Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for compiling this information.
Having looked at the legislation, I have to admit to finding the original proposed amendment odd, because it is at odds with what the Government of Canada has done in all other circumstances, where they in fact have provided that the environmental statute prevails over other rights and opportunities. It leaves us in a quandary. I'd be willing to hold my comments and let Mr. Scarpaleggia speak to it because I believe it was he who brought forward the original amendment.
What we are looking at is simply whether to use “complement”, “conflict”, “consistency”, and so forth. The use of that language has been quite helpful and I think that advises us we should use the word that was given, “inconsistency”. I have to say that I am troubled that only in this law are we saying that the provisions of the convention would prevail over.... No, it doesn't?
Maybe we could get clarification. I'm trying to see the difference between this and the provisions we're given.