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’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?

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?