Well, I do, and it was spoken of in great and large terms, because “the Bill of Rights” is a phrase in American legal and political culture that has sacrosanct standing. We have the Magna Carta, and we have the Bill of Rights Act, 1689, in Britain, that's part of our Constitution in Canada. So it's a certain baguette magique, a bill of rights, right? But, hey, it's just wrapping on the package.
The courts turned up and they didn't find Mr. Diefenbaker's bill of rights to have quite the impact he thought it should have had. There was only one case where it had any impact, and then it went into desuetude, as it were, and it really didn't amount to much. That's why Trudeau, in effect, came along years later with a constitutional bill of rights, if you might call it that.
So you can call it a bill of rights, but that's not going to tell a court that all of a sudden they have to salute because we have something holy here. They're going to look at the language that's used. They're going to look at the language in all four corners of the bill, the legislation, and decide, what is Parliament legislating here?
You're right, and I think Melanie would confirm, that you could, by way of a “whereas”, indicate how the later provisions are to be read. But then they have to interpret the “whereas”, too, so it may not be read as you like.