I will also make a comment. I think that this amendment sets aside clause 16.1 of the bill, which was proposed by the Senate.
Earlier, I raised a question about the word “refine”, referring to the use of vertebrate animals. This brings us back to NDP‑14, which would have removed that verb. If we were to accept that, wouldn't there be a temptation to find other ways of doing things rather than using vertebrate animals? Otherwise, we're just trying to refine what we do to vertebrate animals.
I would like to point out that there are exceptions in the Senate clause. It states that ministers may not use methods involving vertebrate animals, but provides for exceptions, such as if it's not reasonably possible to obtain the data or conduct the investigation differently. It's much more restrictive. The idea of refining the use is sort of there, but the clause is much more specific, indicating cases in which vertebrate animals may still be used.
For these reasons, I will be voting against G‑12. I find that the current clause 16.1 is ultimately comprehensive and more detailed, prohibiting this use, but providing for exceptions. When you use the verb “refine”, however, nothing is specified. It says nothing at all.