It’s an honour to rise to participate in second reading of Bill 71.

I want to be very clear to everyone watching today: Mining is going to play a critical role in Ontario having a competitive advantage in the fast-growing climate economy. We need critical minerals that are mined in a sustainable, ethical way. We need to have a mining-to-manufacturing supply chain not only to build electric vehicles but to also build renewable energy generation, battery storage, micro-grids, electrified public transit. Critical minerals are going to play a vital role, so I want to say to the government, let’s not be hostile to renewable energy anymore. Let’s have this Critical Minerals Strategy be a part of building low-cost renewable energy and resilient grids.

I also want to say to government—and I said this to the Liberals when they were in power—if we’re going to avoid delays in developing the Ring of Fire, then two key critical things need to happen. One is a comprehensive, sustainable land use planning system in place ahead of time to minimize environmental damage and to ensure that we mine in a both fiscally and environmentally sustainable way; and, two, that we work with Indigenous communities to ensure that there’s free, informed and prior consent in the development of mining projects and that we work with those mining companies—and I have met with them—who want to have Indigenous equity ownership as part of mining development in the north.

We can do this. Sudbury’s already leading the way globally in developing sustainable mining practices, especially if you look at places like the mining innovation centre in Sudbury—

One is the phased financial assurances plan that’s in the bill. There can be very good reasons why you would phase that in, but we need to do it in a way that protects Ontario taxpayers. The 2015 Auditor General report says there’s $3.1 billion worth of liabilities of abandoned mines to the people of Ontario. Let’s avoid that in this legislation, moving forward, to protect taxpayers.

And the second one is through the deferred closure plans. Again, I can see the rationale to have flexibility in closure plans, but we need to ensure that those are approved by an independent third party, not by mining companies themselves, to avoid a conflict of interest. So let’s fix that at committee, Speaker.

We need to ensure that the financial assurances system protects the taxpayers of Ontario. According to the Auditor General, we have $3.1 billion in abandoned mining liability; some estimate that’s as high as $7.6 billion now. So we need to ensure that the system is set up in a way to protect the people of Ontario.

And secondly, deferring closure plans: I can understand why we would need flexibility there, but the approval should be done by an independent third party, not by the mining companies themselves.

So I would ask for those changes at committee.

Question?

You’re voting against it, Mike.

Point of order.

Question?

Further debate?

It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak on the wonderful, important bills that we debate here. Before I start, I just want to talk about the only thing, in this House of responsibility—I say, the only thing certain is the uncertainty. When we talk about things today, I must start my debate with: What day is today? March 8, which is International Women’s Day. As we celebrate the remarkable achievements and contributions of women around the world, it is a day to recognize the progress we’ve made towards gender equality and to acknowledge a lot of work that still needs to be done. Together, we can create a world where every woman is valued, respected and empowered. Let’s choose to challenge the status quo and work towards a more equal and just society. It’s not just a word; we need to take action.

By the way, Madam Speaker, I want to mention—an honourable mention: Kudos to my wife, Aruna Anand, and daughter, Suvidhi Anand, two wonderful women, for doing a great job. I have to say this: Thank you for doing everything you do. I don’t know what I would do without you. So thank you, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to acknowledge this. Happy International Women’s Day. Now you guys can clap.

Over to Bill 71: I rise in the House today to speak on Bill 71, the Building More Mines Act, 2023, and the benefits that this bill will bring to our province’s economy, industry and its hard-working people. Canada is a source of many, many resources. It is a resource superpower. But years of neglect and red tape have been roadblocks for our mining sector. I think it is fair to say that it should not take 15 years to issue a mining permit, but that’s what is happening right now in the province of Ontario.

Mining in Ontario supports 28,000 direct jobs and approximately 47,000 indirect jobs. It is a big driver of our provincial economy. In 2021, the average median weekly wage in Ontario’s mining and quarrying sector was 60% higher than the average for all industries combined, according to the Labour Force Survey. That’s how important it is. By 2025, the mining industry will need to hire between 30,000 and 48,000 workers to fulfill its labour needs. These are immense challenges we must confront head-on, as part of this government’s strategy to address labour shortages in this province. On one side, when we talk about saying that there’s going to be a lot of immigrants coming to Canada, about 500,000 every year by 2025, and 300,000 of those are going to end up coming and choosing Ontario as their new home, we want to be making sure there are enough resources, there are enough jobs, there is enough structure in place to support them. This bill helps in that direction as well.

