I think one of the things we can all agree on here is that when we're talking about treaties, whether they're modern, numbered or historic, they're all protected by the Constitution of Canada. Section 35 of the Constitution recognizes and affirms all existing treaties. Section 52 of the Constitution of Canada goes further to say that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, above any laws made by provincial governments or municipal governments that are inconsistent with it.
When we talk about studies and parliamentary reports and compare them to the treaty rights, I think those are two completely separate conversations. I understand this as looking at the constitutional basis for this country's existence and an approach by the modern treaty commissioners and modern treaty nations to say, “We need a tool to ensure that these constitutional rights are upheld.” I think that's a vastly different argument than housing, policing and other things around health.
Would you agree that we can't be looking at the implementation of treaties in the same context as the administration of the Indian Act?