We're not at this committee looking at the labelling issue as such. We're hearing lots on it, and we're learning some things we're amazed by.
There's no question that I like the idea of your quick solution. However, I think the problem we have with it--and I think we're all on relatively the same wavelength on the committee--is that we're trying to get to a definition that defines the product itself. When somebody buys a product of Canada, you assume in your head that it means what is in the package, not the costs related to all the peripheral issues around that product packaging.
So from your perspective, how do we get there? I understand exactly what you're saying. This could be done quickly by putting up the definition to 80% or 100%, or whatever. However, from your perspective, what would have to be done, and how complicated and lengthy is the process to change the definition to target specifically the content?