The Ontario Mining Association’s 2022 economic report said that in 2019, OMA member mines provided nearly 3,000 jobs with average earnings of over $87,000 to Indigenous community members. Indeed, these are positive figures, but our government is dedicated to further improve these numbers, so that we can share the prosperity with everybody.

In 2021, mining in Ontario directly contributed to an estimated total of $8 billion to GDP, $2.9 billion in wages and salaries. Additionally, the 2022 State of the Ontario Mining Sector survey said that the GDP contribution from the mining industry in Ontario will grow 25% in the next five years. Approximately 77% of Ontario’s mining company contributions stay inside Ontario. Look at it this way: When we create this economy, we actually have the benefit of income multiplier. When you create $1, that actually adds up, gives a job to someone else. There is a domino effect, and it creates an additional $8 to the economy. That’s what we’re doing. When we strengthen our mining sector, we’re strengthening our Ontario. These figures indicate that the mining industry is indeed one of the major drivers of our economy. That is why it is important for us to pass this bill.

Ontario’s rare minerals are used in products worldwide, not just for us. We are helping the world to grow as well. Our province sits on mineral reserves considered critical by many places for domestic and economic needs.

Madam Speaker, you must have heard this loud and clear multiple times from our caucus members: While the Liberals and the NDP like to burn bridges in our province’s economic prosperity, this side of the members is here to build, to make sure we have a strong Ontario, and we will continue to do that. We are building a supply chain bridge between southern and northern Ontario. Northern Ontario will boost mineral supply production and the south gets game-changing investments like the EV industry. This way, we’re able to help each other. This will build a resilient supply chain and will greatly contribute to the wealth and prosperity of our province.

Let’s look at what this bill is doing. If passed, the Building More Mines Act, 2023, would save companies time and money without sacrificing our world-class environmental standards or the crown’s duty to consult. Specifically, the act will approve mines faster by eliminating duplication, providing operational flexibility and reducing costs, and advance critical mineral projects by making it easier for companies to get a permit to recover minerals from mine tailings and waste. These are the materials left behind after a mine has closed.

Madam Speaker, think about a situation when, many, many years back, if there was a mine which closed and had the deposits sitting, back then, the value of those metals was maybe a fraction of what it is today. That metal today is worth way more than when it was there. It may not be economically feasible at that point in time to regenerate or recollect that mineral, but today, that makes it easier, makes it financially better, and when we recover those metals, they’re actually taking less from our Mother Earth so we’re able to accomplish a better economic benefit without even going back to our Mother Earth to ask for more. This is what we’re doing through this bill, Madam Speaker.

It will improve closure planning by having more qualified professionals available to certify plans and allow companies to conditionally file a closure plan while deferring certain documents to a later date, and allow more flexibility in the techniques used to rehabilitate mines once they’re closed, again, without changing anything related to Ontario’s world-class environmental standards and duty to consult.

We’re doing this as we create more options for companies to pay financial assurance. Instead of paying financial assurance upfront, it could be paid in phases tied to the project’s construction schedule so they can invest more, they can invest better, into these mining projects.

Madam Speaker, as you can tell, this act has nothing to do with cutting corners. It is all about making sure government is acting in the most efficient way possible.

But I do want to talk about what this bill doesn’t do: This bill will not compromise our world-class environmental labour or Indigenous consultation standards. We’re not going to compromise on the environment. We’re not going to compromise on labour standards, and we’re not going to compromise on our Indigenous consultation standards.

This is about improving the ministry processes and making sure that we are able to attract more investment into the mining sector. This is what we’re doing through this bill, Madam Speaker.

Every time you talk about prosperity, we can’t do it without the people of Ontario. In order to service and sustain the mines, we are promoting careers in the mining sector. We’re encouraging enrolment in the skilled trades and mining-related training programs. We are targeting funded apprenticeship programs to help skilled trade workers and get them working in well-paying positions in the mining industry.

