I have listened carefully and I ask the members opposite to listen to me, and to listen to these quotes in the House from their own members: “Mining represents billions of dollars for Ontario....” and “the mining industry is an important economic driver for all of Ontario....” That’s what the member for Nickel Belt said in this House, a member of His Majesty’s loyal opposition.

The member for Algoma–Manitoulin stood in this House and proclaimed, “We all know that there is huge potential in this province for mining, which will benefit Ontario’s and Canada’s economy.” We agree. Please support this bill and stop saying it’s flawed.

This bill will unleash great potential for all of the province of Ontario for generations to come. We hope that those sound bites were not just rhetoric—

Interjection.

In the spirit of co-operation and good governance—which is possible in this House; we’ve seen it a few times—and doing what is best for Ontarians, for Indigenous communities, for northern communities, I urge that partisan language cease, that partisan catcalling cease, and that we put this to a vote as soon as possible and get this done as soon as possible.

I worry, despite the catcalling and the suggested support for this bill, that what may happen is short-term thinking and partisan games, because we know the opposition parties have changed course. They voted against the Ontario Junior Exploration Program, and therefore they voted against exploration in this province. They voted against the Critical Minerals Innovation Fund, and therefore voted against investments in innovation. They voted against the Critical Minerals Strategy and the development in the Ring of Fire, and therefore voted against seizing the opportunity that would provide an era of unprecedented wealth for all Ontarians. Don’t make the same mistake.

Don’t make any effort to gut this bill or amend this bill. It is wisely drafted. It protects and balances all environmental concerns. Let’s remember that this bill supports an industry that consists of 75,000 jobs, contributing $13 billion to Ontario’s GDP every year. It is beyond crystal clear: Any suggestion that this bill is flawed, any suggestion that this bill makes any changes to our world-class environmental protections is a flawed view of this bill.

I now turn it over to my colleague who will be sharing my time.

We need to be able to hear the speakers, so, please, I will ask for order in the House.

Now I will recognize the member for Halliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I grew up in a town that had a mine called Moose Mountain Mine. My mother was actually one of only four women who worked at the mine.

During the 1970s, as the member from Sudbury may recall, the mine was shuttered, and it devastated Capreol, as it devastates communities in the north. That’s why I am so touched, so proud to be part of a government that recognizes the value of the minerals in northern Ontario. The member from Sudbury spoke about how often people in northern Ontario feel that they are being neglected by governments in southern Ontario, but this is a government that recognizes all of the opportunities.

Could either of my colleagues please speak to why we as a government are not only bringing forward a bill, Bill 71, to expedite mining, but investing in all of the minerals in northern Ontario and the economic opportunities it will bring to the north and spinoffs to the south?

We will move to questions.

Next question.

My question is to the member from Durham. I am glad that he quoted some of the people on our side regarding the importance of mining. We’ve been focused on mining for a long time; it’s very important in our part of the world.

I listened intently to his speech, and I also listened intently to the minister’s speech. And we’re going to vote for the bill on second reading, which we made pretty clear.

But there’s been, even with the two speeches, a difference. The minister said, several times, that 15 years to build a mine was unacceptable; the member from Durham said 15 years to issue a permit. Those are two entirely different things, so I’d like you to clarify: What are we talking about here, 15 years to issue a permit or 15 years to build a mine? Those are two different things, and words matter. That’s why this bill needs to be reviewed.

I’m very much in support of mining when done with all the necessary checks and balances. But the Ford government, including the member from Durham, talks about the Ring of Fire as if it were a done deal. But every time the Conservative government makes one of these announcements, we hear from First Nations that they have not been consulted and that the province has not obtained their free, prior and informed consent. Premier Ford has talked about bulldozing his way into the Ring of Fire, and I worry that that also includes bulldozing over the legal and moral responsibilities that we have as Canadians to respect Indigenous rights.

Given that this bill skips over sureties for land remediation and gives the impression that haste is more important than careful negotiations, can you tell me how free, prior and informed consent is protected in this bill?

I’ve enjoyed the debate here on all sides today. It has been quite interesting, and I listened to the debate earlier this morning as well.

My question to the member from Haliburton-Frontenac—

Kawartha Lakes.

But he’s right in what he said: We are creating economic incentives, adding options for companies to provide additional financial assurance as construction milestones are reached rather than providing a lump sum up front to help reduce costs. That’s one of the other things—you can only talk so much in the time you’re allotted, but I wanted to put those points in.

