Environment committee  I think the current drafting approaches, consistent with the way in which statutes are being interpreted in the courts, suggest that such language is not necessary. “Including” is intended to be read as “including but not limited to”, as one uses it in normal parlance.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want, first of all, to correct the assumption that it appears some members have that this amendment was introduced in the Senate. This, in fact, has been part of Bill S-5, part of the government bill. We consulted extensively on the definition of “vulnerable population”, and the feedback....

Environment committee  The answer is that it's not standard practice and indeed it could introduce some element of uncertainty to people not familiar with the Rio principles. That said, the basic legal test for referring to external documents is that they need to be clear and they need to be available in Canada's official languages.

Environment committee  At the moment we're trying to work through the implications; we've just seen this amendment. The changing of the term “prudence” to “précaution” is not at all problematic. It's a clarification of a translation. Referring to the Rio principle, from a preliminary perspective I think we all agree that would not be a problem either, given that it is the foundation for the way in which the precautionary principle has been interpreted by the Government of Canada for the last couple of decades.

Environment committee  I don't have that available. I'm not sure if one of my staff does. We can get it quickly, I'm sure, but I can reassure you that principle 15 has been the basis for the approach to the precautionary principle under CEPA from its inception.

Environment committee  I can read principle 15. In order to protect the environment, the precautionary [principle] shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. 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.

Environment committee  At this point all I can say is that various countries have defined the concepts differently. They have started with the same term, “healthy environment” or “clean environment”, and then developed further definitions that are not all the same. Given that there isn't a clear and consistent approach, the approach that's codified in the bill at the moment is to start with this general terminology and then unpack it through a public process to develop an implementation framework.

Environment committee  First of all, you have my apologies. I shouldn't have used the word “some”. You're correct. The resolution was widely adopted, recognizing the strong support globally for the importance of providing for a clean and healthy environment. The terminology we've included in Bill S-5 reflects the emerging international terms.

Environment committee  I can start, Mr. Chair. I would make two points. The main one is that notwithstanding the fact that many countries supported the UN resolution and that many countries have in fact codified various formulations around the right to a clean or a healthy environment, there is no standard approach or understanding of the content and scope of the right.

Environment committee  Again, the issue of aggregate exposure is a little difficult for me to comment on, because at the moment Bill S-5 does not include that term. As Ms. May has explained, however, she's proposing the introduction of the term in other amendments. I can't comment on committee process, but it might be useful for the committee to understand how those amendments would introduce the term and thereby make it potentially relevant.

Environment committee  Yes. I apologize if I was not clear. I was trying to say two things. First, defining it in any way could have the implication of precluding its evolution over time. Second, the particular definition that is proposed here is, in fact, narrower than our current interpretation of the term.

Environment committee  I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to respond directly to the question. Neither term, “aggregate exposure” or “cumulative effect”, is defined in the statute at the moment. “Cumulative effect” and “cumulative effects” are referred to in a number of places in Bill S-5, however, so it is an important concept, and it is one that informs our risk assessments and our risk management decisions.

Environment committee  That's correct. We believe this term should be defined as a matter of policy, so we're not suggesting that Canadians not be informed about the way the government is interpreting and applying the term. However, defining it as a matter of policy, again, would enable us to revise it over time as the scientific understanding of the kinds of ways in which cumulative effects are understood and need to be assessed evolve as science evolves.

Environment committee  Thank you. I'm happy to respond. I think the government shares the concern about defining “cumulative effect” in two senses. One, we don't think it's necessary or appropriate to define it in the act itself, because it is a concept that continues to evolve within the scientific community, and defining it in the act would then lock it in and preclude us from being able to evolve on a policy basis.

Environment committee  I don't know if we have a formal legal definition. Laura maybe able to elaborate. The inclusion of the principle is intended to ensure that there is no reversal of environmental protection—