I want to thank you all for coming today and for taking time out of your busy schedules to present to us.
I'm going to approach this a little differently. It's not meant to be contentious. I just know there's another side to this story, and we need to have that side for our discussion. It's been our intention to have a full discussion of all of the issues. Living as we do in our own world, we sometimes do not embrace the other part of the discussion that I think we need to have.
I agree that there is room for biotech in this world. I appreciate the three billion more people who will require a 70% increase in the production of food over the next 30 years. Then there's the reduction in the accessibility of water and all the incidents associated with global warming. We've had that discussion. What I see, though, is a growing rift between those who embrace biotechnology and those who have concerns about it, whether it be the Enviropig at the University of Guelph or transgenics. We sit around this committee and hear ideas, but it's hard to mould these ideas into actual policy.
Before 2004, there was a forum in which all people involved in biotechnology were able to get to the table and talk about possible regulations and what might be needed in biotechnology. I understand that in the early 2000s the forum evaporated and no longer exists.
My first question, from 20,000 feet, would be this: do you value a forum in which these two solitudes might be able to come together and have reasonable discussions that would produce recommendations to the government about the regulations we need?
My second question is with respect to alfalfa, and I'm getting closer down to earth now. You talked about GM canola. I honour and recognize the value of GM canola, but I'm also aware, having been told by witnesses before the committee, that it contaminated non-GM canola, certainly in Saskatchewan, to the point that it's impossible for it to exist.
You know the scares about alfalfa. We're told there are over 4.5 million hectares in production, 75% of which are in the prairie provinces. Canada is the second-largest producer of non-GE alfalfa. We've heard this quote: “Contamination of organic alfalfa would impact organic farmers in many negative ways. Alfalfa is a perfect legume for nitrogen fixation and losing alfalfa in organic farm crop rotation would severely hamper the ability to maintain soil fertility and prevent soil erosion, which would harm the future of our soils’ health”.
We talk about the horse and buggy giving way to the car. I see it a little differently. If you wanted to continue to drive the horse and buggy, you could, but the contamination likelihood takes away the ability to continue to grow organic products. I agree that we need low-level presence in our international trade agreements, but low-level GM presence takes away the value if you're under the threat of contamination and you're looking to grow a particular organic crop.
First, can someone clarify whether you see the value of re-establishing the forum? Second, can you honour the idea that organics need to be able to thrive as well? Shouldn't people have the choice of buying organic products?