Thank you to our witnesses for being here for this very important study.
To reiterate what I've said before in previous appearances, we agree with the diagnosis. We have some issues with the prescription in terms of how this bill is worded and how it's going forward.
We agree that the government, over hundreds of years, has failed indigenous people. We agree that with treaties—modern, numbered, traditional or otherwise—there have been too many examples where the government has failed to live up to its word. Despite signing on the dotted line and despite all the pomp and ceremony that goes with it, the government then fails indigenous people.
Having said that, we want to help make this legislation as strong as possible so that there are consequences and, if there's a change in government, a change in deputy ministers or a change in whoever, the departments will be held to a standard of continuing to uphold the word.
I'll start with Chief Rempel, because she did mention that.
On that note, if we're talking about holding government or treaty partners to account, other than a report or naming and shaming—which this bill basically does—what other mechanisms are there to ensure that there is some accountability on the government side?