I think it's important to note that, throughout our amendments, we've been talking about the chief accessibility officer based on the premise that this officer exists. With the previous motion being defeated, we don't have decisive language that says “must”.
I would hope that my honourable colleagues would at least consider a timeline. This chief accessibility officer isn't going to exist without that language. We're discussing based on the fact that the officer does exist. Let's give it a timeline. The way it stands now, if the Governor in Council doesn't have to appoint a chief accessibility officer.... They may, but there's no timeline.
It's too precarious for this legislation. This is foundational legislation