, et puis qu’on ne respecte pas nos droits ancestraux, on ne respecte pas les mémorandums et on ne respecte pas les ententes qu’on a faites?

Même communauté : ils ont signé, en 2014, un processus pour adresser l’expansion de la communauté, l’eau potable. Il n’y a rien qui s’est passé. En 2018, on signe une autre entente de protocole. En 2019, la même affaire. On est dans la même situation.

Webequie : 28 ans pour l’eau potable. Ils sont obligés de bouillir leur eau—28 ans. Puis après ça on se demande pourquoi le chef était ici, puis qu’il vienne dire—c’est bien Webequie? Excuse, ce n’est pas Webequie, mais Neskantaga. Je me suis trompé de communauté—Neskantaga, qui nous a dit : « Non, il n’arrivera rien dans ma communauté, sur mon territoire ancestral. » Vingt-huit ans. Puis vous traversez la rivière Attawapiskat? « C’est sur nos territoires ancestraux. Non. »

Bien, non, qu’est-ce que le gouvernement fait? On ne met pas un processus pour aider à la situation. Quelle opportunité manquée. Quelle belle opportunité manquée.

Ça va prendre quoi pour que vous compreniez que les minières vous disent : « Nation à nation, ça prend un consentement des Premières Nations »? Les minières vous le disent. Elles demandent au gouvernement de faire ça. Les Premières Nations vous le disent—bien non. On fait une recommandation pour amender le projet de loi—bien non. « On sait mieux, nous autres, on connaît ça beaucoup mieux que vous autres. » Bien non, vous connaissez ça tellement et vous faites tellement un bon travail que vous avez neuf communautés qui vous amènent en cour. Bravo, chapeau.

Après, on se demande pourquoi ça boite, pourquoi le développement qui va se faire va coûter plus cher. Tu sais, le temps de dire—s’il faut que je saute sur le bulldozer moi-même pour aller faire le chemin—mais le message est resté pareil; il se prend d’une autre différente manière. C’est dépassé, ce temps-là.

On est dans un temps de réconciliation, on est dans un temps où il faut travailler avec les Premières Nations, reconnaître leurs droits, parce qu’on a signé des traités, on a signé des documents. Vivons avec les documents qu’on a faits et respectons les Premières Nations, parce que c’est de même qu’on va avancer. C’est de même que le développement économique va se faire, pour les Premières Nations, pour la province et pour les minières. Tout le monde est gagnant là-dedans.

Bien non : on a un gouvernement qui sait mieux, qui sait beaucoup mieux, puis c’est de même que vous allez faillir à ce que vous voulez accomplir. Pourtant, si vous aviez accepté certaines propositions qu’on vous a proposées—mais vous avez dit non. Merci, madame la Présidente.

Superior North.

I’m pleased to be able to stand today and speak to third reading of Bill 71 and the Mining Act. I just want to start by saying that I supported this act at second reading because I do think it’s critical that we extract our resources from the north for the prosperity of the north, and the prosperity of all in the north. Subsequent to voting in favour at the second reading, after the bill went through committee and through various things that have happened here, it’s very clear that the duty to consult was not met. The challenge with that is you can’t simply expropriate a piece of people’s land. It’s not that simple.

The process of consultation is not easy. We set up a process that was longer and more deliberative and included everyone and that was maybe not as fast as everybody would like. The challenge becomes that when you exclude some people, when you say to some people, “Your opinion, your voice, what you have to say doesn’t matter; it doesn’t matter, and we’re not going to listen to you,” what does that do? First of all, probably about the worst thing you can do to an individual or a group of people is to say, “What you have to say?” or literally, “You don’t matter. You’re extinct. You’re not in the picture.”

How do you think people are going to react? What are they going to do? First of all, it’s not right. Second of all, they’re going to go to court. And this government’s record in court cases is not really that great. It’s 0 for something, but I don’t know if it’s 10 or 12 by now.

Interjections.

Merci pour la réponse. Prochaine question? Next question?

Unfortunately, I’m going to break the trend, my friend. It was going so great with the French, but I’m not capable of doing that.

You definitely talked a lot about environmental protections and effects on First Nations. We know that First Nations have been left behind for decades under several governments: lack of clean drinking water, lack of proper housing, environmental issues. We’re seeing this government consistently undermine our environmental statuses, and then we see the travel of this bill take it to two communities that aren’t as heavily affected by the mines and no consultation with Indigenous communities.

