When we talk about sustainability, transparency and certainty, as the member opposite has highlighted, how are our investors, how are businesses and how are, in some cases, folks from other jurisdictions supposed to come here and confidently invest when it’s taking 15-plus years to open some of these mines?

We need these minerals now. We need good jobs in Ontario. Why does the opposition continue to stand in the way of that?

Let’s look back, then. I’m from North Bay. Other members may suggest it’s not north enough, but I still call it northern Ontario. North Bay had a vibrant secondary mining sector. It provided a lot of machinery and materials that were used. Under the previous government, we lost hundreds, if not thousands, of mining jobs out of North Bay, which had quite an impact on the community itself.

To say that there is investment—that investment has come because of a Progressive Conservative government that has started to make changes, has started to make smart, pragmatic changes to regulation. I hope—and I’d love to hear—will the member support this bill when it comes up for the vote at second reading?

To the contrary, we’re not standing in the way of it; in fact, we are not at all. You are not identifying all of the core problems when it comes to opening up a mine. Financial investment is one of the key barriers. I don’t know if you’re saying we do not have a robust mining industry in Ontario. We already do; it already exists. We’re global leaders and proud of that.

People are investing in our community. They are investing in this industry because they know that there are good regulations, that there are good protections, that they’re operating in an environment that is robust and that has the kind of protections that attract investments, attract employees and skilled workers, and attract the kinds of things that we want in this province. It already exists. So it’s hard to understand why you are watering this down.

The intention is there, the intention that we all share, which is to support and improve the mining industry for the prosperity of Ontarians, but you need help with this bill to make sure that’s what happens.

Questions and responses?

Interjection.

Je voudrais remercier le député de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. Merci de votre discours. La sécurisation de la chaîne d’approvisionnement nécessite que l’Ontario puisse être compétitif face aux autres juridictions. Ma question pour le député : qu’est-ce que cette loi va faire pour assurer que notre province est la première juridiction d’exploitation minière à l’échelle mondiale?

The member from Thornhill.

I want to thank the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for his statement. We’re engaging with communities, Indigenous and Indigenous organizations, and my question to the member is further to that. I’m asking him how this will affect the communities that are relying upon this industry and the consultation that has been involved with the Indigenous communities.

We know we don’t want the men and women who work in mines to wind up living in mining camps long-term. We want them to be building communities in neighbouring municipalities or creating new communities, but in order for people to have confidence that they can build their lives in these communities that are very close to where the mines are, and raise families there, they also need to be confident that the remediation that follows has already been planned and financed, that those financial guarantees are there. Otherwise, you’re looking at very precarious—you don’t know whether you can really trust those places as places to live for the long term.

That’s my concern, and I wonder if you can speak to that.

Merci. Questions?

Est-ce qu’il y a une réponse de mon ami? Parce que c’est un sujet délicat pour L’Orignal. Est-ce qu’on a des leçons aujourd’hui, avec Colacem, pour ce projet de loi ici?

J’ai travaillé moi-même, quand j’étais plus jeune, en tant qu’électricien—c’était un de mes premiers métiers—justement à la fonderie de L’Orignal. Je peux vous dire qu’il y avait plein de gens de la région. On avait, à un moment donné, 800 employés, puis c’est un secteur très important. Puis je pense que pour cette raison-là, au fil des années, on a vu beaucoup de choses qui se sont améliorées. Je l’avoue, je travaillais là voilà 30 ans. Les impacts côté pollution étaient moins surveillés, mais aujourd’hui, grâce à tous les gouvernements, on tient ça de près, puis on fait sûr que les—

Questions?

Puis je crois que c’est une excellente opportunité pour nous de pouvoir créer des jobs, des emplois payants dans les différents métiers. Moi-même, monsieur le Président, je suis électricien de métier. Même si je suis devenu politicien au fil des années, ça reste que ce sont des sujets qui me tiennent à coeur. Je vois plein de gens alentour de moi qui gagnent leurs vies à faire des métiers qu’ils aiment—

Thank you.

Questions?

The member from Hamilton.

West–Ancaster–Dundas. It’s a problem, honestly. People are saying my riding name so wrong so often that I almost said it wrong myself the other day.

