Transport committee  In respect of the coordinates on the schedule, I would note that when we were looking at the coordinates as proposed there was some concern about whether or not some of the coordinates were completely correct. I don't have details in front of me right now in respect of the actual coordinates, but I would say that one concern was whether or not they were actually reflective of the geographic area of concern, which is the southern Gulf Islands.

Transport committee  My understanding is that, as officials, we aren't in a position to put forward any language with respect to amendments. I would seek clarity on that. However, my understanding is that the end of the discussion was regarding the time frame for the length of appointments. We noted that six months was too short.

Transport committee  Okay. Our understanding is that, if the provision regarding a regulation-making authority does not take effect until January 1, 2031, we would not be able to make the regulations until that date, which means that the provisions that indicate when the regulations are supposed to be in effect would be after the date that the authority actually comes into effect.

Transport committee  Our understanding is that the way the bill has been amended, the regulation-making authority would take effect as of the coming into force of the provisions in the bill generally. The regulations must be made within 48 months, but the actual prohibition of the activity would not take effect until after December 31, 2030.

Transport committee  Thank you for the question. It's a very good question. Our understanding of the provisions that were originally amended was that they provided for the regulations to be made within 48 months after the coming into effect, but the regulations would themselves prohibit the loading and unloading of thermal coal after December 31, 2030.

Transport committee  This is put forward as a legislative proposal to be part of the suite of tools that can be used to address the possibility of imminent harm to national security or the supply chain.

Transport committee  I'm sorry. I may have misspoken. I meant national economic security or the security of the supply chain.

Transport committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am probably going to say exactly the same thing that my colleague was going to ask. That is, could we get clarity on the question in terms of what the member was trying to ask about what it was intended to deal with? I'm not clear on what the question is.

Transport committee  I think, as my colleague has noted numerous times, that there are a number of scenarios that could possibly arise where such a provision would be used outside of the context of a labour dispute. It's not intended for labour disputes. I think we've noted that a couple of times in the context of the responses that were provided.

Transport committee  In the context of previous actions, we would have to go through an analysis of the situation and the evidence at that time and then try to apply what the provision would look like. I don't have all of the evidence and all of the information at hand so that we could go through that whole assessment in terms of how or when this would be applied to various situations.

Transport committee  We don't have any examples of it being done in the recent past because this is a new order-making authority that didn't previously exist. In terms of examples of where it would be used, it would be used in the context, as I noted, of a risk of imminent harm to national security and a significant threat to the safety and security of persons, goods, ships or port facilities or the security of the national supply chain.

Transport committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Mr. Strahl. First I'll say that there are a few reasons that it could not be used in respect of labour actions. First of all, the order, as it is written, can only be used to issue an order to a port authority or a port facility.

Transport committee  In the case of this particular order, the threshold is very high. There is a twofold threshold. Basically, there has to be first a determination that there is a risk of imminent harm to national security, national economic security or competition, and second, a determination that the risk of imminent harm poses a significant threat to the safety and security of persons, goods, ships, port facilities or security of the supply chain.

Transport committee  Yes, our understanding, based on the revised wording, is that it would address the concern regarding constraints around flexibility in the making of the regulations.

Transport committee  I don't have information respecting the sewage outfalls for municipalities and whether they fall into port authority waters in all instances or most instances. They may; I'm not sure. It depends on where the port authorities or CPAs are located. In some instances, I think they do.