Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming forward today.
I think it's pertinent that we begin this conversation, as Mr. Steckle did, by saying that the safety of our food supply is not in question here. Safety is not an issue that we're debating here. It is mostly whether or not this “Product of Canada” labelling is misleading, whether it should be 51% cost, whether we should move up the content. The CFA has put a proposal forward that we put a whole new line of labelling in place, which some people around the table would like to see.
When we're looking at this I think it's important that we first establish what the problem is. I think the second thing we need to do is recognize that part of that problem is that consumers are bombarded by so many different labels and things trying to grab their attention when they walk into any store, never mind the grocery store. The more labels we force people to put in place, the more confusing it is for consumers. That's my point of view, and it's what many witnesses have said before us in the last few weeks.
It's important that we talk about truth in advertising. That's absolutely correct. We need to make sure that the labels that are out there are truthful. There's a lot of concern with 51% cost in the “Product of Canada” label.
That's something that we can definitely address. Whether it's cost or content, and whether it's 51% or 80%, I believe that can all be addressed through the guidelines, can it not--and relatively quickly?