Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said before, clause 4(2) says that, "If the provision of this act is inconsistent or in conflict with a provision of another act, the provision of this act prevails unless the other act expressly provides that it, or a provision of it, prevails notwithstanding this act."

My understanding is that if we have an act that conflicts with this act, then this act wins. Is my understanding correct?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member is right. Once this particular subsection comes into force, which will be two years after the rest of the act comes into force, this act will prevail over any other act to the extent of any inconsistency between the two acts. However, it only prevails over other acts where there is, in fact, an inconsistency in the two acts. I would anticipate that many of those inconsistencies will, in fact, be dealt with by amendment in the period leading up to the coming into force of subsection 4.2.

Thank you. I presume that we are talking about territorial statutes in this case. One of the acts we are so proud of is the Languages Act, where we are able to make an act that would be used by the public. If there are sections that conflict with this act, which we are so proud of as a people in the Northwest Territories, then would that act be struck down if it conflicts with this one?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there is an inconsistency between the Official Languages Act and the Access to Information Act with respect to a certain provision, that provision would not be struck down. However, this provision would prevail in respect to that inconsistency and

only in respect to that inconsistency. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then, when it prevails, that act or section of the act is no longer effective and that act would have to be amended. My understanding is that our Languages Act is protected by the Northwest Territories Act which ultimately cannot change in this Legislature alone. It would have to go to the federal government to get changed. With this bill, we don't have to go and ask the federal government for permission to make this kind of legislation. I understand they have a year to strike this kind of deal down if it conflicts with what they call a proper bill, I guess -- I don't know; whatever you call it. How could we make a section in our act that would be stronger than the legislation that is protected by our constitution?

Okay, I will put it in a little scenario. If the languages act allows me to get certain information from the government and this act doesn't allow me to get that same information, ultimately, this act would win. I would not get the information, right? Or, if I chose to use a certain official language, my understanding is that the working language of this government is English only, according to the government's response from one of their tabled documents. If I have the right to ask the government in my own language, in Inuktitut, which a certain act allows me, if this act doesn't allow me, then I don't get that information in my language. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, my question is not being answered. Let's say that even after the amendments are made, this act prevails over any other act. If I have the right to ask for certain information in a different act, and this act doesn't allow me, then I will not be able to get it in the form that I requested because of this act, right? I am trying to make a point that in that way, my right as an individual that I enjoy today, if it conflicts with this act, then I will not be able to get that information any more. That's my understanding. So this act prevails over any other act that exists today unless the other act expressly provides that it or a portion of it prevails notwithstanding this act. So my understanding is that all the acts and statutes that we have don't make any reference to any part of this act because it's new, none of it.