Thank you for the question.
Yes, absolutely. The Indian Act doesn't apply to modern treaty groups.
I think that's the issue. The federal system is just not set up, frankly, to implement treaties. There are over 8,000 obligations in these agreements, and they cut across all departments. The accountability that I will bring—and to MP Morin's earlier question—is that whenever there's an issue with interpretation or implementation of an obligation, there's no other choice but to turn to litigation dispute resolution. However, if we have a separate, independent commissioner who can provide their views on what this obligation means, what the treaty means, that provides another avenue to avoid having to go to dispute litigation, which is really not to the benefit of anyone. It's very costly.
To answer your question a bit more broadly than I think you intended, yes, I agree about the Indian Act—it doesn't apply. Also, the commissioner is really there to ensure that those modern treaties are fully implemented as intended.