A Guide to Commercial Patriotism: Understanding ‘Made in Canada’ and Similar Labels

In light of the rising “Buy Canadian” sentiment amidst current and ongoing threats of a trade war with the U.S., Canadian businesses are more frequently making use of product of origin labelling to promote their products as “Canadian” to consumers. While businesses have a right to promote Canadian products, or Canadian components and processes associated with their products, it must be done accurately to avoid allegations of “maple-washing” or misleading consumers regarding the origins of a product.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (“CFIA”) enforces country of origin claims on food products through the Food and Drugs Act (“FDA”) and the Safe Food for Canadians Act (“SFCA”), and their related regulations, which require that certain classes of food products list the country of origin.

The Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) administers and conducts enforcement action through certain federal statutes that cover non-food products, including the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act (“CPLA”) and the Textile Labelling Act (“TLA”). Labelling the country of origin is not mandatory under the foregoing, but businesses that voluntarily provide country of origin labelling are strictly prohibited from making false or misleading representations to promote their goods or services.^[1]

The Bureau and CFIA both provide helpful guidance regarding country of origin labelling.

Assessment and Enforcement of Country of Origin Claims

The FDA, SFCA, Competition Act, CPLA and TLA contain provisions prohibiting false or misleading representations, including country of origin claims made by businesses.

Country of origin claims are assessed based upon the general impression created by the representation, including the literal meaning of any words and the impression conveyed by visual elements, illustrations and layout that may alter the plain meaning of a representation.

The consequences of contravention of provisions prohibiting false and misleading representations are significant. For example, under the Competition Act, contravention can result in a prohibitory order, a requirement to publish a corrective notice, significant administrative monetary penalties ($10 million for a first offence and $15 million for subsequent offences for corporations) and/or an order to pay an amount to be distributed among the persons to whom the products were sold. Criminal prosecution involving the risk of fines or imprisonment is possible where false or misleading representations are made knowingly or falsely, or when criminal prosecution is determined to be in the public interest.

The CFIA has reported an eight-fold spike in complaints regarding maple-washing in the first quarter of 2025, which have been and are being investigated. Past investigations regarding maple-washing have resulted in:

• a Consent Agreement whereby Moose Knuckles, a manufacturer of luxury winter coats, entered a registered consent agreement which entailed a $750,000 donation to charity over five years, the addition of operations to its Canadian factories, a corrective notice and the revision of its “Made in Canada” representation to include a qualifying statement “Made in Canada with Canadian and imported components”;
• the conviction of Mucci International Marketing Inc., Mucci Pac Ltd. and its directors of contravention of the FDA and CPLA resulting in fines of $1.5 million and a sentence to a three-year period of probation as a result of the misrepresentation of greenhouse vegetables as a “Product of Canada”; and
• a guilty plea for contravention of the SFCA and court imposed fines of $1.155 million against MPY Trading Ltd. for falsely describing crabs imported from the U.S. as being “Product of Canada” crabs on export certificates to China.

To avoid making false or misleading country of origin representations, we recommend that businesses strictly adhere to labelling standards and consider not only the accuracy of the general impression created by literal words, but also visual elements of labels and use of the maple leaf, the Canadian flag or other symbols that, implicitly or explicitly, would reasonably convey a connection to Canada.

Country of Origin Labelling Standards

‘Made in Canada’

In order to use the “Made in Canada” claim for food products, the CFIA requires that the product must have had its last “substantial transformation” occur in Canada:

• A “substantial transformation” is when a product undergoes a significant manufacturing change that creates a new product with a different name, character and use (e.g., the processing of flour, yeast, cheese and tomato sauce to create a pizza). Minor activities like packaging or simple mixing do not qualify.
• All claims, including variations, must include a qualifying statement indicating whether the product is made from imported components or a combination of Canadian and imported components (e.g., “Proudly Made in Canada from imported ingredients”).

Non-food products must also have the last substantial transformation of the product occur in Canada. However, there are additional requirements:

• At least 51% of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the good must have been incurred in Canada.
  • When assessing the costs of production or manufacturing, companies must include expenditures on materials and labour.
  • General overhead is not usually included but may be eligible if it relates to or can be reasonably allocated to the production or manufacturing of goods.
• All claims must be accompanied by a qualifying statement (e.g., “Made in Canada with domestic and imported parts”).

Furthermore, the Bureau notes that the country of origin may also be implicitly declared to consumers via any form and medium. Implicit declarations are often made through the use of national symbols (e.g., the maple leaf or Canadian flag, beavers, red and white colours, “True North Strong and Free”) which can give the average consumer the general impression that a good is made in Canada. If the Bureau is satisfied that the representations, evaluated in their entirety, impart this general impression, the Bureau will apply the foregoing “Made in Canada” requirements to determine whether the representations are compliant.

‘Product of Canada’

The “Product of Canada” designation carries a much higher threshold than its “Made in Canada” counterpart.

For food products and non-food products, the CFIA and Bureau both require:

• the product to undergo its final substantial transformation in Canada; and
• that “all or virtually all” of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the good, including ingredients, processing and labour to make the product are Canadian in origin (98%) with negligible non-Canadian material:
  • Packaging materials can be sourced from outside Canada as they are not considered part of the product itself.
  • A product containing very low levels of ingredients not generally produced in Canada would not be disqualified from using the “Product of Canada” claim – “very low” is considered 2% or less of the final product.

