Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Woodworth, for not using up his full eight minutes. I thought that was a very good example, Chair.
This clause refers to aboriginal rights. It says:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Chair, in our discussions over the last few days, what came up was the shock that we had not heard from first nations. This greatly impacts first nations. It impacts agreements with first nations. It possibly affects treaties, because we heard that Bill C-469 would retroactively go after agreements and treaties. So if any resident or entity is felt to be in violation, or if this concerned any Canadian--excuse me, “resident” or “entity”--an action could be launched.
Chair, what clause 4 makes clear is that nothing in the act affects existing aboriginal treaty rights protected under the Constitution Act. Therefore, clause 4 is a common practice in federal statutes.
What it does do is create uncertainty. As I said, it's common in federal statutes that reiterate that Parliament does not intend to narrow, extinguish, or otherwise interfere with constitutionally protected aboriginal rights or treaties. If it's already there and it's dealt with, then this creates uncertainty. It's not needed, because any law that is inconsistent with the constitution is invalid. So the moment that you place this in Bill C-469, it creates uncertainty. It's unnecessary and it shouldn't be there. It should be struck. That would be the appropriate way of dealing with this.
Now, in the interests of time, I could move a motion that it be struck, or we can leave it in place and vote against it. But we do not want to create uncertainty with aboriginal rights so therefore, in the interests of time and given our desire to see this be reported back to the House before the Christmas break, my question for the member, through the chair, is, would she accept that this be struck from her bill, Bill C-469?
