Mr. Chair, I hesitate a little bit, because, first of all, I'm pretty sure that I was the one who originated the discomfort with the word “inconsistency”. So I'm hesitating here. Also, I certainly find that it is a very risky proposition to be trying to amend a bill and a provision that is fraught with such complexity and such difficulty. Having said that, what I think Ms. Duncan is moving toward is a clause that is equivalent to section 2.1 of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. Being a cautious lawyer, I always take comfort from precedent, and I assume that when that provision was first enacted, somebody must have thought about the use of the word “inconsistency” and decided it was okay or maybe even better than the word “conflict”.
I also notice that the section includes regulations made under the act, whereas the amendment Ms. Duncan has proposed does not.
My difficulty with trying to move amendments, or to put a new patch on old skin, if I can mangle a phrase, prevents me from trying to save what Ms. Duncan is doing. But I did feel compelled to point out that if one were trying to choose between what she's proposed and what's in section 2.1 of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, I would probably go with section 2.1. However, I leave it up to Ms. Duncan and Mr. Scarpaleggia as to whether they want to pick up on any of that.
Thank you.