This claim is best suited for goods with a fully domestic supply chain like milk, maple syrup or wheat, where virtually the entire product originates in Canada.

Certain food products must adhere to specific guidelines to assert “Product of Canada” claims. For example,

• Meat qualifies as a “Product of Canada” if the animal was born (or raised for 60-plus days), slaughtered and processed in Canada.
• Wild-caught fish must be harvested in Canadian or adjacent regulated waters and processed in Canada to qualify as a “Product of Canada.” Farmed fish must be raised and processed entirely in Canada using Canadian ingredients.
• Eggs and milk qualify as “Product of Canada” if they come from animals housed, raised and producing in Canada (e.g., a hen laid the egg in Canada, a cow was milked in Canada).

“Canadian” and “100% Canadian” claims are understood to be equivalent to “Product of Canada” claims and therefore must meet the same criteria.

Statements such as “Product of Canada and [another country]” are not permitted and may be considered misleading. If foreign ingredients are present, the product may still be eligible for a qualified "Made in Canada" claim, provided the last substantial transformation occurred in Canada and the cost threshold is met.

Use of Canadian Symbols

Generic maple leaf designs may be used but will often create a general impression of a Canadian origin claim. In such cases, the product must meet the “Made in Canada” criteria, and a clear domestic content statement should be included nearby to avoid misleading consumers.

Symbols like the Coat of Arms of Canada, the “Canada” Wordmark, the Canadian flag and the stylized 11-point maple leaf (as seen on the flag) are protected and require permission from the Government of Canada and/or Canadian Heritage for commercial use.

Alternative Country of Origin Claims

‘Assembled in Canada’ and ‘Designed in Canada’

While not as strictly regulated as origin claims, these designations still fall under the general prohibitions against misleading advertising under the Competition Act.

• Assembled in Canada: This claim may be used when a product is put together in Canada using primarily foreign parts. It does not imply that the parts themselves are Canadian.
• Designed in Canada: This claim refers to the intellectual or creative process behind a product, such as engineering, software development or industrial design, but does not imply that manufacturing occurred in Canada.

Both claims must be clear and not create a misleading or false impression that the product is Canadian-made. Alternative, activity-specific representations are permitted provided they are accurate and not misleading (e.g., “Sewn in Canada with imported fabric”).

‘Local’ Claims

The CFIA has developed a policy which recognizes food as “Local” if it meets one of the following criteria:

• It is produced in the province or territory in which it is sold; or
• It is sold across provincial borders within 50 kilometres of the originating province or territory.

“Local” claims are voluntary. Including qualifiers such as the name of the area (e.g., “Grown in Prince Edward County”) is encouraged to provide greater clarity to consumers and to avoid creating a false and misleading impression.

Other Domestic Content Claims

These claims describe specific value-added processes occurring in Canada. They are allowed provided they are truthful, not misleading, and refer only to the specific Canadian activity.

Examples include:

• “Roasted and blended in Canada”
• “Distilled in Canada”
• “Canned in Canada”
• “Refined in Canada”
• “Processed in Canada”
• “Prepared in Canada”
• “Packaged in Canada”

Terms such as “Produced in Canada” and “Manufactured in Canada” are likely to be understood by consumers as synonymous with “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada” claims and thus should not be used unless they accord with those standards.

Claims Not Governed by Origin Guidelines

Some terms and symbols are regulated under separate frameworks and do not imply Canadian origin, even if they include the word “Canada.” These include:

• Canadian Grades: Terms like “Canada A” or “Canada Fancy” indicate quality, not origin. These grades may appear on domestic or imported goods.
• Canada Organic Logo: Indicates certification under Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. For imported goods, the label must clearly state that the product is imported.
• Inspection Legend: Found on meat, fish and egg products, it confirms processing under CFIA-licensed facilities but does not mean the product was sourced entirely in Canada.
• Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling: Separate from voluntary origin claims. Some commodities require origin statements regardless of any other claim (e.g., imported fruit).

Ensuring Compliance

In light of increasing scrutiny on Canadian products and concerns with maple-washing in the marketplace, we recommend that businesses take the following steps to ensure compliance across their portfolio:

• Conduct an audit of all products and labels:
  • identify any imported prepackaged products that are specifically required to state the country of origin;
  • ensure that labelling requirements which apply to specific types of products are met (e.g., supplemented foods, infant formula and foods, special dietary use); and
  • identify all products with optional country of origin representations.
• Review origin and all manufacturing, assembly and production processes for all products with country of origin claims; and
• Confirm accuracy of the general impression created by all country of origin claims (including visual elements and, in particular, the use of the maple leaf) to ensure that all representations are accurate and not misleading.

The Competition, Antitrust & Foreign Investment Group and Corporate/Commercial Group at Aird & Berlis LLP assist clients in ensuring their product labelling and origin claims meet regulatory standards. Please contact the authors if you have any questions or require assistance regarding advertising and marketing claims, product labelling requirements or assistance with a response to investigations and/or enforcement activities in Canada.