Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses, who are here for this very important study.
For those who have been following this study, we've been saying quite often that we agree with the diagnosis, but we have a few issues with the prescription. That, in particular, as was pointed out by our previous witness, is the implementation and the consequences of non-action.
Unfortunately, we have seen this with governments, Liberal and Conservative, for way too many years, so I understand the frustration on the side of the partners who helped codraft this legislation, as well as the excitement to see it to the finish line.
Our concern is that we're not sure, based on actions of many previous governments, whether there will be any actual follow-up or any changes within the various government departments that are pointed out in a report by a modern treaty commissioner.
The example we've been given is the Auditor General, who is an agent of Parliament. He or she will table a report in Parliament and talk about it for a week, maybe. The media will talk about it, and then it will disappear and nothing will be followed up on. Then the Auditor General will come out with another report on a follow-up of the previous report, and we'll still be dealing with the same issues they pointed out in previous reports.
The part we're looking at is the consequences piece. What can we put in this legislation, if anything, to ensure that the government is living up to its signature?
I'll start with you, Professor, and then we'll move on to Executive Councillor Aucoin.