We are accomplishing all of this while being committed to our strong environmental standards. Madam Speaker, Ontario has exceptional mineral potential and environmental governance fundamentals, which will ensure that we create jobs while minimizing any impact to our environment.

With the continued work and collaboration between ministries and our partners in the mining sector, we will continue providing opportunities to our workers and continue on the path of growth for our province.

Madam Speaker, I’d like to share something very important. I want to talk about the Mining Act, R.S.O. 1990. The purpose, it states—

I appreciate the member’s question. Actually, it has been well documented that environmental regulations not only improve communities, like what we’ve seen in Sudbury, but, most of the time, it improves the company’s bottom line. Most of the best fiscally run companies also comply with environmental regulations and have strong environmental and social goals. The reason is because if you are going to manage your ESG goals well, you’re likely going to manage your financial goals well. The two go hand in hand. We’ve seen that.

Sudbury now is seen as a global leader in sustainable mining practices. Everything from electrifying mining equipment to re-mining tailing ponds—there are a whole host of opportunities that, if we have the proper regulations in place, we can be economically competitive in and be a beacon to the world around sustainable mining practices.

I think it’s a false narrative to say that we don’t need regulations or that we need to overregulate. We need smart regulations that protect the public, the environment and the people of this province.

I appreciate the member opposite’s debate on it. One of the concerns we have on this bill has to do with closure plans and weakening environmental protections. The question I have is that, on the day this bill was tabled, the chief from Neskantaga First Nation had said they’re strongly opposed to any sort of process towards the Ring of Fire and actually talked about having to drag their bodies away to prevent this.

It feels like this is a bill that doesn’t have strong support by Indigenous people in the communities where the mining companies are. What can be done to this bill to improve that relationship so that they’ll have faith in mining in northern Ontario?

I was a bit worried when I saw Madam Speaker standing up that I wouldn’t be able to finish this important piece. Thank you to our deputy Houser leader. Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your giving me an opportunity to read out the rest of my remarks.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share something very important. The Mining Act, RSO 1990, starts with the purpose:

“The purpose of this act is to encourage prospecting, registration of mining claims and exploration for the development of mineral resources, in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the duty to consult, and to minimize the impact of these activities on public health and safety and the environment. 2009....”

Madam Speaker, this reaffirms that our government is committed to First Nations consultation. It is very important that every member of this House understands that First Nations consultation is 100% preserved, and we’re not making any changes to it.

In a nutshell, our government is making real progress to help develop the infrastructure necessary to ensure Ontario’s long-term competitiveness. Our mining sector is a major part of the position. We need to develop our mining sector to provide more opportunities and drive innovation. This bill proposed by the Minister of Mines, Bill 71, the Building More Mines Act, will help achieve this goal. The changes in this bill will help cut red tape, encourage investment and develop the economy of northern Ontario, which benefits all of us.

This bill exemplifies the mission of this government to cut red tape, to encourage economic growth and, as the Minister of Labour always says, to work for workers. Under the leadership of this Premier, we’re going to get things done for the workers of this province and the residents of this province to get prosperity.

I encourage everyone in the House to support this bill and support northern Ontario’s economy and the future of our province.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, I talked about the Mining Act, RSO 1990. I talked about the consultation and I made sure that I said, “The purpose of this act is to encourage prospecting, registration of mining claims and exploration for the development of mineral resources, in a manner consistent”—I used the word “consistent”—“with the recognition and affirmation....” Madam Speaker, this bill reaffirms our commitment to First Nations communities, and we will always stand by that.

Thank you, Speaker. It’s a great speech, so please continue.

Sorry to the member from Mississauga–Malton. Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

The member from Barrie–Innisfil.

One of my dearest friends in this place is the member from Mississauga–Malton. As everyone knows, we used to be seatmates in the last term and that caused no end of discussion because we’re somewhat different in height. But I got to know him really well and I know that he came to this country with nothing and he made a life for himself and for his family in this country by hard work. And I know he’s talked to me a lot about the opportunities that are needed for youth in his riding, where they have a high youth unemployment rate.

