First Nations right have nothing to do with our constitution; it’s either treaties, or in the absence of it, a court agreeing to a nation asserting itself.
The treaties are literally part of the constitution.
Also section 25 & section 35 of the constitution act talk about treaty rights:
35 (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
...
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) treaty rights includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
I used an unfortunate shorthand; I said constitution when I meant charter of rights.
My point still stands; the treaties were vague, but that's what both sides wanted in the past. That courts are taking a written passage that says: the right to freely fish for our nation, and then taking that to mean more than you can take your boat and go out, but to mean your nation can own fishing companies, then that's fine legally. After all, they can freely fish.
To change them to be restrictive, you cannot change our constitution. You need to negotiate new treaties with First Nations. Who have no incentive to sit down and negotiate for a worse deal, when we haven't even legally respected the previous deal for centuries.
