To Mr. Moffet's point, while there was reference to vulnerable populations, the Senate amendment substantially expanded what will be occurring under future Canadian Environmental Protection Act policies and implementation around vulnerable populations.
To answer the second part of the question first, Dr. Lewis, I have no objections whatsoever to an amendment that says “but is not limited to”.
Lastly, I would say to any group that finds it a difficulty, that this is the very specific definition that adds to a very general definition that is currently included in the act. It provides greater guidance. It is not overly general, but it does not apply in all circumstances. It's a population, when exposed to....or in the words of the bill now, in the Senate amendment to item 2(iii.2) on page 11, it's where there is a “vulnerable population...in relation to the substance”. It's not a general statement that your population is always vulnerable; it's a statement that your population is vulnerable in relation to a substance regulated under CEPA. That becomes one of the context-setting elements to the question of toxicity, vulnerability and whether the government needs to take steps.
All the language that was adopted in the Senate committee on S-5 is very consistent with the bill this committee has already passed without amendment, Bill C-226, my private member's bill on environmental racism.
Thank you, Chair.