There are three points to Ms. Dhalla's motion. One is the draft copy of the food guide. In the explanation, what the intent was still doesn't come across. I really hope there isn't an intention to start rewriting the food guide by committee, but that's the only logical outcome of the request. If you're going to ask for the draft copy of what is going to be released before it's released, you must have an intent to change it. That causes a lot of problems, in the sense that a lot of time and effort has already gone into it. Yes, Dr. Fry and Dr. Bennett are doctors and may be able to provide some additional insight, but many other people have been consulted.
Also, in regard to the list of stakeholders, there are privacy concerns, and so on. I'm sure most of them would have no problem in granting permission, but there is a whole bureaucratic exercise that we have to go through anyway to ask, and I'm just not sure it's practical or a good use of resources.
There are other ways of addressing some concerns. I think perhaps having the officials come forward again and asking some more questions is fine, but the actual motion is not practical. Therefore, regrettably, I can't support it.