Est-ce que vous pouvez nous rassurer que projet de loi va protéger les travailleurs? Et finalement, est-ce qu’il y a des assurances que les gens qui vont investir seront protégés s’il y a une faillite dans ce secteur?

It gives me great pleasure to rise as the official opposition critic for economic development, job creation and trade to add my thoughts about Bill 71, the Building More Mines Act.

As I start my comments, I think it’s important that members on the other side, on the government benches, recognize that this is a bill that the official opposition will be supporting at second reading, but we do very much rely on this government to travel the bill, to travel the bill properly and to listen to as many stakeholders as wish to appear at committee to make sure that this is a strong bill, a robust bill and one that has been built with public consultation. Because when we see many pieces of legislation that are brought forward in this chamber, much is left lacking, and that is perhaps intentional on the part of this government, to omit things which are very glaring in their absence.

I’d like to also start by saying this government’s track record on relationships and partnerships with Indigenous peoples is abysmal. As well, their record on enhancing and maintaining environmental protections is similarly abysmal. In 2018, when this government first assumed power, in their throne speech, they started it without an Indigenous land recognition—a horrible omission. And then, one of their first acts was to cancel the Indigenous curriculum-writing sessions while people were already in attendance. They were either already on their way or they had arrived and they were told to go home. Now, as well, we’ve heard and seen an ideological obsession to not declare September 30 a provincial holiday to recognize truth and reconciliation, which is truly bizarre.

But as I move my comments towards mining, mining is an excellent industry here in the province of Ontario. It’s a great and strong industry. It provides good-paying jobs, those union jobs with benefits, with a pension. I know members across the aisle are probably going to plug their ears and shriek, but it actually provides paid sick days. Imagine that. I know they’re very upset about that concept, but that is something that is provided with more union membership.

Mining also has a history in the province and it has moved away from that history. I believe our House leader, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, mentioned how, in the past, there were not closure plans, there was not the same sort of responsibility that has now been placed and that the mining industry has welcomed and is something that they’ve worked very hard to make sure that they are good corporate partners, good global citizens. They’ve brought up the industry. They’ve made sure that they are not only looking after the now but they’re looking after the eventualities of their industry within the province, which is excellent.

This is a huge financial risk, not only for the industry itself but also for the province, and we want to make sure that it’s one where we look after our environment for generations to come.

I’d like to also turn to what is known as “a dish with one spoon” teachings. I’d like to thank Dan and Mary Lou Smoke, some wonderful people from my riding, who have taught me about what that concept actually means and what that teaching means. Frequently, it is a covenant that was engaged in between Indigenous peoples to indicate a shared responsibility, an agreement. Sometimes you might refer to it as a truce as it were so that they can share within the wealth in Mother Earth.

When we take a look—it’s called “a dish with one spoon”—the dish refers to the land, and it’s meant to be shared peacefully; it’s meant to be shared equally; it’s meant to be shared among all people for their benefit, and the spoon is what refers to the individuals living on that land. But what it actually means at the heart of it, as Dan and Mary Lou have indicated to me, is that there is enough when we share with one another. There is enough when we take good care of the earth.

“A dish with one spoon” also has resonance with extracted economies: that we don’t pillage the earth; we don’t take too much from the earth—and if we do take from the earth, we make sure we take in moderation and we make sure we do not destroy what’s left for future generations to come.

This has resonance in many other places in the world and many other disciplines. For instance, in Tao Te Ching there is a writing that says “the person who knows when enough is enough will always have enough.” When we share with one another, when we don’t hurt the earth too much, we will have a good environment for generations to come.

I also think of the words of Bishop Terry Dance. We live in a world right now where there’s this singular focus on what he calls “unbridled acquisitiveness.” There is this rampant greed where people are more interested in what they themselves can obtain and what they can take than there is about how we should look after one another, and that’s something I believe we have to be very cognizant of and very careful of. If we look after one another, we all win. If we look after the environment for generations to come, those generations will also win. We need to take the selfishness out of many of these equations.

