Environment committee  Thank you. I would be happy to do that. The minister said last week that it would be “nearly impossible to implement.” That was the first we've heard of that. I would suggest that not only can we do so, but we must, and it's doable. I referred to the Norwegian Gene Technology Act for Madame Pauzé.

Environment committee  I can do some; I can try. You have heard, I know, that there's more of a hazard-based approach in the EU. I looked at it in an earlier decade when it was introduced, but I haven't kept up as much as our colleagues from CELA and elsewhere have. I can point, however, as has already been mentioned, to how Norway has dealt with looking at a broader range of considerations.

Environment committee  It's important to apply the precautionary principle at the start, because we have to look before we leap. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. We can't put the chemicals back in the bottle. The long title of this act is “an act respecting pollution prevention”. It also talks about principles.

Environment committee  I've outlined precisely how that would happen. I'm happy to elaborate on any of those stages. Our amendments would really raise the bar for public participation. I can also speak to how demonstrable need would be determined, because that goes together with participation. Someone said that this was impossible to implement, but, concerning our proposed section 104.1, we think that, in 90% of the cases, give or take, you would know the answer to that articulation of demonstrable need.

Environment committee  Our suggestion that demonstrable need be shown in relation to a new species is directly related to the government's UNDRIP obligations, including the language in UNDRIP, which was also added to the preamble, that free, prior and informed consent be obtained before a new organism is introduced.

Environment committee  Absolutely. Our amendments, as I said, would allow the public to find out whether there is a proposal, but we would also be able to scrutinize whether there's a need for this new animal. This would allow us to prevent pollution, in keeping with the principles of CEPA.

Environment committee  Thanks, Mark. At Nature Canada's recommendation, in the Senate, the amendment to section 114 was passed, which would allow the government to prescribe “processes for meaningful public participation”. If that clause stands, we can include those rules when the regulations are reviewed, and we'll be ready for the next GE animal.

Environment committee  Without our amendments, including those, we won't be able to prevent pollution through the means of greater scrutiny, which, as Dr. Vandelac suggested, is sorely needed. The public needs notice in advance that an animal is being proposed. They need access to all the relevant information, including the fact that waivers were requested.

Environment committee  In order not to interfere with, for example, vaccine production and what I understand is a very high volume of assessments of micro-organisms, the relevant provisions could refer to a living organism having a wild counterpart that is not a micro-organism. We could carve that group out, but catch everything else.