I am having some difficulty speaking over Monsieur Bigras, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
The other interesting point about this is that this act is intended to be an environmental bill of rights. Consequently, it will supersede all other legislation. Indeed, this act is intended to be legislative direction to the government that its fiduciary duties under this act are paramount. And the court is going to follow that direction.
The reason I mention that is that I want to go back so that we understand how clause 20 is going to relate to clause 16. I am mindful of the fact that subclause 16(4) was deleted. But I want to remind people that, as Ms. Duncan explained to us, the Supreme Court of Canada has apparently already implemented provisions similar to subclause 16(4) in some of its decisions. The deletion of that subclause does not mean that the Government of Canada will be able to override the provisions of clause 20 in any other way, save and except with an act that contains what might be described as a notwithstanding clause. In my opinion, at least, the only way the Government of Canada or the Parliament of Canada will be able to override this act, since it's a fundamental bill of rights, will be if the subsequent authorizing legislation says that it's not withstanding the provisions of this act.
Once again, I am out of time, without having hardly scratched the surface.