Good morning, Speaker. It is, as usual, always a pleasure to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the good people of Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas.

This morning, we’re discussing a very important bill that will have implications, not necessarily directly for my riding, but for Ontario and for our environment and for our relations with Indigenous people. That’s what I’m going to speak about this morning.

We know, and we’ve been hearing in this House, that Canada and Ontario’s mining industry rightfully boasts about their role as industry leaders across the globe. We have, as we know, in Ontario a resource sector that has created some of the prosperity that we continue to enjoy in this province, as has been described. The Toronto Stock Exchange was founded on investments in extraction in our resource sector, so it’s a very, very important industry. We understand that.

We also would like to acknowledge the way in which the sector, the mining industry, has worked and has striven to continuously improve the way in which they operate. We see a mining industry that has matured in a way where they recognize the importance of operating in a safe manner, operating in a way that’s environmentally safe, a way that is safe for their employees, and a way that continues to be safe for the communities in which they operate. That is to be commended.

We see that this is an industry that is understanding the importance of looking at their tailings and making sure that that’s handled in a responsible way, their role in reclaiming land where they have operated. This is a responsible industry.

I would say that it’s not just about protecting the environment and the employees and the families and the communities; mining is big business and we know that in this province. The work that the mining industry has done to improve their practice to be good corporate citizens, if you will, has huge implications on the financial implications, the financial risks, that are involved in this sector. The mining industry understands, and we see them understand, that good regulation and good policy is good business.

Before I came to this House, I worked in corporate social responsibility, and it was just understood that if you did not operate in a way that was corporately responsible, if you were not a good corporate citizen, it eventually would impact the bottom line, and so it was the right thing to do, but it was also a thing that was good to do for business.

Some of these regulations that are in place and these practices are about de-risking this industry: de-risking an industry when it comes to people and when it comes to the environment, but also de-risking the financial investments that are made by people across this province. When I say people that are investing their finances into this industry, I’m not just talking about shareholders, which is an important consideration because we need to talk about investor protection when it comes to this industry. We really need to understand how we protect the average retail investor that buys stock in these companies and is putting their good money at risk, their hard-earned dollars at risk. We also need to look at de-risking the financial implications for taxpayers, because so much money—public taxpayer dollars—is invested in this industry. It is a good investment if it’s invested wisely.

The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane in his speech yesterday—which we all quite enjoyed—talked about the big piece of silver that is actually here in this building, and it is a source of pride for his community. It came from the Keeley mine in Cobalt. It’s a source of pride for him; it should be a source of pride for all Ontario, because it’s placed right there with all of the other evidence of our history, the proud history that we have in Ontario.

To begin this, I want to say that we all here in this House, including the industry, have a responsibility to make things better, not in any way to devolve what has already happened in this industry. I am going to talk about ways in which I think that this bill is ill-considered in a lot of aspects and that we need to work together to make sure that a bill that has implications for such an important industry is a good bill, and this bill could use some improvement.

For the people that are listening, in a nutshell, when a company undertakes to explore a mine and open a mine, there are many, many steps that need to be taken, and these are all just reasonable expectations. We expect that a company will, as I’ve said before, make sure to protect the people that are working in the mine—whether it’s to explore the mine, to open the mine, to work in the mine, they need to be protected. We expect that people who live in the community and the environment around them, that those things are taken into consideration, that environmental assessments and protections for post-mine operation are taken into consideration, because we have seen, unfortunately, examples in our history, whether it’s the mining industry or whether it’s other extractive industries, where we have poisoned our groundwater, we’ve seen examples where people have lived with air that was unsafe to breathe, contaminated soil. This is the unfortunate legacy of some of the industries that have operated in Ontario and around the world, and we want to avoid that. Industries know and they must do simply what is expected: operate a mine in a way that’s reasonable and responsible, and so we have protections in place.

Let’s talk about the miners and their families, because we’ve seen mining tragedies. People have lost their lives in the mining industry because it’s a very dangerous, difficult job, and we want to make sure that miners are safe so that they return home to their families at the end of a day. Safety for workers is simply not negotiable. It’s something that we should all expect, that we operate at the highest, highest priority.

