Thank you.
Thanks to both of you for being here.
I think the way to really get to the bottom of this, to come up with some position, is to throw arguments at you folks from those who are opposed and vice versa. When people come in who are opposed to this, give them arguments so that we can kind of arrive at what's happening.
Dr. Smyth, you just mentioned Europe, and zero tolerance, and the fact that we need to get the WTO involved because Europe used the word manipulation, and that it could be a lengthy process before Europe brings in low-level presence. If we allow low-level presence in Canada, it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a similar policy in our trading partners, namely Europe. That is the point that I know the organic association makes.
Should we not be approaching this topic on a multilateral agreement basis so that all countries agree to the same standard? This is the question. In other words, if we do this, are we putting our specifically organic industry at risk?
Before I move on here, you also mentioned the standards, and you talked about France as opposed to, say, North Korea. So we allow low-level presence from France, but then we don't allow it from North Korea. Who sets the standard? How do we say which country we will allow low-level presence from, because, in fact, we haven't tested?
We say we're science based but it's not our science. We're relying on science from another country. How do we make that distinction? That goes to another argument that folks have: if we're not testing it through science, how can we possibly allow any kind of presence in our country? Let me just throw that open to you folks.