I'll be very brief, Lloyd, but you're identifying an extraordinarily complicated issue. I'll say three things.
First of all, there are different ways of constituting some sort of governance structure, such as an act of Parliament. Outside of an act of Parliament, there are different ways of doing it. We could have a long conversation about that. Anything, I think, is better than nothing, and right now we have nothing. Food always falls through the cracks, and you have an opportunity here to fill some of those cracks. It's not going to be perfect, of course not.
The second thing would be about the mandate. The mandate of a governance body should be to advise government on policy issues, to work to build consensus around agreement amongst the multi-stakeholders, to provide research and expertise, and to set benchmarks and independently verify them. These are the sorts of things which, in my mind, a governance mechanism can and should do.
The final thing I'll say is that we have examples of these sorts of things happening. Domestically we have the International Institute for Sustainable Development out of Winnipeg that's been very effective over its career. We have the former national round table on the environment and the economy. We also have lots of international examples, such as Brazil, Scotland, and Finland, that have embarked on multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder governance models for food.
We're not developing things out of zero, and we can build a research body and a series of recommendations based on global best practices that will put Canada and Canadian governance at the absolute forefront of this important issue.