Well, if that's the recommendation from the committee, that would be something I'd appreciate.
I think there are ways you could do it. For example, you could set up, as I mentioned, an arm's-length entity that is established with criteria through a G and C. The idea is that because you've created it so publicly and you've had a public conversation about it, if it were not to go through or if it were not to be successful, there would be a public questioning as to why that was the case. Political leaders or other stakeholders would have to explain why they're not participating in it. There's a certain amount of public momentum that could follow from that, and that's one option that is possible.
The other question is with regard to legislation and enabling enough flexibility to adapt to changing times. One of the things I'm thinking about is with regard to the parameters of this entity, whereby you say the commission or the commissioner must establish an English-language and French-language debate, but there could also be more debates. We don't want to be in a situation of limiting the number of debates or the number of chances for people to participate, but what are those parameters? Is there a basic level of criteria that we can all agree to, and then enable some kind of flexibility for a commissioner to be able to manage the debates themselves?