Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the situation gets complicated when we compare the French translation to the original English text. In English, it says:
“In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions”.
In French, that doesn't exist, it's not there. The French is very clear; it says: “Les dispositions de toute convention internationale en vigueur au Canada l'emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles de la présente loi.” And you could put “conflictuelles” instead of “incompatibles”.
I wonder if, instead of amending the amendment, we should just…I would translate “inconsistency” with “conflit” in French, but, apart from that, the paragraph is very clear in French. It's the English that is not clear, in my opinion, and that's where the complication arises. We are all talking about the words “In the event of any” that do not appear in the translation. It may also be that the amendment was written in French first and translated into English badly. I don't know, but, Mr. Chair, it seems to me that the situation is clear in French, but not in English. Someone will have to tell us what it is supposed to mean.
There is another thing. We can spend hours on discussions like this. Mr. Chair, there is never one judge in a court like this, there are three or five, because people around one table do not agree and never will. Let us try to do the best we can rather than wanting to settle only for perfection, because I don't think we will ever get there. I think we could be happy with that. We have to keep one thing in mind: our goal here is to protect the environment, not judges and lawyers.