As I look at this legislation itself, there are some deep concerns, one of which would be that, in Bill 71, it replaces the “director of mine rehabilitation” anywhere in the Mining Act with “minister.” We know from this government that their track record on environmental protections is abysmal. They’ve ripped out those charging stations that were already paid for—it was a bad business. Not only were they paying to destroy something, but they were paying to destroy something they had already paid for. So if they could have taken money and thrown it in the toilet, it seems this Conservative government would have done so in their ideological battle against environmental protections.

But we’ve also seen Bill 23, which is the commodification of the greenbelt for a few very well-connected backroom insiders, under the disguise and the weak cloak of calling this a bill for affordable housing. So when we see this consequential change of the “director of mine rehabilitation” being replaced with “minister,” it doesn’t exactly inspire trust on behalf of the official opposition, or really anyone in the province, because nobody believes this government on their track record of environmental protections.

Also, we see that there is the elimination of the reference to the director of mine rehabilitation altogether—the person who’s going to be looking after this in the future. And why is that eliminated? You know, MiningWatch Canada’s Jamie Kneen has said, “Undoing safeguards and making the process more streamlined and less accountable is really just, I think, a recipe for disaster.”

Kate Kempton, an Indigenous rights lawyer, has said, “Ford is proposing to strip the closure plan approval process and First Nations engagement in it to a bare minimum, which was—it’s basically taking of the last thread of protection that we have.”

Kneen goes on to say, “This (Pirie’s reassurances of continued environmental safety and Indigenous consultations) is coming from a government that has shown no consistent respect for either of those things, so it’s really hard to take that seriously.”

In this bill, as well, the rehabilitation will be changed to a different use or condition that the minister determines. Again, I’m not so sure that we can trust the minister. And the minister becomes the locus of control, as they will look at the land and they will deem it suitable for future use or a site determined by the minister.

Now, I also want to make sure that we add in the record that the mining industry has really raised the standard. They have made sure that they have financial security, they have closure plans. This government is really tinkering with these closure plans, which is very concerning. They also are very curiously, where there is a closure plan, weakening that in a very strange way. This bill allows the applicant, who may not meet all the existing criteria for a mine closure plan, to nonetheless submit a claim. Is this a workaround? That’s a good question that we have.

Further, the bill sets out that the minister shall file a closure plan within 45 days of it being submitted or return the applicant for resubmission if it misses one of their parameters as set out in the act. Why is there this contradiction? We’re not sure. This needs to be answered by this government.

I also want to highlight what we heard as we travelled with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, which was the concept of tailings. MIRARCO, who submitted a presentation for the committee, also said they have the Centre for Mine Waste Biotechnology, the first of its kind in Canada, which will take a look after those tailing ponds, which grow exponentially year after year after year and the dams are just made higher and higher. We know and we’ve heard from the member from Sudbury about the crisis that happened in Brazil, where hundreds of people died. But this company has a great way to extract some of the things that are being left there as waste.

I just want to point out some of the statistics that they shared with us at committee. They felt that there’s between $8 billion to $10 billion of nickel contained in the Sudbury mine—

Je crois, quand ça vient à la sécurité des employés, que ce soit dans n’importe quel secteur, que nous avons différents ministères qui font sûr de suivre ça de près, parce qu’on sait tous que la sécurité des Ontariens est une des choses qui nous tient le plus à coeur.

En tant qu’ancien maire et ancien président de comté, je peux vous dire que je peux constater que la plupart des politiciens ont la santé des gens à coeur, puis c’est ça qui est la priorité. Quand ça en vient à l’environnement, bien, je peux vous dire qu’aujourd’hui, avant qu’un projet ne se concrétise, il y a tellement d’études qui sont mises en place pour démontrer l’impact environnemental que je ne crois pas que ça va être un problème pour nous. Je pense qu’on doit continuer. On ne change pas la réglementation; on fait juste faire en sorte que c’est plus facile de bâtir des mines en Ontario.

I think with this bill there is a big misunderstanding from the opposition about regulations. This bill doesn’t change regulations and consultations. We’ve seen, in the province, more than ever, projects that are partnered with First Nations, and I think our government has the will to keep working with First Nations and consult with the public on different projects in the near future. And I think we need their partnership in order to be successful in this province.

When I was a young woman in the 1970s, there were no women’s shelters and there were no rape crisis centres, but because of the growing second wave of the women’s movement, women were gathering together and creating safe spaces from the ground up. But if you read the newspapers of the time, you would have seen these community builders—these feminists—described as half-crazed man-haters out to destroy the world as we knew it.

