Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 46-57 of 57
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Finance committee  I appreciate that. I will resume where I was in the interest of more time for questions and answers. Our recommendations involve both taxation and tax relief depending on the nutrient profiles of food. The federal government currently collects about $2 billion in tax revenue from GST on food.

October 19th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Finance committee  Two weeks ago the Canadian Medical Association recommended to this committee that it explore similar measures.

October 19th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the invitation to appear before the committee. The Centre for Science in the Public Interest is a non-profit consumer health advocacy organization specializing in nutrition issues, with offices in Ottawa and Washington, D.C. Our Ottawa health advocacy is funded by more than 100,000 subscribers to our monthly Nutrition Action Healthletter, which is read by more than 1,000 residents in most federal ridings.

October 19th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Health committee  There's definitely a good opportunity to do some mass public education on this. There's evidence to demonstrate that it would be very effective. On the poverty issue, it was recognized by Dalton McGuinty a couple of years ago that if we don't deal with the rising rates of obesity and the aging baby boomers, by 2015 the Government of Ontario will only have enough budget for one department, the Department of Health. and nothing else.

October 5th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Health committee  I'd like to add a couple of points to that. There's a real poverty in analysis around this issue of food taxing that I think has been created by some reporters who provocatively refer to this idea of junk food taxes or fat taxes. I think the Canadian Medical Association put it right in their testimony to the finance committee last week when they talked about, as we talk about, examining goods and services tax rules to make sure they reflect healthy eating.

October 5th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Health committee  First of all, I should say that my impression is that the new nutrition facts labels are much easier to read than the voluntary ones that preceded them. The text is easier to see and the information is reported in a way that's easier to understand. That said, they could be even easier.

October 5th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Health committee  I can address that question. You're quite correct, we are already making distinctions in the GST rules as they are. With regard to your side point, I guess, about the nanny state, in this particular context we're talking about children. Children have nannies, and that's probably a good thing.

October 5th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Health committee  I can start.

October 5th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Health committee  I think this is coming up to the fourth year that we have made submissions to the House of Commons finance committee with regard to reforming GST. Simply put, our recommendation is that the Department of Finance, in conjunction with Health Canada, look at the definition of basic groceries in the Excise Tax Act and examine it to see if it applies economic incentives in ways that are consistent with the nutrition promotion messages that Health Canada purports to advance.

October 5th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Health committee  My impression is that Canada's Food Guide is still under development, but the last version I saw in March or April of this year didn't impress me. The science is pretty clear about the basic message concerning diet-related disease. Most Canadians should consume fewer calories; more whole grains, fruits, and vegetables; and less saturated and trans fats, sodium, and that sort of thing.

October 5th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Health committee  The panel consisted of 12 people: four of them either consulted for or worked for the food industry; four were public health nutritionists from very small communities--two of them with less than 15,000 people--and they had busy full-time jobs. They didn't come from organizations that had the kinds of institutional resources to support them in their deliberations.

October 5th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery

Health committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the invitation to appear before the committee. The Centre for Science in the Public Interest is a non-profit consumer health advocacy organization, specializing in nutrition issues, with offices in Ottawa and Washington, D.C. Our health advocacy is funded by over 100,000 subscribers to the Canadian edition of our monthly Nutrition Action Healthletter, which is read by more than 1,000 residents in most federal ridings.

October 5th, 2006Committee meeting

Bill Jeffery