That's a good question, Mr. Fortin, but I'd like to point out two things.
First of all, you're absolutely right that the Constitution is paramount, regardless of democracy.
Second, there are aspects directly related to the act, such as those protected by section 35 of the Constitution. In my opening remarks, I mentioned the Sparrow decision, which talks about whether or not a waiver can be justified; it's a very specific context. The bill tells any judge in any part of the country that when they are responsible for interpreting a federal law, they must always choose the interpretation that protects the indigenous rights referred to in section 35.
That's not the case right now. Over the past 40 years, a non-derogation clause had to be put in place one law at a time. That burden had to be eliminated and judges had to be helped.