Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The difficulty we have with this amendment is similar to difficulties we have had throughout this bill, in that it refers to any number of ill-defined terms. In fact, those that do have definitions are not consistent with other Canadian law in all cases. So for example, the definition of precautionary principle, which is referred to in this amendment, is not consistent with the definition of precautionary principle as it has been codified in other statutes such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Federal Sustainable Development Act, and so on. Those acts are rather consistent with the Rio Declaration that I did refer to some time ago in this proceeding. I remind the committee members of it, in that the precautionary principle in the Rio Declaration and in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act indicates that there must be threats of serious or irreversible damage, and in such case lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
The statute before us will define precautionary principles differently. Although it refers to threats of serious or irreversible damage, it only talks about postponing action to protect the environment, rather than cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. This is important not simply to ensure uniformity in our law, which I can tell you lawyers are very big on because it creates uncertainty when you use different terms, but this is also important because the absence of that term “cost-effective” puts an entirely different complexion on the precautionary principle, which the amendment seeks to add into clause 23. So we're no longer talking about cost-effective measures necessarily. The addition of this paragraph by this amendment makes section 23 that much more onerous for agencies, which are exposed to threat of lawsuit under section 23. Even if the solution that is being proposed isn't really cost-effective, they may be required to embark upon it under this precautionary principle.
Very quickly, another interesting area is in the (f) section of this amendment, which talks about the “economic and social context of the affected area”. This I believe is new even to this act. I don't think it's been defined, although I stand to be corrected. It would be a nice step in the right direction if we knew what it meant. I'm not sure we can even tell what is meant by “the affected area”. Are we talking about an area of law, or are we talking about an area of environmental expertise, or are we talking about a specific geographic area, or are we talking about a sector of the economy? It's really just not at all clear to me what that means. Of course, when we have ill-defined terms, that's great for environmental lawyers, but it's not so great for developers and job creators who now have to go out and try to guess what's meant by this kind of law and try to plan their activities accordingly. Someone's got to speak for them, and that's what I'm trying to do.
Thank you.