Mr. Chair, I think the amendment Ms. Murray and Mr. Bachrach have crafted together already deals with—I don't have the exact wording written down here—the marine environment and the well-being of coastal communities. If the minister feels those are under threat, and he's taking control of a vessel to prevent that from happening—so using this specific area prohibition—then, as Mr. Bachrach said, he will later and other amendments will later try to ban anchorages in there altogether. However, right now, again, I think those amendments that have already been made should give comfort to people in those areas that the minister is not going to take a leaky oil vessel and park it in the southern Gulf Islands if doing so is going to create a threat to the environment.
This is overly prescriptive and redundant, and, in fact, I'd say again that having the minister use this section to ban the use of legal anchorages that are perfectly used right now and that would be used only in an emergency is extremely short-sighted.
You cannot predict what will happen, so you're taking out of the minister's tool box tools that could actually protect people, the environment and communities. You're taking those tools away from him by saying, “Even though it might be the safest place to go, you can't go there.” I think that's very short-sighted, and, again, I believe we've heard from the witnesses that doing that is not an advisable course of action.
I don't think we can amend our way around it. For the people wanting to expand the minister's power to protect the marine environment and the well-being of communities, I believe that has already been addressed. This actually presents a risk to marine safety.