Reducing regulatory burden: We heard you can’t wait 15 years to site. We’ve got to help these companies that are helping us and helping the world, really, to open up more quickly and efficiently, not compromising our world-class environmental standards. And all of that makes us competitive. We have to be competitive by adapting and modernizing, and that’s what we are doing with this act. It’s going to be more on par with the best jurisdictions in the world and in Canada, and that’s what we need to do to move forward.

The member opposite was just talking about—

Interjection.

Interjection.

I want to congratulate the member for Sudbury, first of all, in the work that he did in the mines. Second of all—

Interjections.

So yes, we’re going to agree to vote to pass this bill to committee because bills need to be discussed and in committee, we know that’s where a lot of the input comes back and forth. And so, I just want to ask the Conservative government, when this is going to go to committee, will you listen to voices like workers who are experienced, like Indigenous communities, and if there are changes to be made, will you accept those amendments during committee process?

It’s always an honour to be able to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the people of Timiskaming–Cochrane and especially on Bill 71, Building More Mines Act. Timiskaming–Cochrane is fairly unique in Ontario because our economy relies on three main pillars: forestry, agriculture and mining. That is very unique. We have a perspective. The first thing I’d like to do is give a shout-out to PDAC and to the people from northern Ontario who hosted the Northern Ontario Night last night at the Steam Whistle brewery. A lot of us were there. I’d like to give a shout-out to our home garage band, the Kings of Nowhere, who played there last night. They’re a great band, it was a great party and I’m finally—kind of—over the hangover, just to let you know.

Everyone knows in this House that I’m a farmer, but a lot of my friends work or worked in mines. My best friend, who has since passed away, offered once to take me to where he worked. I went to 6,600 feet in Macassa mine—it was owned by Lac Minerals then; they don’t allow this anymore—it’s now Agnico Eagle Mines. I will mention them again. I have a lot of respect for that company. We went to 6,600 feet. Then we went to 7,200 feet. And I couldn’t believe the working conditions: the heat, the smell. Miners are a fraternity, because only they know—only they really know what it’s like.

I’ve never had this opportunity, but I’d like to mention Randy Yantha, one of my best friends, who has since passed away, who took me down there. A few years later at that mine they had a bump. Randy wasn’t down that shift, but I thought he was, and I went to his house because two people died in that bump. That’s when I saw in his face what it’s like to be a miner. I’d like to give a shout-out to anyone who has ever—mining is much safer than it used to be. Mining has come a long way, but it is still—miners are well paid, but they’re not paid enough for what they do. We, on this side of the House, know that.

I’d also like to give a bit of a tour of the legislative buildings here. On the first floor, on the west side, there is a big chunk of silver. It comes from the Keeley mine just outside of Cobalt in Timiskaming–Cochrane. I believe 257,000 ounces are in that chunk of silver.

Mining isn’t just a new thing. Mining has always been boom and bust. Hopefully, with legislation, we’re trying to take the busts out of it. The silver boom in Cobalt was the first boom in Ontario—the TSX was built from Cobalt. It was the first boom. Then it busted. Then we went to Kirkland Lake and Timmins for gold. We have to remember that.

There are always winners in the boom and losers in the bust. Throughout history, it’s usually the people who are left there to deal with the environmental degradation. There is environmental degradation from mining. Whenever you do anything—there are environmental degradation problems from agriculture, there is from mining too. As we progress, the mining industry, along with government regulation, has found ways to improve that.

But if you go to Cobalt, you can see the degradation from the first mining boom. It’s still there. There are tailings ponds that have never been reclaimed. There are still—not in Cobalt itself, because of Agnico Eagle, but in parts outside of Cobalt and Silver Centre—open mine shafts that no one has ever bothered to close. Even today, no one has ever bothered. That’s something that we have to remember, and it’s really important to remember that. When we hear, “We’ll worry about the financial part of remediation later,” well, you know what? We’ve gone through this a few times, that the company doesn’t make it until later and we’re left with the degradation. No one’s going to tell me that hasn’t happened, because I can take you to those places.

But getting back, I’d like to focus on a company that I’ve had a lot to do with and a company that I respect: Agnico Eagle Mines. They actually got their start in Cobalt in 1955, the Cobalt Consolidated Mining Co. In Cobalt, second generation, after the bust, they had a bit of a boom. In 1957, Agnico became Agnico Eagle, and in 1989, Agnico Eagle stopped mining silver in Cobalt. Agnico Eagle has continued. It’s a major, major mining company. It’s the biggest mining company in my part of the world. It has lately gone together with Kirkland gold, and they control most of the gold mining assets in my part of the world.

