Further to Mr. Badawey's point earlier, in limiting it in this way—“regulations made under paragraph 1(b) must prohibit the deposit of raw sewage from port activities in waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority”—we then open up a whole can of worms as to what “port activities” are. Is port activity vessels? Is it the administration building? It certainly would limit the ability to have a more wide-ranging discussion about preventing the deposit of raw sewage.
I think it is already limited by saying it is dealing with waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority. We might have an idea of another amendment that would give the Governor in Council more flexibility in developing the regulations. To limit it just to port activities without defining what those are could make it completely.... It wouldn't have any impact, and that's not what we want.
I appreciate what Mr. Barsalou-Duval is trying to do, but I think we are already limiting it to waters in the jurisdiction of a port authority.
We should maybe try to give more flexibility with other wording, but we can't have two subamendments on the same motion. I think that this subamendment is too limiting and won't allow us to do what we are trying to do with this amendment.