That's fine.
The intent is clear and I think that's the most important thing.
In this case I'll go to a wider question.
The proposed bill of rights speaks often of rights. It doesn't really speak of principles; it's speaking of rights. At the same time, it doesn't create any cause of action. If somebody feels that their right has been breached, they don't seem to have any recourse. It's a particular kind of right that we seem to be creating here.
Could you explain to me what kind of rights we're dealing with? Maybe the question could be in this case, are we not giving them right of recourse because it exists already at the provincial level? Is it because jurisdictionally we're having a problem? Or is it because we really didn't want to give them any recourse if we feel that the rights we are affording in the new bill have been breached and we really don't want them to be able to pursue the federal government, for instance?