Mr. Chair, perhaps I could just say that I hear Mr. Strahl's concerns. I think what we're tasked with as a committee is striking that balance between the larger national economic needs of the supply chain and the local needs of the people and the environment through which the supply chain passes.
This is an issue whether we're talking about ports, anchorages or the rail corridor. In the region where I live, there's great concern about the transport of dangerous goods through communities. It's important that we transport dangerous goods, and transporting them by rail often makes the most sense, but that doesn't mean that the needs of communities and the safety of communities can be overlooked. We need to find a way to achieve both, and I think this amendment tries to strike that balance by limiting the time that ships are able to anchor in sensitive areas.
I appreciate that the shipping companies and the port would like maximum flexibility and do not want to have their options limited in any way whatsoever. That's understandable. What we're tasked with is also representing the people who live in the area and managing the impact on what is a unique and sensitive marine environment. I think this amendment achieves that.
If I can try to reflect back on Ms. Read's comments, what I heard from her was that she isn't able to confirm that this long list of coordinates in front of us reflects a particular area of concern. That's a fair comment, because it's just a long list of numbers. The idea here was to reflect a geographic area that residents have expressed concern about, that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has indicated is a sensitive marine area and that Parks Canada has identified as an ecologically significant region.
Hopefully, that's going to be enough for us to push to a vote. I understand that we're not all of one accord on this, and I can respect that. I think this strikes the right balance and I hope it passes.