Can you maybe talk about the fact of why the government would avoid going to communities that would be directly affected by these mines?

Thank you for the question. I’ll answer in French since I just want to continue the discussion in French.

Écoute, Timmins, c’est une ville minière, puis Sudbury aussi. Fait que c’était normal qu’ils passent par là pour avoir le consentement. Je ne les blâme pas, mais on aurait dû continuer à voyager le projet de loi, se rendre à Thunder Bay, se rendre dans les régions comme Sioux Lookout ou se rendre, tu sais, là où le monde va être affecté, ce qui aurait donné une chance à ces communautés-là de faire une déposition puis d’adresser leurs « concernes ». Mais on sait, à 1 000 kilomètres, de Timmins—de chez nous, Thunder Bay, c’est six heures. De Timmins, ça doit être, je dirais, rajoute un autre deux heures—huit heures? Oui, je dirais huit heures. Fait que, pourquoi ne pas s’être rendu là? Ils voyageaient; c’était le temps d’y aller, là où ça aurait donné l’opportunité aux communautés qui vont être les plus affectées. Ils auraient dû. Pourquoi? Pour donner l’opportunité, parce que, là, on va être dans une situation qui peut-être va nuire à toute la province, puis c’est dommage parce qu’on a eu l’opportunité de faire les bonnes choses.

Merci à la députée de Mississauga-Centre—c’est ça, hein?—puis merci pour la question en français.

Ce que je ne trouve pas acceptable ou que je n’aurais pas de misère à expliquer, c’est quand les minières vous demandent la même chose que les Premières Nations puis que votre gouvernement trouve que ce n’est pas acceptable. Elles vous ont demandé un processus. Les Premières Nations ont dit : « Sans consentement, ça ne bougera pas. » Pourtant, on a eu l’opportunité. On vous a fait une recommandation durant le comité; vous avez dit non.

Avez-vous peut-être pensé que si on avait instauré ça, peut-être que le processus aurait avancé beaucoup plus vite? Peut-être que si on avait été proactifs—s’il y a de quoi que j’ai appris en négociations, c’est que tu mets le processus clair, tu mets un processus qui est équitable pour les deux parties; dans ce cas-là c’était l’employeur puis le syndicat. Mais pourquoi ne pas avoir mis la même situation pour une tierce partie? Qu’est-ce que les minières vous demandaient? On a vu les Premières Nations qui sont venues vous mettre une injonction.

Mais on vous a fait des amendements qui auraient aidé à ce processus-là. Vous avez dit non. Puis là, on va payer le prix. C’est la province au complet qui va payer le prix. Pas à cause de nous, mais à cause de vous.

La question se pose, c’est sûr : 28 ans à faire bouillir son eau. Il y a une génération qui n’a jamais bu de l’eau d’un robinet. Ils boivent l’eau dans les bouteilles. Puis après ça on se demande, puis j’en ai parlé un peu—on vous entend dire que 15 ans, c’est trop long. C’est trop long, mais si on travaillait proactivement avec les Premières Nations—puis c’est ça qu’elles demandent, parce qu’elles ont été de bonne foi, les Premières Nations. Elles ont signé un traité, elles ont voulu travailler. Combien de fois est-ce que tu vas dire oui et, qu’après ça, c’est juste sur un bord, ce n’est pas réciproque? Tu signes un mémorandum d’entente; tu t’attends à ce que sur quoi on s’est entendu va se faire.

J’ai parlé d’Attawapiskat. Ils ont signé trois mémorandums d’entente pour agrandir leur communauté. Puis après ça, on est tous surpris que, là, les neuf Premières Nations qui étaient ici pour dire : « Assez, c’est assez. On va vous amener en cour parce que vous ne respectez pas nos territoires, notre consentement puis aussi la transparence. Il faut nous informer. » On est tous surpris, puis après ça on va être surpris de pourquoi ça va retarder—

Bien, je peux dire que quand ça vient à ce projet de loi-là—parce qu’on débat du projet de loi 71, fait que je vais rester sur ça. Moi, je t’ai dit, je représente, dans ma circonscription—puis si tu regardes mon collègue de Kiiwetinoong, on représente beaucoup de circonscriptions qui vont être affectées. On a entendu trop souvent votre gouvernement dire—on parle de Marten Falls. En passant, Marten Falls est dans ma circonscription; Webequie est dans l’autre, celle de mon collègue de Kiiwetinoong.

