Agriculture committee  I don't think the consumers are really concerned about your member's problems in terms of processing the foods and where they came from. I reiterate that we have to make that distinction. What is it that we are trying to convey? What information are we trying to convey to consumers with that label?

Agriculture committee  Yes, we should be focusing on having truthful, useful information in the labelling, and no confusion in the minds of consumers. And to that end, it seems to me that maintaining the “Product of Canada” label, but clarifying exactly what that means would be preferable to introducing a new label, which introduces many complications.

Agriculture committee  The labelling of origin for food products should be mandatory. We probably should maintain the “product of” type of designation, but make that a much tighter definition indicating truly that the product was grown or raised in Canada. Voluntary labelling would work, I think, for the economic circumstances.

Agriculture committee  No, because as I said, I think the consumers are looking at it from two different perspectives. One is the safety or security one, and that's the one that is usually foremost when we're talking about foodstuffs. The other is the economic benefit one, and that would apply across all product lines.

Agriculture committee  I'm sorry, they should not.

Agriculture committee  No, not necessarily.

Agriculture committee  I think that certainly is the information we want to have. On the types of things you were talking about, I'm not sure whether you were suggesting there be a “grown in” and a “product of” as two separate labels.

Agriculture committee  Okay. I would just suggest that it could work if it's going to replace “product of”. However, remember the consumer makes a distinction, which might be slightly confusing, between “grown” and “raised”. Although technically there is no distinction, they may mean different things to consumers.

Agriculture committee  Remember that if you introduce a new term, you have to make it very clear to people through some kind of campaign what has gone, what is new, and what the new means.

Agriculture committee  Again, that gets back to the point I've made several times now on the intent of that marking. What is it intended to convey? This suggests that perhaps we do need two different types of markings, depending on, first, whether it's intended to convey an element of safety or security, and second, if it's dealing with the economic value to Canada.

Agriculture committee  If I went to the supermarket, and in fact I do most of the shopping in my house as well, I think I would want to know where it came from. I certainly don't want to be told that it came from someplace it didn't. I did not see the products, but from what you said, it sounded as though two of them were labelled.

Agriculture committee  Yes, and I hope so. I think the direction is correct and I hope that's where we wind up.

Agriculture committee  It had U.S. labels, which suggests that it came from the States. Regarding the one that I didn't know where it came from, I'd probably be inclined, at least in that case, to go for one of the ones that I knew where they came from, rather than the one that I didn't. If none of them had any source designation on them at all, as a consumer I'd be very confused if I was concerned about the country of origin.

Agriculture committee  That, unfortunately, becomes a very complex situation. Basically, I'd say food products should be marked, but there may be circumstances in which it is not practical to do so. As I said, with respect to food products, I think it should be mandatory when we are dealing with consumers' concerns about the possible safety of the product and an inherent understanding or belief that Canadian products are safe, certainly at a higher level than perhaps some imported products.

Agriculture committee  You're talking about a single-ingredient product? In that case, do you mean the content?