Thank you for the question.
It's an excellent question. I'd answer it in a couple of ways.
First, starting in 2016 with then minister Carolyn Bennett, Canada provided its full support for implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That then became a legislated commitment through the federal UNDRIP implementation act. Of course, there's a provincial one in British Columbia, which has been the subject matter of some discussion recently. The Northwest Territories also has a statute in place committing to the implementation of UNDRIP.
Under this, you have a requirement for an action plan. That's the one I cited earlier. In place right now is the 2023-28 action plan. Within that action plan, there's a chapter dedicated to modern treaties, which was done collaboratively. Again, I give credit to Canada's officials on that. Within it, you have commitments. For example, there's a commitment to pursue the creation of this very office, and that's a road map for the implementation of UNDRIP.
In one way, to answer your question, the commissioner is simply follow-through on a commitment to implement UNDRIP, but perhaps this is a more important point: There's ongoing discussion and consideration by courts across Canada of the legal status of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Some view it as merely aspirational; some view provisions within UNDRIP as customary international law that therefore have application within Canada, and some throw their hands up and don't know what the truth is or where the law lies. There's going to be a lot of work for legal scholars in courts for years and decades to come.
What's helpful about the commissioner, and this goes to my earlier point about how the commissioner can shine a light in places where litigation can't always go, is that they will be able to use the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as footholds for their analysis. Regardless of any fogginess around the law, the commissioner could go in and say, “Here we have these several key provisions of UNDRIP. Here we have the provisions of the modern treaty. Here we have what the government has been doing or not doing. Here's what we observe in terms of meeting the standards laid out in UNDRIP, regardless of a lack of clarity in the law to date, and here are recommendations on how to improve.”
Because accountability lies with Parliament and with the public, and it's all premised on democratic accountability—because this information goes out into the public domain—it provides healthy, fresh perspectives and evidence for everyone to do better going forward.