Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to my colleagues.
I know perhaps I missed some of this debate, but in my mind the one thing we need to be very clear about when we're talking about enacting legislation is what the science shows. I think the important point also to consider is, when you look at the bigger picture of the science with respect to creating change, whether it's a personal decision or whether it's a government decision to change your behaviour. We know the science with respect to that is not very supportive in terms of saying to people, you should change your behaviour. You should eat differently. You should exercise more. Those are things on which, when we ask people to do them, the likelihood of change is minimal.
The issue at hand is we've had an ongoing situation in Quebec, where similar and perhaps more widespread legislation has been enacted. What do the studies show there? What has the outcome been? Have we actually impacted childhood obesity? In my mind, we could talk about this for days, but if we're not going to make a difference in the lives of children, then why are we doing anything at all? That's the question.
I know my colleague from the NDP, Mr. Davies, is exceedingly convinced this is going to work. My question is, is there science out there to support the fact that this is actually going to work? Is it going to make a change in the lives of Canadian children? If it's not, then we need to look at something different, as opposed to continuing to do the same thing that's been tried in this committee, and perhaps in the House of Commons, for many years, over and over and over again.
That would be my biggest question: What is the science that is attached to this? If there has been another set of legislation that's been enacted in another jurisdiction, what are the outcomes of that change in legislation? If we're doing the right thing, great. I think in the spirit of what we've seen not every time in this committee, but many times in this committee, we should move forward for the benefit of the health of Canadians. If we're not, then that doesn't mean we should accept something and say it's the best we can do. Is it really the best we can do? If it's not, then we need to change it precipitously and make sure it is.
I agree with Mr. Davies wholeheartedly that there is an epidemic of obesity here. You don't need to be a physician to understand that there is. How can we actually change that, though? How do we make it different? How do we improve it? We all know that spending, as my colleagues across the aisle would say, $200 billion on health care is not improving the outcomes of the health of people in this country. How do we do that? How do we go about creating good legislation? That's the question I have.
Also, the other issue is that, continuing on—I believe one of my colleagues said this already—the spirit of this committee is one of co-operation and one of saying, if we want to hear from stakeholders with respect to an issue, then we should. That is how we've operated in this committee over the 18 months that I've been here. If we deviate from that, does that mean we're now going to deviate from every other procedure we possibly have in this committee in terms of how we do things? In other committees I've been on, when the member wants to interrupt a witness, they do so. On this committee we do it differently. We say, we'll allow the witness to answer in the same amount of time as the question was asked. I think that's a reasonable way to do things. However, if we're going to have a wholesale change in how we do business in this committee, then I'm open to change with that.
There are lots of people I'd like to interrupt. In fact, I'm sure there are people who would like to interrupt me now. I will stop talking and turn it over to you, Mr. Chair.