Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of comments.
First of all, this is adding something very small that won't give a ton of reassurance to most environmental stakeholders, I think, especially if we don't have strengthened provisions for public participation. That said, a small step forward is supportable.
We already talked about G-14.1 and G-14.2 a bit. To Mr. Duguid's comments that the government was not supporting NDP-35 because it had additional amendments coming forward.... Madame Pauzé's amendment and my amendment are trying to ensure we're not allowing industry to decide, and that we have information provided showing that these living organisms are actually needed and what their risks are for people and the environment—that they aren't toxic, or capable of becoming toxic. That shifts the burden to the proponent.
The industry has everything to gain by putting these new living organisms forward and selling them. So many people had concerns about AquaBounty because of the fact that we had a genetically modified organism produced for human consumption without adequate consultation, especially when it came to consultation with indigenous communities and first nations along the coast of British Columbia. We heard from many people how this was a deep concern, given the cultural significance.
We need to go much further than what I see proposed by the government here. I will be supporting G-14.1 with this small step forward, but I have deep concerns about the government's willingness to ensure that proponents have to provide adequate information, that there will be tight timelines and that we're protecting human health and the environment in this.