Yes, it may be helping that economic outlook, but there’s a significant problem. First Nations communities, many affected by mining projects, are not being consulted. They’re coming to Queen’s Park—they’ve come to Queen’s Park three times already and have been refused meetings. That’s one piece of it.

My colleague also pointed to another piece where hundreds of mining claims are being put on Indigenous territory that’s actually protected, which means that those companies are actually going to lose everything they invest, because they will never ever have access to those claims.

So there’s some significant problems and gaps in how the government is handling the development of critical minerals.

We also know that these are the best models of health care that are out there. The one in Thunder Bay takes the most difficult patients, because they won’t be taken elsewhere. They have a team-based model. It’s an incredible place, and they should be supported better. All of those clinics need to be supported better.

What was that? Framework. Thank you very much—to establish a framework so that business had security and First Nations had security, knowing that they would be able to work together and come to an agreement that everybody could live with.

I want to talk a little bit about—jeez, I’m going to run out of time, and I had so much I wanted to share. Biigtigong Nishnaabeg, also known as Pic River First Nation, is just east of Marathon on Lake Superior. They recently signed an agreement with Generation Mining. The town of Marathon and Biigtigong Nishnaabeg worked very closely together. That’s a relationship they’ve been working on for years. And the relationship with Generation Mining has also been worked on for years. The entire community voted on whether they would go ahead with this agreement, and that actually was a very beautiful ceremony in which that agreement, in principle, was signed.

It’s possible to do this right. It’s possible to build these relationships. If we really wanted to, we could get clean water in every one of those communities at the snap of our fingers, but instead, that doesn’t get done and, in fact, it’s kind of used as a bit of a—the nice way to call it would be a bargaining chip. “If you do what we want, maybe we’ll give you your water.” Instead, we have a bill—Bill 71—that overrides the wishes of First Nations and tramples on, compromises on environmental protections for mine remediation. We know that these things can work if they’re done properly, with respect. We also know that pushing through Bill 71 was not an act of respect and that it will not provide the business security that people are looking for and it will lead to more court cases.

We know we don’t want the men and women who work in mines to wind up living in mining camps long-term. We want them to be building communities in neighbouring municipalities or creating new communities, but in order for people to have confidence that they can build their lives in these communities that are very close to where the mines are, and raise families there, they also need to be confident that the remediation that follows has already been planned and financed, that those financial guarantees are there. Otherwise, you’re looking at very precarious—you don’t know whether you can really trust those places as places to live for the long term.

That’s my concern, and I wonder if you can speak to that.

I’m very much in support of mining when done with all the necessary checks and balances. But the Ford government, including the member from Durham, talks about the Ring of Fire as if it were a done deal. But every time the Conservative government makes one of these announcements, we hear from First Nations that they have not been consulted and that the province has not obtained their free, prior and informed consent. Premier Ford has talked about bulldozing his way into the Ring of Fire, and I worry that that also includes bulldozing over the legal and moral responsibilities that we have as Canadians to respect Indigenous rights.

Given that this bill skips over sureties for land remediation and gives the impression that haste is more important than careful negotiations, can you tell me how free, prior and informed consent is protected in this bill?