Yes, Mr. Chair, I will move this government motion to respond to the other place's amendment to the precautionary principle in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the act.
Once again, the ENEV committee amended the English version of the subparagraph 2(1)(a)(ii) to remove the word “cost” from the phrase “cost-effective measures” in an attempt to better align the English provision with the French provision, which simply refers to “mesures effectives”. However, the discrepancy between the English “cost-effective measures” and the French is not a translation error and in fact is consistent with the English and French versions of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development upon which the provision is based.
This does sound a lot like my previous intervention, Mr. Chair.
In order to avoid misalignment and to ensure that the key notion that precautionary measures be cost-effective remains in CEPA, the government proposes to correct the purported translation error by amending the French version of the act rather than the English.
I don't know if we could get Mr. Moffet to provide some commentary again, Mr. Chair.