Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's proposal with great interest because it goes even further than what I have suggested.
He talks about the traceability of foods and, there again, we have a lot of catching up to do with Europe. I think that what he is proposing is ideal.
I was only involved in one aspect of this great project, but it would really be great if we went all the way, because we would be protecting both consumers and farmers.
What worries me is the fact GMOs have been on the market for five years. We started talking about this a year or so ago and, in the meantime, things have continued to happen.
I see the Minister of Industry. There is the biotechnology advisory committee, which was set up in September 1999, and there is also a committee on the future of biotechnology made up of scientific experts who will look at what is going to happen in the next ten years.
I want it to be very clear that I am not against setting up such committees because looking at the future is already something. What really bothers me, however, is the present. I have a problem with the present.
I reviewed a study by Ann Clark, a professor at Guelph University. She carried out tests on toxicity levels or loads and found that 70% of the 42 MGO crops in Canada had not been tested for toxicity. She adds that allergenicity was not assessed in laboratory or through feeding experiments for any of the 42 crops.
I am not an alarmist, but a scientific approach requires that we have scientific answers to our questions.
Today, I have this question for my colleague: Does he think that a collective effort is in order to move ahead faster in answering these questions? We are eating these foods; they are already on the market. That is what worries me.