Les Premières Nations vous ont demandé dès le début d’avoir une étude environnementale beaucoup plus agrandie. Votre réponse à ça, c’était : « Bien, non, on laisse les Premières Nations prendre le devant de ça. » Mais pourquoi ne pas avoir dit aux autres Premières Nations—parce que je sais que, moi, j’ai parlé à certains chefs du Traité 9. Ils ont dit qu’ils n’ont jamais été consultés—jamais été consultés. Moi, je leur parle; je vais là à tous les quatre mois, si possible, pour aller les rencontrer dans ces communautés-là.

Mais pourquoi est-ce qu’on n’a pas consulté avec le Traité 9? Parce que, il ne faut pas l’oublier, l’eau coule vers le nord. S’il y a un désastre quelque part dans la région—les rivières, on parle d’Attawapiskat, des grosses rivières qui s’en viennent. S’il y a un désastre, où est-ce que tu penses qu’il va aller, le désastre? Il va couler vers en bas, vers la baie James, ce qui va affecter les communautés qui y vivent. Il y a deux de ces communautés-là, en passant, mon cher, qui sont évacuées. Tu as Fort Albany et tu as Kashechewan qui sont rendues éparpillées à la grandeur de la province.

En passant, votre gouvernement a signé, quatre ou cinq ans passés, un document pour déménager la communauté de Kashechewan. Où est-ce qu’ils sont? Le chemin n’est même pas bâti. Mais c’est drôle : on parle du chemin, par exemple, du « Ring of Fire » et de comment ça va aller vite et de comment on dépense de l’argent là-dedans. Puis la communauté est où encore, aujourd’hui, cinq ans passés? Ne crois-tu pas que le chemin aurait dû être développé, au moins quelques kilomètres—

I really appreciated the speech from the member from Ottawa South. It’s really good to hear a member who was here when the Liberals were in power talking about a duty to consult, because as a lot of people here will remember, when there were wind turbines going up all over the province of Ontario, I believe that that government actually made it illegal for municipalities to be consulted on this and purposefully left that out of that part of the—and other members can speak to that much more here. I was going to ask the member if he regrets, then—since he’s pontificating in the House today about a duty to consult—the actions of his government when they completely cut out massive chunks of rural Ontario from consultations on wind turbines.

Quickly, I have before me the official Liberal Party position from 2014. According to this news report:

“Ontario’s Liberal Party has recommitted to spending $1 billion to build a highway to the province’s remote, northern Ring of Fire region, regardless of federal” involvement.

“‘We are making it a priority for my government,’” said leader Kathleen Wynne “to cheers from the local crowd. ‘We will commit $1 billion with or without the federal government involvement.’”

My question to the member is this: Why has the Liberal Party totally flip-flopped on this issue and is now utterly abandoning any effort whatsoever to get to the Ring of Fire, notwithstanding the fact that they made that $1-billion promise and then reneged on it?

We’re going to move to questions for the member.

Well, maybe it’s not 0. I think you may have won one, but I’m not sure.

In all seriousness, here’s the problem with the court challenges. It’s not about winning or losing; it’s actually about what happens to the project you’re trying to do when you go to court and you’re not successful. That slows down even further your ability to get the project done.

So I’m kind of torn. There are good things in this bill that talk about development and the extraction of resources in the north for prosperity for all, but the duty to consult is not met. It’s a very clear duty, and it’s different from—like I say, it’s not like you’re trying to build an expressway somewhere and you’re going to expropriate somebody’s land. There’s a process by which we do that here in Ontario. There’s a totally different process and it has to do with the duty to consult. It’s nation to nation.

It makes it very hard to support a bill that has very supportable things in it. That’s the problem when you exclude people, when you say to a group of people or groups of people, “What’s happening on your land or around you doesn’t matter. We don’t need to listen to you. We don’t need to talk to you.” You’re picking winners and losers.

The end result of this is we’re not moving forward in the spirit of truth and reconciliation and what our duties are as a government. That’s not right. It also puts the projects that we want to move forward with at risk because of the legal jeopardy.

