Earlier you were asked whether you trusted the Liberals to apply or comply with this act. You essentially answered that you would trust them even less if there was no act. In other words, you trust them even less at the negotiation stage if there are no legal obligations and all there is, ultimately, is whatever word has been given.
Like everyone else, you agree that an act can be repealed. That's normal; we live in a democracy. The question I want to ask you seems obvious, but I nevertheless feel it's important to clarify the point: don't you think the obligation to repeal an act will prolong negotiations where parties want to open a breach in future? Then the government will have to accept the blame for repealing it before it can open that breach.