Okay, because often that is a fairly major problem. When I saw “67% of Canadians”, I thought, no, no. I guess the language is just a bit misleading.
Secondly, my challenge is that when I see “67% of Canadians” or even, let's say, “67% of Canadians polled”—and I would agree with Ms. Brown that people probably over-report good behaviour—I have this vision of people in the grocery store. Now I have my reading glasses on, which I would never have on at the grocery store, which I don't go to as much as I used to, so let me honest about that. But I would have to see accelerated music and pumped-in oxygen, because if everybody had to take out their reading glasses in order to read the nutritional facts, which I do, we'd have a very slow-moving grocery store. That would be my guess. So with only the nutrition facts, I have difficulty believing that 67% of folks would find this useful.
Secondly, when I look at the vitamin A in a can of Heinz beans—I'll use that example--and this is 2% of the daily content that I'm supposed to have, it's very difficult for me. I'm not sure that having a red or green light, or even the Heart Check, would necessarily make a difference. Because then, as I run down the isle, I have to ask myself, if this is 2% of my vitamin A today, then what else is it that I'm having to keep track of on my tally as I go through the grocery story?
The likelihood of any of that happening, by the way, is fairly unusual; at least I think it would be at my house, but I'm sure all of the rest of you do it rigorously.
I'd also be interested to know how many prosecutions we've had in the last 12 months.