Okay.
It's less clear to me now than previously what this would then achieve. Again, I think what we heard from ILWU workers is that they want to see the original timeline respected. I'm not sure that the NDP subamendment does that, because it says “may make regulations respecting the prohibition, by December 31, 2029”. Again, I would argue that it should be one year after that to respect the 2030 mandate letter and commitment that the Liberals have made to those workers. However, it says that it can be made “by” then. It doesn't say that it cannot be made before then.
To me, this section doesn't prevent the government from moving forward, because “by December 31, 2029” could include December 31, 2025, as far as my reading of this goes.
Can you correct me? Am I misreading that? When they put in “may make...by”, that, to me, shows a last date that they could do it. It doesn't prevent them from doing it five years before the current transition plan for 2030 calls for it.
I'm not sure which one of the witnesses or if the legislative clerk can confirm that I'm reading that correctly.