Then there is an admission that there is a conflict between the Impact Assessment Act, with the unconstitutionality that has been presented, and this legislation. I want to make sure that because you are carving out portions.... I'm sure that if we go to any of these, there would be a similar answer: We have to change one because we are awaiting the ministry or the department to try to sort that out.
This is a concern I've had over the years. We have lawyers in departments. There should be decisions made that do not make things unconstitutional. However, we have courts—the Supreme Court and others—that will say, no, there's a problem and it has to be fixed.
What is the reason you weren't able to give information about the fix earlier on? Do we simply have to wait and assume the minister will come up with the proper type of legislation to fix it? How will we know that it actually fixes it? I mean, it will be a bunch of legal people from your team who will say, “Okay, we believe this is a fix.”
Is this going back to the Supreme Court, then, to see whether, in effect, it does remedy the concerns? How will we know?