Yes, thank you.
Certainly, it's true. Obviously sections 15, 25, and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 would have application. We're not saying that those are not sufficient. The reason there was a concern of having an interpretive clause, as the chief commissioner has indicated, is to govern the conduct of the cases in doing a balancing between the aboriginal treaty and other rights of first nations and aboriginal peoples with the individual rights as set out in the Human Rights Act.
Our concern is that one should not trump the other, which is the concern of embedding, if you will, a section 25 type of claim, because of the other rights. It could mean band council resolutions under the Indian Act, therefore we would not be able to consider those in a complaint.
The interpretive provision that we're talking about being outside of the act is simply that the guiding principle is that we need to balance the collective rights and interests with the individual rights found under the Canadian Human Rights Act. So it's not for an interpretive provision that would vary amongst the 600 communities. It's how the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which would also be binding on the tribunal in considering—but only on the commission and the tribunal—takes those charter rights and balances them with the individual rights.
So it's the collective versus the individual.