Thank you.
The minister's comments make me think that he intends to make these provisions declaratory provisions. I don't think the text is clear enough in that regard.
In this context, the Supreme Court might have to interpret the very nature of these provisions. It might have to determine whether the provisions are declaratory, interpretive or even, as a third possibility, whether they are provisions that retroactively amend the existing law.
If we don't clarify these points, the Supreme Court would obviously have interpretive work to do. However, if the provisions were very clear and there was no doubt that the provisions were declaratory, the court could at least determine that the provisions are declaratory and that the interpretation would bind us as long as other impediments, of a constitutional nature for example, do not render these provision invalid.