They don't have the same status as English or French, which is provided very clearly in the Constitution in sections 16 to 20 of the charter and in section 23, of course, for the teaching of official languages to minorities in various provinces, but they have a status. It's not a totally comparable status, but there's no doubt that they have a status, and I think it's fair with regard to what I call the evolution capacity of the Constitution.
Through the years, as I quoted in some decisions, the courts have been able to read into the Constitution the overall architecture of the Constitution. As one of those fundamental principles that stems from the secession reference of 1998—you may be familiar with the case—the court has identified what they call the underlying principles of the Canadian architecture of the Constitution. One of those is the protection of minority rights. Those are the elements that infuse the system.
As I say, the bill of rights is recognized in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 by the new sovereign of the land, and that royal proclamation is part of the Constitution. It's in the annex. In fact, it's the first document of the annex of the Constitution. I think that it was done, really, with the clear perception that in fact the rights of the aboriginal peoples were there at the beginning. They have been lost, but they were there, so they have a different status than English and French do.
French rights were reinstated by the Quebec Act and of course by the Constitution of 1867 and then the charter, but the aboriginal rights have never been erased per se. They are inherent. They have a different constitutional status, but they are there.