I think that that duty to consult gets confused with what we call consultations here in committee, which is, we can call them up in a couple of days and we sit down and listen to people, and then what we see happens—and it’s not just with this government; it’s with other governments that I’ve seen before and other governments in other provinces—is people come and say what they have to say, and we totally ignore them.

It’s different. It’s nation to nation. It’s about our relationship with the people who were here before us. It’s not easy, and sometimes it takes way longer than we all want it to. But if we don’t do it, we put the things that we’re trying to do together to make the north more prosperous—everyone in the north more prosperous—at risk.

I’m going to repeat this again: The process of consultation is different than the thing we do when we’re going to put a new park in, or Ontario Place—oh, wait, no; there was no consultation on Ontario Place, sorry.

The reality is, it’s established through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission—which we’ve committed to—the process by which there is a duty to consult and the nature of those consultations. They take longer. They’re harder. That’s just the way it is, folks. If we want to build together, we have to respect that process.

Thank you for the question. You might want to take a look at the history of the file.

Alors on va continuer en français cet après-midi pour garder nos traducteurs sur leurs gardes. Merci pour votre très bon travail.

Madame la Présidente, je prends la parole aujourd’hui pour appuyer le projet de loi 71, la Loi visant l’aménagement de davantage de mines.

Cette loi a le potentiel de créer de nouveaux emplois, de stimuler la croissance économique et d’améliorer la vie des Ontariennes et des Ontariens.

Comme nous le savons tous, l’Ontario abrite certains des minéraux les plus convoités au monde. Notre province a une longue et fière histoire minière et abrite les plus grands gisements de minéraux au monde, tels que le nickel, le cobalt et le lithium.

L’industrie minière joue un rôle majeur dans l’économie de l’Ontario, en fournissant des milliers d’emplois et en contribuant chaque année à notre PIB à hauteur de plusieurs milliards de dollars.

Cependant, nous ne devons pas considérer cette industrie comme acquise. Nous devons continuer à soutenir ce secteur précieux et à assurer sa croissance et sa prospérité. C’est pourquoi, en mars de cette année, notre gouvernement a lancé notre stratégie pour les minéraux essentiels, qui établit notre feuille de route quinquennale visant à consolider la position de l’Ontario en tant que leader mondial de l’approvisionnement en minéraux essentiels, en investissant dans la poursuite de l’exploration et de l’innovation et en réduisant les formalités administratives afin que les entreprises puissent construire davantage de mines.

La loi visant à accroître le nombre de mines perpétuera la précieuse tradition minière de l’Ontario en renforçant notre position de leader mondial dans le domaine de l’exploitation minière. Elle contribuera à attirer davantage d’investissements et à soutenir notre économie « made in Ontario » en fournissant des minéraux essentiels pour des technologies telles que les smartphones, les véhicules électriques, les batteries et les produits pharmaceutiques.

N’oublions pas qu’en décembre de l’année dernière, notre province était fière d’inaugurer CAMI Assembly, la première usine de fabrication entièrement électrique de notre pays, exploitée par General Motors Canada.

Il n’est pas possible de soutenir notre industrie de véhicules électriques en pleine croissance sans soutenir notre chaîne d’approvisionnement en minerais.

Alors que l’Ontario réalise des investissements ambitieux dans son secteur automobile, ces changements profiteraient à l’ensemble du secteur des minéraux et feraient progresser le plan de notre province visant à construire une chaîne d’approvisionnement plus intégrée, en reliant les producteurs de minéraux du Nord au secteur manufacturier du Sud.

Grâce au projet de loi 71, notre gouvernement contribue à faciliter le développement de nouvelles mines en Ontario. Il rationalisera le processus d’octroi des permis d’exploitation minière, réduira les formalités administratives inutiles et donnera aux compagnies minières une plus grande marge de manoeuvre pour se lancer dans de nouveaux projets.

Les retards dans les projets et les dépassements de coûts sont dus à des formalités administratives redondantes imposées à l’industrie minière, qui peuvent toutes être évitées. Les modifications que nous apportons à la Loi sur les mines amélioreront la compétitivité de l’Ontario et attireront les investissements dans notre province.

Notre projet de loi créera davantage d’emplois bien rémunérés pour les Ontariens et les Ontariennes en permettant aux sociétés minières d’obtenir plus facilement les permis nécessaires à la construction de nouvelles mines.