To their credit, Agnico Eagle is responsible for the environmental protection of their claims in Cobalt, and they do a good job of it. They do their job. They respect what they took out of the ground and they know they’re responsible. They’re still there, and they take their job seriously. I respect them for that. I’m actually having a meeting with them tomorrow, and hopefully they’re not going to yell at me for what I say.

The last time I met with Agnico Eagle, we talked about the approval process—what can we do better in Ontario for mining? Because Agnico Eagle has also got a big project they’re just developing in my riding—a really big project—so they know how this process works. I’m not going to quote exactly what they said, but regulation isn’t the problem. Regulation protects not only the people, but also protects mining companies. Because now, when someone talks about a mining development, people in my part of the world don’t get frightened because we know we’ve got really strong regs, and that the mining companies live up to those regs because they also have to be responsible to raise money to—we understand that. They understand that.

Talking about getting rid of red tape actually doesn’t help mining companies. Talking about putting bulldozers to the Ring of Fire doesn’t help mining companies. What helps mining companies—and this is what I got from Agnico Eagle, and again, when I meet with them tomorrow, they could correct me, and I hope they do if I’m wrong. What helps mining companies, and what we want to provide in this legislation, is certainty—certainty. That’s what they need. So, “Here are the regs, and if we meet these regs, there is a process that we can understand, that we can go to our investors and say, ‘Okay, we’ve done this and this.’ Now, when we do this, then we’ll have this long and we’ll be able to do that and that and that.” But there’s a difference between talking about making less regulation or providing more certainty. There’s a big difference there.

So in this legislation, we’re talking about—so now we have a director of rehabilitation that goes to the minister. Well, ministers come and go. Governments come and go Government attitude towards industry changes. So I’m not 100% convinced—and that’s why we’re supportive of mining, supportive of what I hope the government is trying to do with this bill. But I’m not sure that putting all the onus on the minister actually adds to certainty.

Does the minister—whoever is the minister of the day—and I have a lot of respect for the current minister. I don’t agree with all his political views, but I know he’s deeply steeped in the mining industry. I know that. I respect that; I do. But does this legislation ensure that future ministers, future governments, will treat all mining projects the same? I don’t see that. I don’t see that. That’s something that the government is going to have to flesh out on how that is going to work for it to add certainty.

I personally—and we in northern Ontario very much so—and the NDP totally support mining for the jobs, for the economic development, for the cornerstone it provides to our province and our country, but we need certainty. When it talks about we’re going to, through regulation, have a qualified person do the remediation plan—okay, but that again provides a window of uncertainty. Who makes the rules for the qualified person in regulation later?

Again, we’re not trying to throw a wrench in this bill, we’re not trying to throw a wrench in the mining industry at all—at all. We want the mining industry to be able to go and get financing and build projects that are environmentally sustainable, that support this country, support this province and that everyone benefits. When I’ve heard several members say, “Oh, yeah, and this is going to help Indigenous communities,” I will challenge how many past mining developments have fully helped Indigenous communities because if that is the case, then they wouldn’t be living in areas with some of the conditions we have now.

Again, we’re not trying to throw a wrench in this, but if you say you’re going to make things better, let’s make them better. Let’s add certainty not just for one minister, for one government—because you’ve created it. And I’m not trying to be partisan. It’s a partisan job, but the current Conservative government has created some misgivings in the public about how you deal with the environment. Now you’re saying the qualified person shall do the remediation plans. Very well, you might have this all figured out, but it sure isn’t figured out in this bill. No one in the mining industry has ever asked that the one thing we need to get this going is to have the minister be responsible for the remediation plan.

I don’t know. What they ask me is for clarity. When I talk to Agnico Eagle, they have mines in several constituencies in this country, and in some areas, they can build a mine faster than in Ontario. And in some of those, the environmental regulations are actually higher than ours. So that tells me we do have a problem in Ontario.

I’m not saying that we can’t do things better in Ontario, but I don’t see that this bill is the answer, because the problems you’re trying to solve or you’re saying you’re trying to solve—I don’t see the answers to those problems.

