Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hate to nitpick here, but I wonder if it is common practice in this type of legislation to directly refer to something like a principle in international environmental law such as this, or would it be better to just say what it is? That is, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
It's nitpicking maybe, but I'm just wondering if we need to include that reference, as long as we're sure the definition itself is consistent.