In my mind, and I would turn to Doug as well, I think they would be competing. They do both speak to entrenching a duty.
I would just say that particularly in an act that has been reviewed carefully by many first nations people, including witnesses who have come to this committee, clarity of language is abundantly important. If the intent of these clauses, which seem to overlap a little bit, is to entrench a domestic law, I think the objective would be to have the utmost clarity of what that law compels Canada to do.
Doug, do you want to add to that?