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?

It’s waste product.

Question?

The member from Oshawa and I come from similar communities when you look at some of the things she was highlighting today: of course, auto manufacturing. We’re very lucky to have Toyota in our neck of the woods in Waterloo region and, of course, some first-class universities when it comes to engineering, design, technology.

I was just wondering maybe if the member opposite from Oshawa could highlight what investment in the mining sector in Ontario could mean for her community. We talked a little earlier about how these types of investments in minerals will lead also to great jobs not only for northern Ontario but also for southern Ontario. I was just wondering if she might be able to comment a little bit on how, like I said, investment in the mining sector here in northern Ontario could translate into good-paying jobs for her community.

Thank you. Waste product in these—ponds? Pools? Tailing ponds? And it turns out that, because technology being what it had been before at the closure of previous mines, our technology is different now, so they could go back to those tailing ponds and basically scoop up the minerals that are in there and take a second pass at them with newer technologies. And there’s interest in that because while we’re developing—if it’s the Ring of Fire, other opportunities—there are minerals to be had if we can take that second pass at those ponds.

But, Speaker—and again, this is the stuff that gets me with this particular government—there was a bill that the government had passed before about—I think it was Bill 13, maybe? It gave permission to go back and scoop up through these tailing ponds for the critical minerals but said that they had to leave the ponds better than how they were found, better than it was before the recovery. So that was in the last bill. That’s where we’re at right now, that if they go back, they have to leave it better than it was. And now in this bill, if you want to scoop up tailings, you don’t have to improve the land to make it better; you have to leave it comparable to or better than it was before the recovery. They’ve added “comparable to,” so instead of “better than,” it’s “or the same.”

And why? It’s a fairly open-ended “better than.” If you look at it before, whatever that land looked like, whatever was around the pond before—I’m thinking even as simple as there was litter around, and then you clean it up. Isn’t that technically “better than”? I’m not meaning to say that’s what we should do. But it is not an onerous task to leave a place better than how you found it, especially when it does not specify what “better than” means. So for this government to go back and be like, “Aww that’s a lot. That’s really positive. And since we’re doing so much negative stuff here, let’s just make it comparable. Let’s bring it down. Let’s downgrade that. ‘Better than’ is a lot. I don’t like that.” And who asked for that? Go back to them and say, “You know what, you want what’s in the tailings? You can leave that area better than how you found it.” Because the community around there cares.

I know that we’re going to hear from the northern members about what has been left historically in the wake of different mines, big and small, of the lessons learned of how we can do better. You guys are like, “Oh, we can’t do better. Let’s just do comparable.” Again, rehabilitation is only up to the minister. I think that is a mistake. Because it wasn’t even industry that asked for that, I think you guys have some explaining to do.

Speaker, one of the things that I’d like to talk about when we’re talking about critical minerals and the opportunity in Ontario—I’d like to take a minute and share about Project Arrow. Ontario Tech is an excellent university in my neck of the woods, and they had the opportunity at the ACE automotive centre’s aerodynamic climatic wind tunnel at Ontario Tech to be a part of a really special, globally exciting project, and it’s called Project Arrow. Project Arrow phase 2 was an all-Canadian-engineered concept vehicle that just debuted earlier this year. It is a wonderful success story. And the university was chosen because of its global reputation for its excellence in energy and automotive, smart mobility. This vehicle is like the perfect vehicle. Yes, it was cool, but it went from being a concept to reality. It was to show the potential in Canada.

It doesn’t have an engine or a gas tank, so there’s room for bigger passenger compartments. It’s smaller than many crossover-style vehicles on the market today. People were quite excited to look at it. It’s part of the EV revolution. Cutting-edge-technology suppliers were involved. It’s really a wonderful focus opportunity for and a showcase of Canadian talent, Canadian product and Canadian potential. We were very proud in Oshawa to be super-secret hosts to Project Arrow before the global launch. Now, I can’t keep track of Project Arrow anymore. It’s travelling around the world; I’m not sure which country it’s in right now. But it’s a wonderful showcase.

As we’re looking to those exciting futures—electric vehicles, technologies we have yet to imagine—there are important conversations to be had connected to critical minerals but also, fundamentally, our responsibility to do things well and sustainably here in the province of Ontario. We should be leaders with everything we do. This bill is an opportunity. I’d ask the government to take it.

When the member from Oshawa was talking during her debate, she was talking about the old regulation of leaving mining sites better than they were before and how it’s now comparable and how that’s a difference. While you were saying that, I was thinking about my experience with Scouts Canada. I was a Cub Scout and a Scout, and I was also a leader for Beavers, Cubs and Scouts. One of the tenets when you’re a Scout is that you leave the site better than when you found it. I joined scouting when I was 10 years old, when I was in grade 5. So I feel like if you can do that at grade 5, why does it seem burdensome for adults to be able to do this when it comes to closing down mine sites?

I wanted to ask the member from Oshawa a question on the environment since she was seeking an assurance about the government’s environmental record. So my question is, in light of the fact that this government is the government which converted the Hamilton furnaces from carbon to clean electrical energy, thereby removing the equivalent of two million cars off the roads of Ontario, there being more environmental progress in that one decision than the previous government did in 15 years, and in view of the fact that this government’s environmental record is probably the best environmental record of any government in the history of the province of Ontario, given that no other government has removed equivalent of two million cars off the road, is that enough assurance?

Further questions?

It’s very interesting, because of all this new technology and where we’re headed into the next century and all of that kind of stuff, yet we can’t get drinking water in Brantford. Six Nations have no drinking water. Up north, they have no safe drinking water. Maybe we can invest in safe drinking water for our First Nations in the province of Ontario. Let’s do that first.