Nous voulons que les sociétés minières se concentrent sur la création d’emplois et l’exploitation de projets sûrs et durables. Plutôt que d’être submergé par une bureaucratie écrasante, le projet de loi 71 accélérera le délai d’approbation d’un permis d’exploitation minière.

La procédure d’autorisation actuelle est complexe, longue et coûteuse, ce qui entraîne souvent des retards dans les projets, une augmentation des coûts et la perte d’opportunités de développement minier. Ce projet de loi rendra la demande de permis plus efficace, réduisant le fardeau des organismes de réglementation gouvernementaux, tout en garantissant que les projets miniers sont menés à bien en temps voulu et dans le respect du budget.

Ces modifications de la loi sur l’exploitation minière constitueraient un atout majeur pour le nord de l’Ontario en offrant une plus grande certitude pour la planification des activités et la génération d’investissements. De plus, ces développements créeraient des opportunités économiques positives pour nos communautés nordiques et indigènes.

Avec le projet de loi 71, en harmonie avec la stratégie des minéraux essentiels de notre gouvernement, nous nous engageons avec l’industrie, les communautés et les organisations autochtones sur les amendements proposés à la Loi sur les mines. Nous nous engageons à respecter notre obligation de consulter, en collaborant avec les communautés et les organismes autochtones, sur tous les changements législatifs et réglementaires actuels et futurs dans le respect des droits ancestraux et des droits issus de traités.

En outre, la modernisation de la Loi sur les mines soutiendra la transition de l’Ontario vers une économie verte. Nous créerons les conditions permettant à l’industrie minière de construire des mines plus efficacement, tout en maintenant nos protections environnementales de classe mondiale.

L’objectif de notre gouvernement et de renforcer les chaînes d’approvisionnement qui répondent aux intérêts mondiaux tout en soutenant l’économie verte émergente.

En conclusion, j’invite mes collègues de cette Assemblée à soutenir la loi pour construire plus de mines. Ce projet de loi constitue une étape essentielle pour l’économie et la prospérité générale de notre province en tirant parti des précieuses ressources dont nous disposons.

And to conclude, Madam Speaker, I will say a few words in English.

Furthermore, modernizing the Mining Act will support Ontario’s transition to a green economy—yes, a green economy. We are creating conditions for the mining industry to build mines more efficiently while maintaining our world-class environmental protections. Our government’s goal is to strengthen supply chains that meet global interests while supporting the emerging green economy.

I urge all my colleagues in this House to support the Building More Mines Act. This bill is a critical step forward for our province’s economy and overall prosperity, taking advantage of our valuable resources and land.

With that, I move that the question be now put.

We were in the Legislature here when First Nations chiefs came to the Legislative Assembly and they vocalized their disgust, really, around the fact that there wasn’t informed consent on this bill. It’s one of the things I think that the government isn’t listening to. The member talked at length about informed consent. It’s just another indicative factor that this government just wants to rush through things without consulting people who are directly affected by these changes, by this legislation.

I know the member talked about it, but has he heard directly from First Nation chiefs during the public hearings as to how this would affect this legislation going forward and the mining industry?

Point of order.

I’m proud today to rise representing the wonderful people of the riding of Hastings–Lennox and Addington, and even more proud to bring to this House Bill 99, An Act to provide for safety measures respecting movable soccer goals.

Speaker, this Bill 99 provides the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport with the mandate to create regulations to establish requirements for organizations and entities respecting the safe use of movable soccer goals that they make available for use by members of the public. The act provides for inspections and requires the minister to establish a mechanism to report complaints of alleged non-compliance with the act.

It may come as a surprise to many in this House that movable soccer nets tipping over have been blamed for more than 40 fatalities across North America—mostly children. I think we can all agree that if there were 40 fatalities, then there are many, many more significant injuries, incidents causing injury—possibly life-changing injury—and, on top of that, a very, very large number of near misses.

