Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to follow up now with the Auditor General in regard to the end of my last comments to the Via Rail representative.
They mentioned that they had a body, that this body was a consulting body, and that it was monitoring the work they were doing to implement many of the objectives of Via Rail, including the work related to online reservations, booking and accessibility for that website. The representative also mentioned that this body was a group of people taken in some part from advice by the government.
This is an area that I think is really important: the requirements for what is a good level of consultation. What is the threshold for respectful consultation, where one takes into account the lived experience of the persons who are offering that consultation but also ensures that when they do offer those aspects of themselves that are important to consultation, there's actually follow-up in respect to the kinds of standards that persons with disabilities would expect from consultation?
My question is—and I do understand that this might be something that is not yet developed by the Auditor General's office— what are the best practices on how to consult inclusively, accessibly and in a meaningful way with persons with disabilities? In your view, did the audited organizations follow the best practices, or were there shortcomings?