I'll recap what I said last time about there being something problematic in referring to inconsistencies rather than conflicts. An inconsistency can mean something other than a conflict. In my experience, it hasn't been the case that statutes refer to inconsistencies, but rather to conflicts, where one prevails and one does not.
Secondly, this amendment talks about the provisions of international conventions in force in Canada. Although I stand to be corrected on this, it's my general expectation that even though one might say that an international statute that has been ratified by Canada is in force in Canada, if there hasn't been any legislative implementation of it, it won't be something that could conflict with Bill C-469. If that's the case, one has to wonder where one would find the inconsistency or the conflict if there hasn't been any implementation of an international convention in Canada.
Beyond that, the part that's supposed to be added doesn't fit, in a grammatical or drafting sense, with the part it's intending to modify. Clause 6 simply says that the purpose of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights is to do certain things. There is no subclause 6(1). I suppose one would have to make the existing clause 6 a subclause 6(1) in order to add this subclause 6(2). If one were to do that, it's still uncertain whether subclause 6(2) would overcome anything in subclause 6(1). That is to say, if the “purpose of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights is to (a) safeguard the right of present and future generations of Canadians to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment” and it happened that subclause 6(2) came into operation as a result of a conflict or an inconsistency between the act and an international convention, it's not clear that simply adding a subclause 6(2) would override anything that would be in subclause 6(1), which would outline the purposes of the act.
If one wanted subclause 6(1) to be read subject to subclause 6(2), then I suppose one might say that in subclause 6(1). One might say that subject to subclause 6(2), the purpose of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights is to do certain things. In the absence of that, it's not clear to me that either of those subclauses would have any control over the other.
There are other things that I might say in relation to the main provision, but I'll forego those for the moment. When I talk about this amendment, I have in mind the Marine Liability Act, which contains a statutory implementation to discern how liability will attach to international shippers.
