I think it's important. I don't think we're trying to rewrite the food guide, but having been on the other end of this divide many years ago when I was very involved with the British Columbia Medical Association on health promotion and disease prevention, I will tell you now that the process of consultation through Health Canada has always been wanting.
One would get something sent to you two weeks before it was supposed be distributed, and two weeks before it was supposed to be the final draft, and one would never have the opportunity to give really good input. I think 14 years is a long time. To rewrite a food guide, which may not be changed for the next 14 years, and to take it only from the point of view that we take into consideration a lot of the points made in these other pieces of information that we get, I think we need to be assured, as parliamentarians, that appropriate consultation was given, that all of the new information about dietary factors is taken into consideration in the food guide.
It's not that we want to rewrite the food guide, but basically to upgrade on the old ways of doing things. When we know things about fibre and saturated fats and dairy produce that we didn't know a long time ago, we need to really be assured that we are writing a food guide that is appropriate for preventing disease.
We talked here today about type 1 diabetes, but there's also type 2 diabetes. We talk about childhood obesity. We talk about sugar and pop and those kinds of things. None of those are discussed in the food guide. So we need to be assured, as parliamentarians, not that we rewrite the guide ourselves but that the appropriate consultation was given, that what is going to eventually be the map for Canadians to eat in the future is one that is done according to today's scientific information and knowledge.
We only want to make sure that the process was followed, and if it wasn't done to our understanding, we make sure we update it. I think that's what we're talking about.