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—

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.

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.