Thank you to the member from Windsor–Tecumseh for the question. When we look at schedule 3, it does amend different legislation to require regulated professions to set out requirements for reasonable alternatives to documented proof of qualifications. But the minister unfortunately has yet to explain, in all of the press events, what this is really truly meant to address. Is it possible that this is in consideration of foreign professionals who may not have documentation to be able to establish credentials by other means? It’s really not clear.

But I want to thank the member for the question, and I do hope that the member did receive all of the petitions that were delivered to them by their CUPE local calling for wage parity for community health care workers. I hope that you will advocate for them, for your people and make sure that they’re paid properly.

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?