Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your testimonies.
Mr. Keller, in your brief you say that Bill C-474 is based more on emotion than on science. The GMO industry has echoed that criticism several times. I am having a hard time understanding what you're talking about. I think that your claim is somewhat condescending and even insulting to those who introduced the bill, especially since Canada is not the only country where this is done. We all know that, and Argentina was given as one example. I'd like to know what emotions have to do with an analysis of the implications of changes in the markets. I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning, especially since you do not explain yourself, you just say that emotions are involved. It's as if, all of a sudden, someone announced in the midst of an emotional outburst that they would conduct an analysis of the implications of changes in the markets before selling genetically modified organisms. I feel that this accusation is a bit gratuitous.
I would still like to talk about the issues you raise, which are perhaps a little more concrete than mere emotions. You say that the bill could impede the research and commercialization processes. You might be right when it comes to commercialization. I would like to remind you that, six years ago, Argentina formulated such a policy as part of its regulatory framework on GMO exportation.
Can you provide some concrete examples showing that this was detrimental to product commercialization in Argentina? For instance, did the World Trade Organization come under attack or issue any rulings that caused problems for Argentina? That is my first question.