Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Since my French is far from passable and since this is a unique amendment because both the English and French of the amendment are in French, Mr. Chair, my question to the experts—and possibly the mover of the motion—is this: If this subamendment changes that particular word, is there an impact on the rest of the bill? Is it setting a precedent that would require that particular word?
If I'm following the conversation correctly, would “prudence” be required to be changed throughout the entirety of the act? Would this have implications?
I think Mr. Moffet was implying that if it starts here, then the consequence would be the entirety of CEPA, both what is amended and what is not, and related acts. I know some of the witness testimony we heard talked about this being one of a number of acts related to environmental regulation, whether it be in agriculture, health, pharmaceuticals or that sort of thing.
My question comes down to this: If that word is changed in this amendment en français, does that have sweeping consequences across the entirety of this act and possibly other acts?