I would say that we’ve come a long way. We certainly have come a long way. I just would like to say we’ve heard stories about people who have had experience in the mining industry. I would just like to share that my partner worked at a mine, many years ago, and it was his goal—which he achieved—to get out of the mine by making the junior hockey team, which he did. He worked for the King Miners; that was the name of the hockey team. He describes an industry that was very, very dangerous at the time. This was many, many years ago. We’ve since heard and learned from people who work in the industry that that’s changed quite significantly. Kudos to the industry, but there are still many, many cautionary tales when it comes to any industry that has such high stakes for people, for the environment and for financial investors.

I’m going to talk a little about the financial risk that we all—all of us—share in when it comes to the mining industry. It’s a reasonable question to ask the government, through this bill, how the public taxpayer will be guarded against assuming the liability and the astronomical costs of site remediation or cleanup, not only when things go wrong, but just in the regular course of operating a mine. That’s a reasonable question to ask: How are taxpayers being safeguarded and how is the average investor being safeguarded?

This bill waters down the financial assurances that should be in place or have been in place when mines begin to operate. We know that many of the big mining companies have operated for many, many years in a way that, as I said, has proven to be responsible and continue to improve their practices. But with early exploration, particularly when it comes to the Ring of Fire, we have to be mindful of junior mining industries who may or may not have the financial resources, may not have the balance sheet to backstop the costs, the environmental costs and the financial costs, that will result from their operations. We need to protect that. We need to make sure there’s a level playing field, so that big industries that are prepared to operate at a high standard are not in competition with smaller operators that don’t put in the same standard of care, if that’s the case.

I think this is particularly important because, again, many of these mines will operate on public crown lands and who owns the responsibility of the cleanup and the cost? It’s the taxpayer. It’s the public.

A huge cautionary tale in this province would be the legacy of the oil and gas industry. People need to really understand the significance of the many, many oil and gas wells that have been abandoned in this province. If you go online and you search a map—just ask for a map of abandoned oil and gas wells—you will be shocked to find that there are 28,000 in the province and there’s probably one in a community near you.

Most of these are in southwestern Ontario, I would say in Conservative-held ridings. It used to be many of these were in rural areas where there were not a lot of people living. But as we’ve had development and urban expansion, these abandoned oil and gas wells can be in communities, right in downtown communities. In my community, Waterdown—it’s actually in Flamborough–Glanbrook riding—right in the downtown core, there’s an oil and gas well. These pose a significant risk to life and property.

We saw that with the experience of Wheatley. In the riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington, the town of Wheatley literally blew up. The downtown core blew up after many, many times of people saying that there was a problem here and there was no response from this government. The town was flattened, 20 people were injured and hospitalized, and no one is assuming the responsibility for the cleanup. The cleanup and the costs are not being assumed by this government, despite pleas from the municipality. Wheatley is a huge cautionary tale.

The Auditor General has identified that almost 4,400—in fact, the Ontario petroleum industry itself has identified that 4,400 of these abandoned oil and gas wells pose an immediate and significant risk to people and to property. This is the legacy of an industry that we want to avoid, because the cleanup that no one wants to assume, that will end up being on the public dime, is going to be in the billions and billions of dollars.

I actually proposed that this would be a good opportunity for this government to engage in good green infrastructure. If they’re actually really very concerned about the environment and carbon capture that we hear, it needs to be acknowledged that these abandoned oil and gas wells are leaking and they’re a significant contributor of carbon gas emissions. This is a problem that this government does not want to acknowledge and is turning away from, but it’s a problem that we could be headlong running into recklessly, based on this tale if we’re not careful with a bill that needs to be improved.

We talk about industries that are too big to fail. Who would ever expect that the oil and gas industry would fail the people of the province of Ontario? But it has happened. People talk about this like it’s an Alberta problem—it’s not. It’s a big problem in Ontario. We have an oil and gas industry that is older than that of Alberta and, because of that, we don’t know where some of these mines are and what conditions the wells are in, and that is something that I charge this government with taking as your responsibility. As you move to the future, as you want to develop the Ring of Fire and build roads through the peat lands, look to the problem that we already have before us.

