Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  They're almost identical to section 25 of the charter, which is not section 35 of the Constitution Act.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I don't think so, in the sense that this is a statutory provision, it's not amending section 25 of the charter. Section 25 of the charter will sit there, and there's a whole process for amending Constitution provisions. So even though the wording tracks a lot of section 25, it's

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I think that's correct.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  That's one way of looking at it. They could also colour what is thought of as aboriginal treaty rights and other rights and freedoms; they could be indicative of what's included under that umbrella.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  It could well be. It does have a precedent, if you want to call it that, in the sense that a somewhat similar provision--admittedly in a very different context--does appear in section 25 of the charter. I think new paragraph 1.1(c) is the one that isn't in section 25. That provis

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I'm just looking at section 25 of the charter. Obviously new clause 1.1 has been altered for the context, but otherwise it is quite similar to section 25. New paragraph 1.1(c) doesn't appear in section 25 of the charter.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  It says “including”, so the broader term is aboriginal treaty and other rights or freedoms that pertain to first nations people.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I'll try to provide what assistance I can. The wording in this proposed clause, other than new paragraph 1.1(c), is fairly close to what appears in section 25 of the charter. In that sense there is a precedent for it, admittedly in a very different context. Without getting into

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you for the question. I think I was here at that previous meeting, and I can't remember exactly the response, but from a legal perspective the courts adjudicate on rights and they interpret the Constitution and the common law. So it's difficult to conceive I think conceptu

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Yes. I mean, there is a process in place that allows other views to be heard.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, to sound a little indecisive, in the Supreme Court case of Haida, there was definitely a very fact- and site-specific claim to aboriginal rights over title, dealing with a specific first nation, the Haida Nation or the Taku Tlingit First Nation. This

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you. Many of the issues have been about whether there's a legal duty to consult and whether it has been fulfilled in this context. I was particularly interested in the testimony, I think it was Tuesday this week, by a number of lawyers, and I think there was unanimity. But

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The answer, unfortunately, is that we don't know. The Supreme Court hasn't dealt with that issue directly. What it's dealt with in cases like Haida, Taku, and Mikisew Cree are government decisions pursuant to legislation dealing with resource management issues, so whether it woul

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I'm sorry to be repetitive, but it's not clear. Other lawyers have said the same thing. Again, struck by the testimony on Tuesday, Jerome Slavik indicated that it's a matter of risk management. Whether or not there is a clear duty to consult, consultation as a matter of risk mana