Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that part of the debate is talking about prevention because when we look at our dollars, the investment in certain practices can certainly lead to the reduction in health care costs and the wellness of our society.
One of the problems we have with the government is the lack of action on things that do not even cost money but set an example that could improve people's health.
I have a question for the hon. member. How does she reconcile the duplicity in the government by not getting these types of things off the books and one of them is the Canada pension plan? It has invested in big tobacco.
We know that the tobacco industry and the cancer issue costs us a lot of money in our health care system and at the same time we profit through our pension plan. How does the government reconcile that? How does it reconcile the fact that it has not acted with anything on trans fats? We know the cost of that. It could ban that and work on legislation that would remove that from our system for the wellness of people, or it could have labelling.
We cannot understand why we still cannot get labelling on alcohol products for women who are pregnant to warn them that the consumption of it could lead to some health impacts during their pregnancy and could impact also on their child. These are preventive things that do not cost money.
Also, providing consumers with choice for genetically altered foods, and allowing people to see what they are consuming and making educated decisions, these are things that do not cost a lot of money but could have a benefit for human health. How does the member reconcile the duplicity?