Mobile soccer nets are not inherently bad. Soccer is a wonderful sport—and, I’m told, one of the fastest-growing sports in North America—and we don’t want to stop the players from using these nets or even stop the players from jumping up to grab the bars. A very passionate and self-declared soccer mom, who is also a member of this House that I’m privileged to know and work with, emphasized to me the importance of stretching to reach the bars in all directions for the goalkeepers. It’s part of the practice, the routine of the elite goalkeepers to build that mental understanding of the location of the bars. Personally, I was never a soccer player, and my kids were definitely not elite soccer players, but I do equate it to something that I’ve seen in many other sports. Specifically, I think of NHL goalies who slap the bars of the net with a stick in the pre-game warm-up. It builds on their spatial awareness. So no, Speaker, we’re not trying to curtail or limit the players in their use of these nets.

Nor, Speaker, are we wanting to limit the use of the nets as opposed to other types of nets. There are lots of soccer fields with permanently mounted soccer goals, and those will never tip over. But those fields are also completely dedicated to use as a soccer field. For most facilities, it is much more practical to allow that many different sports are played on the same field, and having nets that can be moved in or out as needed creates that flexibility. It effectively doubles or triples the value of the asset to the school or the municipality or even the private facility owners. It enhances that organization’s ability to provide for outdoor recreation that we all want our children, and even our adults, to have access to.

So no, we want to continue to allow these uses by the property owners and by the players, the kids, but we all want them to be safe while they use them. So we make regulations about how they’re installed. So this bill, if passed, recognizes that the nature of these movable soccer nets and the fields that they’re used on may have many variations. By example, some nets are used on artificial surfaces and, if they’re designed so, can be anchored with the appropriate attachments. Mobile soccer nets used on natural surfaces can sometimes be anchored with pegs or with weights to hold them down. There are a wide variety of nets being used of different materials and for different purposes. So this bill recognizes that, and if it receives royal assent, it will provide the authority for the minister to draft regulations that address the different situations and provide for the enforcement and the penalties for failing to comply.

It even addresses the opportunity to provide signage, stickers, and other educational tools to inform people—especially inform the parents—about these risks. Prior to the incident that I’m about to tell you about, I never knew that mobile soccer nets presented a risk, and I’m willing to bet that, like me, many parents have seen their kids play on or near soccer nets without ever stopping to think that they could tip over. So Speaker, this is a flexible response to reduce the risks of these nets, and I know that preventing these incidents, saving lives and preventing injuries is a priority for all members of the House.

The creation of these regulations will actually not be difficult. There are examples all around us. Several jurisdictions, including the Yukon, Illinois, New York, Arkansas, Wisconsin, have already passed laws requiring the nets to be secure, and almost all soccer associations in Canada and across the world have guidelines on how to do this.

I’ve spoken with the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport extensively on this, and he wants to make sure that there is a strong education and signage mandate within the regulations. He wants to work with the manufacturers, to make sure that the nets are as safe as they can be. So if there’s one single step that members of provincial Parliament can take to save a child, then surely we have an obligation to do so.

Garrett’s Legacy Act does not advocate for more red tape on soccer. It doesn’t want to drive up the cost of soccer—it is a very affordable sport to play—but, rather, the act proactively mitigates possible death or injuries.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I must tell the story that brought me to this bill. It starts about six years ago, within my riding, in the town of Greater Napanee. In fact, three days from now, May 12, will be the sixth anniversary of this tragic story. It was a sunny spring day in May 2017. A 15-year-old boy from Napanee named Garrett Mills was playing in a park with his girlfriend, Joanna, and his best friend, Josh. Garrett was a friendly, positive young man who enjoyed making other people laugh, especially through silly puns, apparently. I’m told he made people better just by being around them.

His parents, Dave and Gwen Mills, are very proud of this responsible and charming young man. With modern technology and cell phones, I’ve actually seen some of the pictures they took that day and that show a young man exactly as he should be: enjoying a beautiful spring day. Later on, his girlfriend told us that Garrett actually said it was one of the best days of his life.

Unfortunately, on that May afternoon, Garrett was goofing around with his friends in a park he’d been to his entire life, and he was hanging off the crossbar of a movable soccer net, doing chin-ups, when tragedy struck. That 200-pound soccer goal collapsed, falling over on top of him, fracturing his skull. Garrett passed away later that afternoon, a victim of an entirely preventable accident.

