If I understand your question correctly, it's a good one. I think a lot of times the tendency has been to say that we're going to create something and then wash our hands of it, and that satisfies the obligation the Crown has towards a particular indigenous group.
Each has its specific relationship that is historical and present in nature, the Inuit-Crown partnership obviously being top of mind, but the treaty relationships as well. They're all nuanced.
I think this commission heightens it. I think it enhances it. I think it enhances it for the civil servants who don't spend their days doing this but have a responsibility to live up to it. That's why we have the Inuit Nunangat policy, which is key to perfecting that relationship. I use that as an example because it is something we've worked on for a very long time. The proof is still outstanding as to whether it is actually working, but it is something we need to remind ourselves of. Far too often, indigenous groups come to the table having to educate us on our relationship. It should be a no-brainer that we have that relationship, and we should be educating ourselves as to what it is.
I'm not creating a false tension in the question you asked, but I think it can actually enhance the relationships that are nuanced and diverse in nature—not only directly towards indigenous peoples but with the rights holders themselves, to the extent that they hold collective rights and represent them. I think that is varied, and having a group of independent people express that will not only reinforce it. It is also a reminder that we can't simply say that the commission has spoken and we can ignore all the other things that are going on that are used to hold us to account, or at least the relationships that we have.
This is about human dynamics and political dynamics. They're not perfect, but I think this will be an added benefit if we act like the mature responsible government we hold ourselves out to be.