Thanks for the question.
It's really several issues. One, it's a matter of joint jurisdiction, legal jurisdiction. First nations have not been involved in any of the process and they should have been involved because it involves our lands, resources, people's intellectual property, and the environment, all things that protect indigenous peoples.
The other major concern with the TPP and the problems with legal interpretation in litigation at international tribunals is that you have a country like New Zealand, which is very similar to Canada, which made a specific protection for the Treaty of Waitangi. Canada chose not to. When you're talking about arguments that are going to be made at international forums, if Canada intended for it to be protected, it would have and it did not.
The other problem with state positions is that we've just left a decade in which Canada denied it had human rights obligations and indigenous rights obligations in the international community. That was for at least a decade. Thankfully, Canada is changing its position, but those former positions can and will be used in TPP litigation when it comes to interpreting whether or not aboriginal treaty rights will be protected.
That's only on the positive protections. There's also a negative side. Even if Canada could argue that it's allowed to engage in favourable activities and decisions with regard to aboriginal people because of the Constitution, investors will argue that it doesn't have the negative right. If Canada decides there's going to be a moratorium on hydro fracking because of the damage to the environment, that's going to be a problem in litigation because they won't be able to hide under the clause of more favourable to aboriginal people, because it's a negative decision that's being made.
There are literally hundreds of problems like that with the wording in the TPP with regard to indigenous rights and human rights.