I also want to talk about the cautionary tale, which is how this government is treating their Indigenous relations. This is a government that, time and time again, has not stood up, has stepped away, failed to live up to their obligations under Treaty 9. I hear time and time again, “That’s the federal responsibility.” Does this government know, would be my question, do the members of this government know that the province of Ontario is a signatory to Treaty 9? You have a contractual treaty obligation to the Indigenous people in this community, and you’re not living up to that. Where does that lead us? It leads us to conflict, which is not helpful for any industry.

I could just talk about the cautionary tales that the Conservatives should know very well. Ipperwash comes to mind. This Conservative government, Premier Mike Harris at the time, had a conflict with the Indigenous community in Ipperwash. It resulted in a death. Dudley George was shot by a sniper in Ipperwash, and it caused significant, significant bad will and a legacy of poisoned relations to this day. There was an inquiry, with recommendations that this government should take seriously.

We only have to look the Ipperwash, the Oka crisis and, currently, the Indigenous-led “land back” movement that’s happening right now in Caledonia and other communities. We need to know that this “land back” movement is real and it’s about self-determination—as it has been described by the community: “It’s about self-determination for our peoples here that should include some access to the territories and resources in a more equitable fashion, and for us to have control over how that actually looks.” If you read those words, this speaks directly to the bill that’s before us. How are we ensuring that Indigenous communities have control over development that is in their territories? It certainly is not helpful for the Premier to say he’s going to get on a bulldozer himself. That only exacerbates a difficult relationship.

I just have to say, it’s really heartbreaking to sit on this side of the House and hear our MPP from Mushkegowuk–James Bay, to hear our MPP from Kiiwetinoong talk about the lack of resources in Indigenous communities that are in Treaty 9, that are the obligation of this province, of this government.

We talked about clean drinking water that generations of young people and people have not had access to. We just heard about tragic fires. We heard about a 10-year-old girl who died in a house fire because there was no fire truck in her community. We heard about an entire family in the riding of Kiiwetinoong, including an eight-year-old boy, who died because they don’t have access to the basic necessities of fire protection. That’s a failure of this government. It doesn’t bode well going forward when you’re talking about developing in Indigenous communities.

I’d just like to make sure that you understand that, in fact, this is a significant and current problem. I have a letter here that I would like to quote from. It was sent to the federal minister, but it has bearing on what we’re doing here.

These chiefs wrote and said, “We voiced our deep concerns ... for the region we know as the Breathing Lands, in which there is a push to develop a massive mining complex in the Ring of Fire. These are the world’s lungs, and rampant mining development could not only destroy this globally critical carbon sink, but release its huge store of carbon and escalate climate change further into catastrophe. Development here would be reckless if it occurs without full, robust investigation of all the potential consequences.”

They go on to say, “We are from here and have always been here and have been the only peoples here, ever. Western ways have led us to a climate crisis, and too many Western ‘solutions’ to this crisis are being built on the further sacrifice of Indigenous peoples’ territories, rights, and futures. We will not sit on the sidelines and watch this happen in the Breathing Lands. Any attempt by the crown to come back with less than the equality we ask for and deserve ... will be seen as nothing but an attempt to dress up a broken window with pretty drapes. And any such attempt will lead to our active enforcement of the moratorium issued last April.” And they attached a copy of the moratorium.

These are strong words, and they signal conflict that this government is risking for this industry. It’s signed by the chiefs of Attawapiskat, Eabametoong, Fort Albany First Nation, Kashechewan and Neskantaga First Nations. These are nations that are operating in the area in which you’re trying to develop.

My question to this government is, are you listening? The motto of this place is “Audi alteram partem,” which means “Hear the other side.” We have significant experience, our MPP from Sudbury has significant experience in this industry. This is our job, to make government bills better, because not only is this good for investment—because good policy makes for good investment—it is what is expected of us. We are going to propose reasoned amendments to this bill in committee. Whether you take it into closed session or not—which has happened—I need everyone who is listening to know that we will be proposing amendments to improve this bill because that is our job. Our job is to protect public tax dollars and investors, to protect our environment and to protect people in their communities, and that’s what we’re here to do.