I didn’t know Garrett personally, but a few months later, I got to know his dad. Dave Mills reached out to me, as I was a grieving father grieving the loss of my own daughter from leukemia. Dave and Gwen Mills are wonderful parents and compassionate human beings. Dave knew what I was going through—no parent should ever have to bury their child. His kind, sympathetic and empathetic words to me at the time were of tremendous comfort to me, and I will always be grateful to him for that.

Part of the stories that Dave told me about his son—he looked up to his son and admired the 15-year-old’s outlook on life. Garrett’s motto was to get out there and make a change in the world for the better, something we should all aspire to. Apparently, in the weeks shortly before the accident, Garrett, in his perennially curious nature, asked Dave what was meant by the term “legacy.” Dave explained that it meant a recognition of what that person did in their lifetime, a recognition that would carry on beyond their own lifetime. Some people write books or music, create art, some will build buildings, some will have statues memorializing their achievements and some have things named after them.

For many of us, our greatest legacy we will ever leave is that of our own children, and the carrying-on of the memory in the parents and the grandparents. It is said that regardless of the length of a person’s life, they do continue to live on as long as someone remembers them. At that time, Garrett had said that he hoped to leave a legacy. I know that Garrett will continue to live on in the hearts of his family, but I hope with this bill to take that one step further.

So, Madam Speaker, we have before us Garrett’s Legacy Act, because a preventable tragedy can no longer be called an accident. Dave and Gwen will continue to remember Garrett, no matter what—is laughter, his love of life. Dave, Garrett’s father, knows he can’t get Garrett back, but he also doesn’t want his son’s death to have been in vain.

So please, let’s carry this bill today and move it forward to committee and third reading so that no other parent has to bury a child because of an incident like this, because of a preventable incident like this. And then Garrett will have his legacy, and Dave and Gwen Mills will know that their son helped to prevent others from suffering the way they have.

I implore you, the elected representatives of the people of Ontario, please act to enshrine Garrett’s name in this Bill 99, the Garrett’s Legacy Act, so that his legacy is the prevention of another family suffering this kind of terrible loss.

I know that any member here, if you could prevent the loss of a young person or prevent a parent from having to bury their child, they would do it. This bill will do just that. I ask that you all support this.

Madame Kusendova has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred to the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Mr. Bresee moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 99, An Act to provide for safety measures respecting movable soccer goals / Projet de loi 99, Loi prévoyant des mesures de sécurité pour les buts de soccer mobiles.

Further debate?

I rise today to speak on the matter of a private member’s bill concerning Garrett’s Legacy Act (Requirements for Movable Soccer Goals). This is a bill which I believe offers a reasonable and considered approach to an issue of significant importance.

The bill was introduced and named after a Napanee youngster, Garrett Mills, who died in a tragic mishap in the spring of 2017. While the bill has been presented in the House multiple times, it has not received royal assent, and I am happy to facilitate this conversation further into committee and the government. David Mills, Garrett’s father, knows nothing can bring his son back. However, he has said that getting the bill reintroduced and eventually passed will certainly help.

As a parent and as a grandmother, my heart and my condolences go to the Mills family. What happened six years ago was heart-wrenching, and together with the entire NDP caucus, we are keeping your family in our minds and in our hearts and in our prayers. We are sending you our love, and we hope that this tragedy never, ever occurs to another child in Ontario again.

Drawing from the rich history of dialogue in this chamber, I’m reminded of the words of Nelson Mandela, who once said, “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” This sentiment is as relevant now as it was then, especially when we consider the safety of our children, the future of our province. This powerfully underscores the moral and societal obligation we have as adults to ensure the safety and well-being of our children at home, at school, within the community and especially in sports.

Garrett’s Legacy Act is a bill that is a response to a tragedy, a tragic accident that took the life of a young boy and a young child named Garrett Mills. His legacy, however, is one that can provide safety and assurance for all children who participate in the beloved sport of soccer across Ontario.

As we debate this bill, let us remember that at the heart of this legislative endeavour is the memory of a child whose life was cut far too short and the family who had the courage to turn their grief into advocacy. The bill’s main provision, which is to establish safety standards for movable soccer goals, is a reasonable step towards the goal of child safety. This is not an overly restrictive measure, nor does it impose burdensome regulations on sporting organizations. Rather, it asks us to take reasonable precautions to prevent avoidable accidents from happening again.

