Again, thank you to the member from Essex. I’m glad that they’re bringing forward the concerns from their area. I think that’s incredibly important. I think it’s also important that we note that, within Bill 185, it does not address the concerns of northern Ontarians in a very effective way. In fact, Greater Sudbury ward 10 councillor and planning committee chair Fern Cormier said that they haven’t seen anything in the proposed legislation that will dramatically affect the city. And in North Bay, Mayor Peter Chirico says that “a lot of that legislation is directed at the GTA and high-growth areas.... We don’t have a lot of development that’s just sitting. When they have the opportunity, developers in northern Ontario go forward with it....”

So I don’t believe that this government has actually adequately consulted on this legislation. There is so much more that needs to be in there and actually address the situation.

I’d like to thank the member from London West for her excellent comments. I want to thank her for bringing forward the concerns and requests from front-line officers, especially with regard to permanent, stable funding for the COAST program.

This government ignored recommendations from budget consultations earlier this year, and they really missed the opportunity to commit to support front-line officers by funding COAST within this bill.

My question to the member: Why does COAST make sense from a mental health perspective as well as a fiscal one?

I’d like to thank the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for her excellent presentation. I’d like to thank her, as well, for bringing forward the concerns of parents, students, education workers, and trustees from across the province. It’s clear that these voices are not reflected in Bill 98—it’s clear that they were not consulted.

As the member has pointed out, mental health—there are four mentions of it within this legislation, and it only relates to policies and guidelines. There are not any additional resources.

Also, I find it quite concerning, after listening to the member’s presentation, that violence does not appear in this legislation even one time—not even one instance.

My question to the member is, if the government wanted to show legitimate and authentic care for students with special needs, how would they update GSNs in the funding formula?

I’d like to thank the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay for his passionate and articulate speech on Bill 46.

Boil-water advisories are a national and provincial disgrace that they continue to this day with very little action. I wanted to share the words of Deshkan Ziibiing, the Chippewas of the Thames First Nations, who have some concerns about some of the potential areas for carbon sequestration. It has been shown by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to be quite close to COTTFN lands. There is no commitment in Bill 46 to require First Nations’ consent for carbon capture, utilization and storage, and they ask that there be early and meaningful involvement of impacted First Nations, and, in addition to consultation, the province must seek consent of First Nations before proceeding with CCUS projects.

My question to the member: Do you suspect that the government understands the difference between consultation and consent?