I don't know if the tabler wanted to speak to that. I think it's a good amendment and it puts some conditions on the factors that the Superior Court can consider. It gives some guidance on how the matter is to be considered. It simply brings forward an earlier provision and places it here.
I've heard a number of what I think could be potentially constructive, helpful suggestions from the Conservative members of the committee. But I find it regrettable that they haven't taken it upon themselves to propose amendments. When I'm tabling amendments and so forth, I would really welcome them.
One of the things we have discussed--we talked to the legislative clerk about this, and this issue has come forward continuously from some of the members of the committee--is the definition of precautionary principle. We had a discussion about whether or not, in the context of the amendments we're making, when we come back to the end and revisit other provisions of the bill, it might be possible to amend the definition. That concern could then be remedied.
It appears by the Liberal amendment that they have taken an effort to try to resolve that in their addition of new paragraph 23(4)(f). I'm not particularly troubled by the way it's defined, and I think it could be sensibly interpreted.