I’ve heard a lot more rhetoric on your side regarding, “The Liberals have done this, supported by the NDP.” I hear all that rhetoric. But are you hearing that from me? No. We want this to work. That’s why we’re going to be voting for it on second reading. That’s why we hope there is a good committee process and that when amendments are put forward that aren’t partisan in nature, that actually want to make confidence in the mining sector and confidence in the public—because that’s one thing that’s very important. And this isn’t just for the mining sector; this is for agriculture, for forestry, for mining, anything. You need to have public confidence. If the public doesn’t have confidence in what you’re doing, you’re not going to be able to raise the money to keep doing it—maybe in the short term. Maybe in the short term, but in the long term, you’re not. You’re not.

I’ve got a couple of minutes left, and I’m going to—my son works in the mining industry, indirectly. He’s a commercial diver. When the tailings pond let go in 2019—I’m not even going to say the company, because I’m not trying to hurt anybody’s reputation. When the tailings pond let go in Brazil, my son sent me that video before it ever hit the news, because my son dives for that same company in Canada, and they were looking at the dams in Canada to make sure that wasn’t happening in Canada. He sent me a text. He says, “And that’s why you need strong regulations.” Same company, different regulations, different country.

So when you talk about getting rid of red tape, when you talk about that, “Well, we’ll get a qualified person to look at the remediation plan”—they maybe had a qualified person in Brazil as well. But 267 people died when that tailings pond let go, and I believe the company was charged. But, same company—the same thing was happening. Liquefaction, it’s called. A qualified person. But here, we had regulations—good regulations—and we need to keep good regulations. We need to work together to make sure that we have a solid regulatory platform that promotes profitable mining, but also protects people.

Rick is too little.

I’m very thin, so you don’t necessarily see me.

I just want to ask the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, if I got that right: Could you outline a little bit more how you see the benefits of this bill for northern and Indigenous communities, as noted in question 1?

The member for Durham.

Next question, the member for Sudbury.

We’ll have to move to further debate.

It’s an excellent question, Speaker. This is about an overall Critical Minerals Strategy that benefits Ontario north and south, east and west. Our government has put a great deal of thought into the proposed legislation and how, through that legislation, we can address the supply chain issues that the world is experiencing.

That’s why we launched the Critical Minerals Strategy, with targeted investments like the Ontario Junior Exploration Program. That’s all part of our plan, along with the Critical Minerals Innovation Fund, for building this province and securing the supply chain. It is about integrating the province and putting it all together.

Again, government leads, government creates a plan and then we unleash the potential through legislation like this.

What I’m hearing, though, from the members opposite: They say it’s flawed but they won’t point out details. They say they want to make changes but they won’t tell us what they are. We believe that this is a sound, thoughtful piece of proposed legislation and it builds on the original intent of the original act that is being amended. Let’s remember this: What goes unchanged is that, “The purpose of this act is to encourage prospecting, registration of mining claims”—and I hope the members opposite don’t mind if I read from the actual act, which is going to continue—

I hope they support that concept, which is fundamental to this bill—

Thank you, madame la Présidente. I appreciated the submissions made by the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane. I was listening carefully to his comments. He is obviously a very experienced and respected member of this assembly, and I recognize his experience and I respect him.

He made some comments with regard to communications that he had with various mining interests, and it’s good that members of the House communicate with people in their ridings about their concerns. I was hoping that the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane might give us some feedback about what he hears in his riding about the length of the permitting process and how long it takes to get through the permitting process. We use the words “permitting process.” There’s not actually a permit, but we refer to the permitting process. What has he heard? What feedback has he gotten on that?

Does the member opposite know—and I listened carefully to his remarks—that there are no proposed changes to our world-class environmental protections by virtue of this proposed bill? Does he know that this bill is in fact about improving how the Ministry of Mines operates and increasing efficiencies? Does he know that updating the Mining Act is crucial to support our transition to a green economy? Does he know that that is what this is about?

We have a government that takes a very clear line when it comes to regulations: They hate them. They hate regulations. They hate them so much that they’ve created a Ministry of Red Tape Reduction because there’s red tape everywhere for them. Sometimes, if you misdiagnose something as red tape, you know what you end up with? Yellow tape. You end up with yellow tape sometimes. And so they don’t have a good track record when it comes to this.

This government has the ability to move really quickly. When it comes to the north, not so much, but here we talk about haste when it comes to removing minerals out of the ground. But when it comes to road safety in the north, like we hear from our amazing member from Mushkegowuk-James Bay, they don’t move too quick. And when it comes to clean drinking water in the north, they’re dragging their feet. They blame the feds. They pass the buck.

I’d like to hear from our member, how does this government choose its priorities when it comes to the north?

We’re going to move to the questions portion of the debate, and I recognize the member for Essex.