Well, we did want to change the world as we knew it because domestic violence was commonplace, though never spoken of at the time, and victims of sexual assault had no supports and were blamed for the behaviour of their attackers.

Thank goodness those activist women persisted, and others have come along since to keep these safe places going in spite of perpetual underfunding, because today we are still struggling with violence against women and gender-nonconforming folks, femicides and rapes that are still routinely blamed on the victims. And if those victims are racialized, especially those who are Indigenous or Black, then they will be doubly blamed—particularly in our court systems—because being racialized is often reason enough to be beaten down and cast aside.

We call these things sexism and racism and say that we want to celebrate diversity, but talking about diversity doesn’t acknowledge the root of the problem. Sexism and racism aren’t here because people look or act a bit differently from ourselves. They are tools to take what would not otherwise be freely given. They are here because of beliefs in entitlement—beliefs that some people have the right to dominate others, that some have the right to punish those who deviate from gender-based norms or the right to punish those who don’t go along with what someone has decided they should be doing.

I’m thinking at this particular moment, actually, of the Indigenous communities that are being told, “We know best,” even if it takes being run over by a bulldozer to get their agreement.

I want to turn now towards those people and organizations in northwestern Ontario who put themselves on the line every day to provide safe spaces and name the residential shelters of northwestern Ontario. These are Beendigen and Faye Peterson House in Thunder Bay, First Step Women’s Shelter in Sioux Lookout, the Geraldton women’s shelter in Greenstone, Hoshizaki House in Dryden, Marjorie House in Marathon, New Starts in Red—

Last December, I had the privilege of attending the second-year anniversary event for Construct, a social enterprise by Blue Door. It was held at their brand new training space in my riding located in Aurora. Construct is a proven solution to end homelessness. It provides individuals at risk or who have experienced homelessness with in-class training and hands-on experience in the construction industry.

Both youth and adults are given the opportunity to improve their lives by gaining financial stability and affordable housing through a well-paying career. Construct is working to turn insecurity into permanent change by connecting participants with apprenticeships and opportunities with contractors and unions. Since Construct’s launch in 2020, which was made possible by our government’s support through a grant of over $1.3 million, they have seen over 200 trainees go through the program, which has helped participants find over 120 well-paying construction jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank our government for providing the funding. The positive impacts on people’s lives resonate throughout my community.

Thank you. I want to thank the member for her presentation.

The next member’s statement.

I’d like to recognize our Cornwall Community Hospital Foundation for their inaugural Dancing with the CCH Stars event held on Saturday at Cornwall’s Aultsville Theatre. This fundraiser celebrated the exceptional care, tenacity, compassion and hard work of our local health care professionals who treat patients across SDG, Akwesasne and Cornwall.

Dozens of local businesses sponsored the event. Thank you to the many community-minded businesses that always step up. Success is not possible without the support of the business community.

The event sold out in less than two days, and guests were treated to high-quality entertainment.

Cornwall Community Hospital Foundation will purchase $50,000 worth of medical equipment for a special project chosen by the winning team.

I’d like to acknowledge the six teams of dancers who spent the last five months training with two local dance schools, Powell School of Dance and Studio C Dance School—talk about dedication:

—Dr. Akram Arab and Meghan Cafferky;

—Dr. Celine Lemire and Anthony Powell;

—Dr. Renee Givari and her husband, Tim;

—RNs Joy Cella and Amie McCosham, RPN Kathleen Jack and Dr. Leslie Stephens;

—Josée Amyot, RN, and Rhiannon St. Pierre; as well as

—Andrew Bissonnette and Robin Barillaro, both RNs at the hospital and at the college.

Congratulations to Dr. Akram Arab and his dance partner, Meghan Cafferky, who won the competition, with $50,000 going towards medical upgrades supporting critically ill patients at CCH’s ICU.

Huge congratulations to the Cornwall Community Hospital Foundation executive director, Amy Gillespie, and development coordinator, Kelsey Lindsay, on raising over $125,000.

Thank you to the member from London North Centre. The time for debate has come to an end.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.