I refer to H. Mitchell Stevens’s letter (“We believe MP Weston is in error,” March 26). While I respect his opinion, it should be noted that he missed the central point in my letter on equality for all Canadians (“A different perspective on treaty negotiations,” March 10). My focus was not on the courts and the Constitution, but rather on what is good for federal policy.
A related conversation arises from NDP Bill C-641, which aims to adapt Canadian law to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. My colleague MP Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Aboriginal Affairs Minister) put it this way in the House of Commons: “Aboriginal rights in Canada, entrenched in section 35 of the Constitution… identify a duty to consult for government and industry. The passage of Bill C-641 would effectively replace this duty to consult with a duty to seek free, prior, and informed consent. The Bill would provide First Nations with a veto over any sort of legislation or development that concerns them. This would have a significant impact on legislative initiatives, as well as on Canada’s economy.” See ow.ly/L2Rai.
I therefore oppose Bill C-641, as does our government, having been elected to serve the interests of all Canadians, not give a veto to a select few.
As Mr. Stevens wrote, some courts have upheld provisions that enable First Nations law to prevail over Canadian law. Despite what he suggests, however, government policy should, wherever discretion allows, drive the value of equality. If we stand by idly while the current patterns of negotiations persist, the promotion of separate, opposed rights, such as Bill C-641, will cause us irreparable harm, at the expense of social harmony and continuous improvement.
John Weston, MP
West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country