I’m wondering if he could talk to this House about what it means to be building Ontario, to be building a stronger Ontario, to be creating a future not just in southwestern Ontario, not just in southern Ontario, not just in eastern Ontario, but especially in northern Ontario, and what that will mean, those jobs, that growing economy, for people in his riding.

Point of order.

Before I proceed, I just want to say again to the member from our team, you’re doing an incredible job. Madam Speaker, this is the province where we have 39% of our MPPs who are actually women. That shows the strength of our province, so, again, thank you for that important question.

You talked about the supply chain that has to be competitive. We are creating economic incentives, like adding an option for the companies to provide additional financial assurance as construction milestones are reached, rather than providing a lump sum upfront, to help to reduce costs. We’re reducing regulatory burdens and we’re ensuring we remain competitive by adapting our regulation processes so that they are on par with the other places in Canada and around the world.

All these changes will put us ahead of the competition and aid Ontario in becoming the number one place in the world for mineral exploration and development. As the Premier states, when we grow, we make enough policies for the businesses to come and invest. When they grow, Ontario grows.

First Nations are not just part of the process; they’re part of the heart of it, as they are leading the environmental assessment for these roads and infrastructure projects. I said that earlier and I’m going to repeat again: These changes will not compromise our world-class environmental, labour or Indigenous consultation standard. This is about improving the ministry process and making sure we attract investment.

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Mississauga–Malton, something which we talk about when we talk about Mississauga is that we have the highest number of youth, 24%; we have the highest number of youth unemployment, 26%. For that one reason, I’m always concerned and I’m always working with the local members of the community on how we can increase the employment, give our youth a hand so that they can get the skills that they need. So, what this bill is going to do: This bill will make sure we’re able to invest, we are able to attract more investments in the mining sector. And as I said earlier, in the mining sector, the salaries are 60% more than the average salary. By investing, by attracting these investments, we’ll make sure we’re creating more jobs for the residents of Mississauga–Malton.

I am pleased to be able to stand in this House and add what I hope are my thoughtful comments on Bill 71, Building More Mines Act. I’m standing here as the official opposition critic for infrastructure but also as an Ontarian who knows that there are a lot of pieces that interconnect in this province. I am proud to represent Oshawa, and the automotive industry is a huge part of Oshawa’s story, of its history and of its future, and there’s that important interconnection when we’re talking about mining, about critical minerals and what those mean to the EV industry, to the future of various technologies. So I’m looking forward to taking this time and doing a little bit of a sharing lesson with folks at home, because I had to do some—it was like science class in preparation for this presentation.

But something else—and this is just a frame of reference for folks, because we are fortunate to come to this Legislature from all across the province, and different experiences. Some on our benches we’ve learned from through the years about their time in mining or in various industries. In Oshawa, I was at a hockey game, actually, and I got to meet someone who handed me a card, and it was for a mining company. I said, “Oh, nice to meet you.” They explained that they were looking to open a mine in Oshawa or in the Durham region, and I thought, “Pardon me? Oh, opening a mine in Durham.” And it took me a second. They explained this was for crypto mining—data mining servers, but a mining farm. We have Oshawa PUC, we have different rates for energy, and so we’re a bit of a destination spot for industry. It was an interesting conversation. So when you talk about mining, I have a little bit of learning to do. That’s not where I’m starting from, but just for an interesting point of reference for folks.

Speaker, this bill—first of all, the government has talked about how this is going to make mining move ahead more quickly. They’ve talked about the Ring of Fire. But I’ll say, on the opposition benches, we want mines to be successful. We don’t want to slow them down. We want to talk about the Critical Minerals Strategy. We want to talk about responsible mining. We want to talk about safe mining. We want to talk about reclamation, and we want to talk about mine rehabilitation, certainly at the end stages. We want to talk about all of that. The Ring of Fire isn’t going to happen because of this piece of legislation, and this government has a lot of work to do when it comes to their relationships.

