Since you named me in the preface to your question, perhaps I'll take the prerogative of speaking first in response.
A number of the things that you've said, Ms. Duncan, are echoes of what I said in the presentation. The specific strategies, whether it be a national breakfast program at the school level or a national lunch program at the school level, we can argue about. The point is that children are undernourished and underactive.
To your point about the two-litre carton of...something—I'll say milk, rather than orange juice—being priced at more than double the price of a two-litre bottle of pop, I saw that first-hand when I did a trip up to northwestern Ontario last year during my presidency and visited Kenora. It's disgraceful. There is no reason. Transportation costs don't cut it, when we're talking about two things that are each in two-litre bottles. Yes, there are some refrigeration and up-front production costs for the milk, but basically we have a pricing system and we have policy and advertising that allow parents and children to believe that these are good choices. These are not good choices. Milk is a good choice; water is a good choice. Pop, energy drinks, fruit-flavoured water are not good choices.
What is needed—I think you're correct—is a national strategy that brings all of the FTPs on board and says this is what Canadians need; this is what Canadian children need; this is the activity level and the nutrition level that are acceptable across Canada.