Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to welcome all the witnesses here at committee today. They were excellent presentations, each and every one of them.
I want to focus in a bit on the GST to start with. Whoever feels comfortable answering can please just dive in.
Has the imposition of the GST on unhealthy foods ever been evaluated in terms of its impact on the consumption of these products? Has that been studied? I am interested to hear if it has and what the results of that study were. If not, would it be possible to analyze the costs and the benefits of the current GST tax system regarding what we're trying to accomplish toward getting people to eat healthier and improve health outcomes?
Secondly, regarding the same point, under the current GST tax structure, would it be feasible to create—and I like this idea today, I hadn't heard this before—a nutrition criterion that could be used to distinguish taxable from non-taxable foods in the effort to promote healthy eating and prevent obesity? I think that would definitely send a message to consumers. If there is a big red GST sticker on something, people will know it's not a healthy food. If it doesn't have that sticker, it is a healthy food.
But within the context of this whole debate, I'm quite torn here today, because there's certainly a balance in the nanny state. Granted, the nanny state in this country thankfully pays for health care, angioplasty, and bypass surgery, but there is a conflict between the nanny state and the libertarian, the individual's freedom of choice—I choose to eat cookies—and not punishing people for choosing certain foods. So there's really a balance going on.
So if you would comment on those two little matters about the GST, that would be greatly appreciated. I like this idea of a nutrition criterion.
I'll wait for the answer before asking the second question. I'm always a bit leery that you're going to cut me off, Mr. Chair.