It is a good thing.
I adapted some of my language just to ensure that this amendment would be ruled as in scope. I think the stronger language that people would have seen in the initial NDP-35, which talked about wild counterparts, and that you saw in NDP-34 and BQ-11, which we have just voted on.... However, I will move what I submitted to the legislative clerk most recently, which actually changes that to an “organism that is not a micro-organism”.
I think, critically, what we're talking about here is protecting biodiversity, protecting wild counterparts and protecting animals that could be threatened when we have genetically engineered organisms being produced and then potentially escaping into the wild.
We know that this has already happened. We heard in the testimony in committee that in Brazil there was a glowing fish that had been genetically engineered and that escaped into the wild. It has wild counterparts. This is extremely dangerous and could have cascading effects for biodiversity, and we are in a biodiversity crisis.
I want to thank Nature Canada for its extensive work in this area and, really, the efforts that it and many others have been making to protect human health, to protect nature and to really ensure that we're not further exacerbating the biodiversity crisis we're facing.
I will leave it there.