I’d like to thank the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London for his comments. I have a great deal of respect for the member and absolutely agree with many of the member’s comments.

Here on the side of the official opposition, we want to see more projects which result in good-paying union jobs with benefits and pensions. The official opposition is also very respectful of the principles of free, prior and informed and consent of all affected First Nations, as well as environmental sustainability.

My concern, however, with this legislation, Bill 71, is section 7(1)—applications with closure plans that don’t meet the requirements.

So my question for the member is, what is the point of having standards, what is the point of having rules, what is the point of having requirements if the minister can ignore them and undermine them altogether?

I want to thank my colleague the member for Kiiwetinoong for his very enlightening remarks about the meaning of free, prior and informed consent. He walked us through why this legislation violates those principles of free, prior and informed consent, why it undermines the principles of reconciliation, why it goes against the spirit and intent of Treaty 9.

I wondered if the member could summarize what free, prior and informed consent would have looked like if the government had respected those principles in developing this bill.