This is an interesting issue that we've had actually, as I mentioned, since 2003, when we looked at another agreement where we believed the department had a responsibility in helping to meet the objective of the agreement, and department officials who were actually working on the agreement told us, no, no, they only had to meet the specific requirements in the agreement. For example, if there was a requirement to hold a meeting, they would hold a meeting, but whether that meant the agreement was doing anything to meet the objectives was not their responsibility.
The department actually responded like that in 2003. Subsequent to that, the minister at the time said no, they did have an obligation, and certainly discussions with very senior officials have indicated that they believe the department has an obligation to help achieve the objectives of the agreement and not just the specific obligations. But it certainly does not seem to be the attitude throughout the department, and I think that might be worth a good discussion here in a parliamentary committee.
The other troubling thing in this report, actually, is that even though they say they believe they have a responsibility to meet the obligations, when we asked them what their obligations were under this agreement, they were unable to tell us. This agreement has been around for 23 years and they were not able to say to us specifically what the obligations were. So it shows that government does not pay enough attention to implementation. It's as if everyone thinks that when it's signed it's somehow finished, and in fact the work is just beginning.