I guess my joke got lost. We'll see if it's funny the second time.
If Henry Ford was building cars and had to go through this legislation, the guys running the buggies would have been protesting, up in arms, and we wouldn't have cars this day, because politicians would have made that decision based on the existing voter base. That's the problem with bringing politicians into a context of something that should be science-based.
That doesn't mean we don't need to have the debate; we do need to have the debate. We need to figure out how to move forward on this, but this legislation isn't the proper way to do that.
I'm also very concerned that we're actually still debating this legislation, because it is having an impact on investment in future technologies to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
I was at the University of Saskatchewan this summer, and even the thought of them having to go through the process, whereas they can go to another country and make these innovations without going through this process, would move that capital somewhere else, without a doubt. Our resources, our clusters, our farmers would be disadvantaged in other markets and other areas of the world because those clusters moved somewhere else.
So we need to debate this, we need to come forward on this, and, as you said, that's why I'm looking forward to the standing committee travelling to Guelph, going to the University of Saskatchewan, other clusters, and actually looking at this in a serious manner, and I hope we can do that this fall.
Having said that, I'm going to take advantage of talking about low-level presence, because that's one thing I think we can all agree on. There's got to be some standardization on low-level presence. Where are we on low-level presence? Do you feel we've done enough in all the industries, organics, right through the chain, to say this is where we have to go? Are we in agreement on that?
Mr. Holmes, would you agree with that?