I appreciate the chance to engage again, Mr. Chair.
In response to Kate's points, that's why I have a double-barrelled amendment here. The 10 years doesn't hang out by itself in the abstract. It requires a plan prepared within one year. That plan speaks to achievables over time, with a 10-year deadline.
I don't think it would be possible, without a great deal of political risk, for a minister to design a plan that didn't start until year nine. You'd have to design a plan that's going to meet that objective. It's a 10-year objective. You have measurables that you're going to develop for years one, two, three and so forth.
I think that is not uncommon in legislation at all. Otherwise, we have something just hanging out there that could fade into the background.
Waiting for regulations.... This is just one example, but Vanessa's Law, which was passed in the last Parliament, still has no regulations attached to it. We're waiting to make sure we're reporting symptoms from pharmaceuticals that might be killing people. We still have no regulations, and it's four years later.
I don't want to wait for regulations. Honestly, I think members around this table could make a huge contribution to a barrier-free Canada by accepting my amendment, which is then reviewable by Parliament on a regular basis.