But my question is, the Conservatives continue to take credit for saving the auto sector like Oshawa, Windsor and Ingersoll. It’s why this Bill 71, Building More Mines Act, 2023—so my question to you, I think, is fair and reasonable, seeing you’re from Oshawa. Do you think it was the Conservative government that saved the auto sector in Ontario?

I’m standing today to add my voice to the chorus of support for the Building More Mines Act. In reading over the act as well as the rationale behind it, I was reminded yet again—I can usually find a connection almost anywhere—of one of my favourite authors, Douglas Adams, the mind behind the wonderful book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, known for having the words “don’t panic” inscribed in large friendly letters on its front cover. But to be more specific, I was reminded of his description of the Vogons, an alien race of officious interstellar bureaucrats. The Vogons “wouldn’t even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.”

It turns out the process by which Ontario has been opening and closing mines has been operating in a way that I feel Vogons might find astonishingly similar, and this bill aims to fix that, and our firelighters will have to be sourced elsewhere.

Right now, it can easily take 15 years to permit a mine. That kind of timeline is never going to work if we are going to accomplish what we promised to accomplish for the mining sector, for northern Ontario, and for the many communities and people who make northern Ontario their home.

What does the current sort of Vogonesque bureaucracy look like? If we talk about mine closures—closure plans, specifically—a closure plan is a plan that sets out in detail all the steps that a company will take to rehabilitate the mine after the mining is done. Of course, a mine does not last forever. At some point, you exhaust the resources within it that you’re looking for, but at that point you close the mine.

Under the existing legislation, a mining company has to file the closing plan for the mine before it in fact actually even begins to mine, which is challenging, as a mine can last 100 years or more—and in fact, some have. It’s quite challenging to predict what is going to happen 100 years on and how you are going to close and rehabilitate that mine, as you are stuck predicting the future.

The other issue, of course, is, before you open a mine, you have to file the financial security, which is the money that it’s going to take to close the mine and restore the location as much as possible to its original condition. None of that money is used for producing product or getting it to market, but it has to be posted in advance before you even start producing. So you’re investing in a project, having to put up a large amount of money before you are allowed to start on that project or to start making any money off of that project, and you also have to read the tarot cards to determine exactly how long that mine is going to last and how you are going to plan and finance its closure, before you have been able to open it.

As I said, this is why I thought of the Vogons when I was reading the rationale behind the Mining Act. Mining remains a very specialized industry, and with these very arcane current rules there aren’t a lot of places where you can go to find financing for a mining project.

Investment in the mining sector offers incredible benefits to all of Ontario. Those benefits go far beyond just the supply of critical minerals for EV battery projects. The new roads proposed as part of this investment will create economic opportunities for First Nations and northern communities. It will make it easier to access health services and education. Easier transportation of goods improves food security. It also reduces the cost-of-living increases that are increasingly borne by those living far up north. This isn’t about imposing southern Ontario transit choices on the north, though.

I want to highlight that the terms of reference for the all-season, multi-use road that will connect to the Ring of Fire were designed and submitted by the Webequie and Marten Falls First Nations.

There’s also the benefit from resource revenue-sharing. Back in 2018, there was one thing that the NDP, the Liberals and the PCs all agreed on, and that was resource revenue-sharing. It was, essentially, a non-partisan issue because everybody realized how much sense it made to give First Nations actual partnership and ownership in the projects that were occurring in their traditional territories.

I always enjoy interactions with the member from Oshawa. I was hoping she could help me with something that I was having a conversation about with the member from Spadina–Fort York.

The opposition, and in this bill also, is very hesitant about expanding ministerial powers to expedite mining applications. We’ve heard that before about the ministerial zoning orders, and we’ve heard that before about the City of Toronto Act, and yet here, just a couple of weeks ago, in order to help the automotive industry, which is critical to her riding, the NDP joined us in voting for a minister’s bill in order to expedite a land transfer which just took land from one municipality and put it to the other because those municipalities couldn’t figure it out on their own. I was wondering how she could be supportive of that bill which would—ministerial orders—and yet be against it on this bill to expedite mining in the north.

I am from Oshawa. I’m very proud to be from Oshawa, and I was very proud to stand up with the workers and the broader community in calling on this government to stand with us through very, very rocky and uncertain times. This is the Premier who said that the ship has left the dock, and it turns out he was wrong. We knew that he was wrong at the time for not believing in us, but what made the pieces come together that allowed for the kind of investment and, hopefully, long future of automotive in Oshawa was the bargaining units, was the workers and was the quality of work that has been done for so long and—

Interjection: For a century.

Here we have a bill that was recently before this House that said it had to be better than it was before the recovery, and they’ve just slipped in there now “comparable to ... as determined by the minister.” So it’s not just the “comparable” language that bothers me; it is that they’ve taken this from the public sector, where they had people with science backgrounds, like a particular director they snaked it from, and given it to the minister. What does he know that’s more than the folks who have been doing this work for years, and why can’t they explain that? It’s dodging environmental responsibility for no reason except just because it’s easier, I guess—but not in the long run,.

Again, processes that are smoother and faster, done well, is I think what we’re talking about, but this government hasn’t defined a qualified person or individual—is it somebody who has ever even worked in the Ministry of Mines who can sign off on? What assurances do we have that that isn’t going to create problems down the road?

We want to know, who is this qualified person and how do you define it? What makes the minister qualified to do the reclamation and the rehabilitation at the end of a mine? Does this make it faster? Does it make it better? It’s yet to be determined.

Questions and responses? The member for Niagara Falls.