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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All women deserve security and safety, and particularly that is in our thoughts on International Women’s Day. Our government is constantly working to ensure that women, children and all Ontarians can live free from fear of threats, exploitation and violence, and we’re working to prevent and address violence against women in all forms. We’ve made investments, we’ve launched programs and we’ve passed legislation aimed at ending violence against women in its many forms, and we’ll continue to do that important work: standing up against gender-based violence and supporting those affected by these crimes.

Our investment is helping survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking find and maintain housing, and it’s helping them transition to independence. It also connects them to socially and culturally responsive wraparound community supports like safety planning, counselling, health and wellness, education, legal and immigration services, financial resources and child care services.

Our investments also include holistic, culturally responsible services for Indigenous women. We will continue this important work, and I thank the member for—

Thank you to the member.

I would like to offer your government a failing grade when it comes to your obligation under Treaty 9, as a signatory to Treaty 9 to respect Indigenous rights and the right to be consulted—free, prior, informed consent.

A failing grade for Conservatives when it comes to the treatment of Indigenous communities is not new. You said that you’ve been around provincial politics all your life, so you certainly will be familiar with Ipperwash. Ipperwash was a confrontation that ended in the death of Dudley George. There was a long inquiry, and in that inquiry, the Premier of the day, Conservative Premier Mike Harris, said that he wanted the bleeping “Indians out of the park.”

So what do you have to say to people who have absolutely no trust—why should anyone trust Conservative governments to do the right thing when it comes to Indigenous communities in this province?

As I mentioned before, we continue to consult with First Nations—not only that, but they’re partners in many of these projects. It is really important to understand that, at the end of the day, the Indigenous partners we have and First Nations people of this province and of this country are the ones who are going to benefit from these jobs. They are going to be able to stay in their communities, and certainly that’s very important. I’ve had many conversations with Indigenous leaders across this province, and that’s one of the things they have come to me and said—that they have so many young people who want to be able to stay in their communities but just can’t find good enough jobs to be able to do that, and then they have to move to places like Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and, typically, Sudbury just to be able to be close to their family, which could be a two-hour flight.

So it’s really important, of course, that we continue with consultation, but it’s also really important to keep the finish line in sight and make sure that we’re able to provide good-paying jobs to the people of Ontario.

This bill is going to lead to more investment, more streamlined regulations and, hopefully, good jobs for the people of Ontario.

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?

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?

I’d like to thank the member from Nickel Belt for her eloquent speech about how this government’s changes deliberately exclude Indigenous people. Members on the Conservative benches, earlier this afternoon, seemed to suggest that the burden should be on Indigenous people to reach out if they have concerns.

My question to the member is, is this Conservative government moving backward in terms of reconciliation?

I want to say to my colleague from Nickel Belt, that was a very interesting 10 minutes of talking about your community, and I learned a lot about it.

I try to listen to everybody here, but I listened to the Conservatives here, and they’re saying that First Nations were consulted. You’re saying First Nations—and you listed the First Nations and Indigenous communities that weren’t consulted. Which one of you is telling the truth? I’m a little confused.