Thank you very much to the member for the question. The example that I used in my comments this morning was Bill 23. This is legislation that—municipalities very clearly said, “This is going to cost us more money. This is going to create new barriers.”

This morning I read a letter from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority where they said that this is creating more barriers, more obstacles to municipalities, as well as threatening our wetlands and opening up new risks for flooding.

In the case of Bill 23, what I know from the city of London, they’re looking at a $97-million potential hole in the budget over the next five years. I don’t think that what this government is doing is saving the province money. In fact, it is costing municipalities like London and across the province big dollars.

But at the same time, just earlier this week, we heard from the Chiefs of Ontario and First Nations leaders that the government, in tabling Bill 23—so if we’re going to use that as an example of how this government approaches consultation with First Nations, the government blatantly violated First Nations’ inherent domestic and international rights over their ancestral and traditional territories. First Nations were given no opportunity to be consulted regarding the tabling of Bill 23 and I doubt that they had an opportunity with this bill, either.