We’ve heard some of our members remind the government—I’m happy for them to be reminded—that the Premier has talked about driving the bulldozer himself, that sort of thing. And that has come up not just because it’s an interesting picture in our minds, but because it speaks to the—there’s a problem there about how this government is not tending to or respecting the relationships with First Nations in a way that the First Nations are—to say “appreciating” is the wrong word—not recognizing as appropriate involvement.

So when you have mining companies, as I understand, who have been building relationships with First Nations through the years, the government, and the Premier specifically, were doing a fair bit of harm to that. This bill, as any bill about the mining industry and mining opportunities, is an opportunity to strengthen those relationships. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened. In fact, the day that this bill was tabled, I understand Chief Moonias, as we have heard said publicly—and I’m quoting here from an article called, “Neskantaga First Nation Says it Wasn’t Adequately Consulted in Key Ring of Fire Environmental Study.” Specifically, “Chief Wayne Moonias said that the First Nation had not provided its consent to the terms of the environmental assessment, and vowed to fight against the development.

“‘This is unacceptable. This is something that is very concerning to us, and something that the CEO of Ring of Fire Metals needs to know. You’re not going to cross our river system without our free, prior and informed consent,’ said Chief Moonias. ‘You’re going to have to kill us. You’re going to have to do more than just getting access from the province of Ontario.’”

This is important. Free, prior and informed consent is important. It should direct how we move forward as a province. And I’m raising that because this particular bill, as best as we can find out, as we understand it from industry and as we understand it from First Nations that we have been able to connect with about this bill which is quickly before us—there wasn’t formal consultation. They found out about it—and I’m saying “they” broadly—Indigenous communities found out about this the day it was tabled. That is not free, prior or informed.

Speaker, let me break down this bill. Parts one and two are about the decision-making process. Basically, there are two statutory positions, the director of mine exploration and director of mine rehabilitation. And I’m going to put this in significantly layman’s terms, so please correct me, member from Sudbury, if required. But the mine exploration is assessing permits, gathering data of the potential of a site—it’s kind of the beginning stages of will there or won’t there be a mine, I suppose, is the way I’m going to put it. Mine rehabilitation is the opposite end of that process: the wind-down, the reclamation, maybe when the land gets a chance to heal, how it is left environmentally, how it is left with the community in terms of legacy infrastructure or various pieces, right? That’s the end stages.

There have been two roles, but it was one person—it was a director responsible for multiple parts. What this bill does is move powers away from the director of mine exploration and mine rehabilitation and now, all of a sudden, the minister is the only person with responsibility for mine rehabilitation. So that end stage, the environmental piece, that’s only the minister.

I would love for the government to answer this question; they’ve been asked it throughout debate: Where does this come from? Because industry has not said—there has been no one in the mining industry who said, “We requested this.” So where does that come from? Is it ministry frustration? Does the minister feel left out? If somebody’s unhappy about the way I worded it, explain it to me, because, when you don’t have rationale for why you completely eliminated that director of rehabilitation position, if the ministry cannot explain it, then we’re left to wonder. I’m going to go with “because the minister wanted it.”

When I look at the environmental track record of this government, I get very nervous about putting all of the reclamation side, all of the rehabilitation, all of that responsibility to the minister, who—if I’m going to be fair, this particular minister knows mining. That’s a fair comment. But I don’t know his background on the environment. If cabinet decides somebody else gets to be Minister of Mines, I don’t know which of these members has that background either. I see that as a problem.

The rehabilitation responsibility is only the minister’s now. It’s no longer a public service director who has years—she has years of experience working for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, a background in environmental science. That’s who held that responsibility before, and now it’s this minister—for now. I wouldn’t say that is going to do anything to build that kind of trust with Indigenous communities who are concerned about how that land will be left, or broader communities who are worried about how that will be left.

I’m going to jump ahead to the third section about mineral recovery—actually, no, I’ll keep going in order. The other thing is there are amendments in this bill about closure plans and, again, that’s talking about the end stages. When you’re starting a mine, you need the plan for how it’s all going to end. That’s responsible planning. There’s money involved, there’s time involved, and if a mine wants to go ahead, they need a closure plan ahead of time to even start mining. They need a plan for what they’re going to do at the end of the mine.