There are those who may argue that the measures proposed in this bill could prevent challenges to small sporting organizations. This is a fair concern, but cost does not always have to lead to a stalled process. While responsibility and accountability are the cornerstones of good governance, this bill encourages responsibility not just at the governmental level but also within our community organizations. It asks everyone to play their part in safeguarding our children.

It is vital—I cannot overstate this piece—to make sure that the government will be required to do their proper due diligence with the amateur and sporting non-profits across the province that maintain these facilities to ensure there’s no undue cost. While I recognize that the member opposite who is proposing this legislation cannot include funding in this type of legislation, I will publicly muse that it might be reasonable that the ministry commit to community consultation and consider a type of reserve or additional measures funding to offset any costs so that organizations or parks and recreation departments through municipalities can meet any new protocols.

Rules are only as strong as they are used and enforced, and if this chamber and ultimately the House moves forward to codify this bill into law, then we should be mindful of ensuring that, down the road, the ministry evaluates resources to ensure compliance and that the ministry checks in with our sports stakeholders across the province, the actors who are doing the work—who are often volunteers—of youth sports.

The importance of children and youth sports in Ontario cannot be overstated. Participating in sports provides a multitude of benefits, from fostering a healthy lifestyle and promoting physical development to teaching invaluable life skills such as teamwork, discipline and resilience. Sports serve as a platform for children and youth to learn about co-operation, leadership and the importance of setting and achieving goals.

Yet beyond the personal growth opportunity, youth sports play a crucial role in community building. They create bonds among children, families and community members, fostering a sense of unity and belonging. Youth sports is where my family grew many of our friendships, ones that last to this day. They provide a safe and constructive environment for children to engage with their peers, thereby promoting social inclusion and diversity.

Support for youth sports is not merely an investment in our children, but in the future of our society. It ensures that these beneficial experiences remain accessible to all, regardless of socio-economic status or geographic location. In doing so, we are fostering a healthier, more connected and more resilient future for generations to come. Therefore, it is our collective responsibility as parents, educators, community leaders and policy-makers to continue to champion and invest in youth sports in Canada. Our children deserve nothing less.

I am a former coach of youth sports. It is paramount that we do everything and anything possible to keep children safe when they are playing sports in the province of Ontario. This brings me to St. Catharines, a community that I’m kind of passionate about, and passionate about its youth sports—home to countless soccer fields, and as our Scottish community calls them, often a football field, where thousands of children play, grow and foster a love for the game. Sports are to be enjoyed.

We have great sporting leagues in my riding. The St. Catharines Jets Soccer Club, Garden City soccer club, the St. Catharines Minor Baseball Association, the St. Catharines Kiwanis aquatics club, St. Catharines Rowing Club, St. Catharines Falcons hockey, St. Catharines Junior Badgers. I’d best there stop there or I’ll take up all the time that is going to be remaining. The point is that, despite the rain, the heat or the early mornings, parents and their children show up every day eager to play and to improve. We owe it to them to make sure we do all we can to keep each and every child safe within all of our communities in Ontario.

These are examples of the vibrant youth sporting cultures we have in St. Catharines and, indeed, across Ontario. This culture, this spirit of sport, is something we want to encourage, support and, most importantly, safeguard. Through reasonable measures such as the ones proposed in Garrett’s Legacy Act, we can do just that.

In the face of potential challenges, let us also remember the creativity, the resilience and the commitment of the people of Ontario. We have seen it time and time again, how our communities rise to the challenge, and I am confident that they will rise to this one as well. Garrett’s Legacy Act is a reasonable, balanced approach to a critical issue. It seeks to protect our children, to ensure the joy of the sport is not marred by preventable tragedies. It invites us—as lawmakers, as community members and as Ontarians—to uphold our responsibility to our youngest citizens.

It is my hope that the ministry will follow up with consultation with the community, the volunteer and amateur sporting organizations to ensure that any measures enacted today will be met with the equally weighted support of our Ontario government to ensure costs are offset and goals can be reached.

I will be supporting this bill with the understanding that it is not just about movable soccer goalposts, but about the legacy we leave behind for our children, about the safe and vibrant sporting culture we want for them. Let us all in this House across Ontario please remember Garrett. Let us honour his family’s advocacy. Let us forever keep Garrett in our hearts and minds, across every soccer field, across every sporting event. Most of all, let his legacy be one of safety, care and love for the sport he played.