Thank you.
Obviously, I think this was a very contentious issue. We heard from many witnesses who were very concerned about the broad powers that were given to the minister, which were indicated in proposed subsection107.1(1). It says:
If the Minister is of the opinion that there is a risk of imminent harm to national security, national economic security or competition that constitutes a significant threat to the safety and security of persons, goods, ships or port facilities or the security of supply chains, the Minister may, by order, require a port authority or a person in charge of a port facility to take any measure, including corrective measures, or stop any activity that the Minister considers necessary to prevent that harm.
We heard, for instance, from labour. I go back to ILWU talking about the need to ensure that this wouldn't be abused, that the minister wouldn't deem that a work stoppage, a withdrawal of labour or a legal strike would be considered a significant threat to the security of the supply chain or to national economic security. This would not be the case. We heard that time and time again, from CUPE to ILWU to.... Numerous labour organizations were concerned about the broad impact that this section would have.
Obviously, when I go to the correctness standard versus providing greater accountability, I guess my question to the officials is this: Does this still allow the minister to make that determination? Is there anything preventing the minister from, for instance, declaring a legal strike at a port to be a risk to national economic security, for instance, or a risk to the security of supply chains?
Does this amendment address that sufficiently, or will there still be a way for a minister—future or current—to use or abuse that section to do what the unions were afraid of—to go outside, perhaps, what was intended? We don't draft laws based on good intentions. They have to be airtight. They have to be drafted in such a way that they are not open to abuse. I think we need to have the assurance that this type of amendment will prevent abuse by the minister.
I'd like to know what your opinion of that is. Does the current section 107.1 allow the minister to do those things that we were told were of a concern, especially to those who believed it could be used to undermine the collective bargaining process or a legal strike action?