Before this bill, they would hire an engineering firm to create a significant and lengthy report, and then that work was, in effect, duplicated by the ministry. This is, I think, where the government is saying, “We’re going the make things faster,” that duplication of work. In effect, they’re talking about that this would make it a faster process. This specific piece.

I’d like to know what a “qualified person” is according to this government, because they say if a qualified person certifies this closure plan then it’s deemed to be complete, and they don’t have to redo the process in-house. But what is someone who’s qualified? I’d like to know that. Before regulations, if they could get up and say, “Don’t worry, it won’t just be someone who is interested in the ministry and works in the bureaucracy.” No disrespect to them, but what should the qualifications actually be? What level of environmental engineering? Do some reassurance here, because you’re making a significant change.

Also, this bill would allow the minister to have the power to accept a conditional filing of a closure plan if they’re reasonably assured. It allows them to make amendments to the closure plan without having to refile a new one. I can see how this would speed up the process. I do have a question, though, about how First Nations, how Indigenous partners feel about this particular part. Because if it’s not going to be the same focus that it was—the closure plan—and we are taking all of the mine rehabilitation responsibility, we’re taking it from qualified professionals, frankly, and giving it to the minister, who does not have a background in science—correct me if I’m wrong—how is this what’s best for the environment? How is this guaranteeing that this will be responsible environmentally? Please reassure us, and don’t say, “Trust us.” I can’t hear that again this week—real answers, please.

Okay, the last part that I will get into, Speaker, is the part that is quite interesting for those of us who are looking at the road ahead for technology, electric vehicles, and it’s that conversation around critical minerals. I did some homework about some of the critical minerals that matter to the industry, especially when it comes to electric vehicles. You have lithium; you’ve got graphite, nickel, cobalt, copper, rare earth elements, some of which are important on the battery side of things. You’ve got magnets; you’ve got hydrogen fuel storage containers—all sorts of things. It was, like I said, science class in preparation for this. I won’t delve into the nitty-gritty of each one, but there are a lot of them in Ontario, which is why folks are quite interested in accessing them, which is why there is so much interest in the Ring of Fire, and that is a big conversation for us to have about the future and how we compete in the global market and whatnot.

But then I want to dial it back a second, because we have an opportunity. The mineral recovery of rare earth minerals, those that are in the Ring of Fire—there are some that are also left behind from previous mining ventures that are in something called tailing ponds, which are basically leftover pools—can I say that? I’ve seen a tailing pond. For those of us who are not in the north—anyone who is watching from the north is probably like, “What is she talking about?” But—

I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Malton for his presentation. As I’m sure he is well aware, the official opposition is in support of this bill on second reading. But one of the official opposition’s main concerns remains this government’s track record not only on relations with Indigenous peoples, their track record on the environment—and their love of unfettered and unchecked power, quite frankly.

Industry sources did not push for transferring powers from directors to the minister, and we worry about this centralization of power. My question, though, to the member is, who specifically recommended this transfer of power from the director to the minister?

Through you, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga–Malton for his—

Interjection.

The legislation, if passed, will attract more investment and support in the made-in-Ontario supply chain for new investment. But securing that supply chain requires Ontario to be able to be competitive with other jurisdictions. What will this act do to ensure that we are the number one jurisdiction for mining globally?

Bill 71 obviously requires roads and infrastructure. The Premier once said that he would get on the bulldozer himself, but that clearly is not going to happen to build the road to the Ring of Fire. In fact, those comments are fairly damaging to the trust that some of the companies have been working on with First Nations.

I do want to quote Neskantaga First Nation Chief Wayne Moonias. He said, “We intend to defend our rights, our homeland, our river system, even if it costs us our lives.” Chief Moonias has also vowed that his community will prevent the building of a road to the Ring of Fire even if it means direct confrontation with the authorities.

Indigenous opposition has a long history now with this government because you’re only consulting with two of the First Nations as it relates to the Ring of Fire. Can the member from Malton tell the House how dangerous, how damaging it is when you are very selective in your consultations with First Nations and talk about the lawsuits and the legal action that will happen because you have not done your due diligence as a government as it relates to Indigenous peoples in Ontario?

Further questions?

Further debate?