As you noted, this is related to the earlier question as well. The way we see this bill, as in the Ontario case, is that it's an overlay. It provides some commonality across the way departments and ministries make their decisions. It provides some principle to those decisions. It doesn't take away from the fact they have specific jobs to do under those specific statutes.
In the Ontario case, what happens is that the particular ministries are required to prepare something called a statement of environmental values, which they do as they see fit for the kind of mandate they're dealing with, whether they're the ministries of environment or natural resources, and so forth. Then they have to carry out their decisions in accordance with those values.
In this case with the federal bill, the principles are being set out in the statute, these interpretive provisions and the purposes, and the departments would have to make sure they operationalize or decide how their job—which isn't changing—under the Fisheries Act or under CEPA still has to be done, but in a way now that's consistent with this bill.
So it exactly gets at your point, which is a valid one, that we do need to reinforce and enhance the existing statutes. This is a very useful way to do it and a very common way internationally of doing it: by way of an environmental bill of rights.