EDITOR,
The Sliammon Treaty passed Third Reading in the House of Commons April 28, and is en route to the Senate. The people of the corridor might wonder why I could not completely support a treaty in our riding that I helped bring about. The treaty has many strengths, including economic development. However, I cannot support an agreement that prejudices the equality of Canadians or the sovereignty of my country.
I support the Sliammon people and the people of Powell River, the region where they are located. I have worked hard to ensure a Sliammon treaty is signed that is good for the people of Canada and the Sliammon. At the request of Sliammon Chief Clint Williams, I was personally involved in removing a fisheries roadblock that enabled the parties to reach the point where they are today.
As I have consistently indicated, I believe the treaty is unconstitutional or at least unwise, due to one simple, but critical reason: It says that in several areas of law-making, if Sliammon law conflicts with Canadian or provincial law, Sliammon law prevails.
Terms that enable any law to prevail over Canadian law create two problems. The first is inequality among and between Canadians. The second is a threat to the sovereignty of our country as the ability of a small group of people to transcend Canada’s national laws suggests the small group exists separate and apart from the rest of the country.
Equality is what I care about. Many believe that equality is a critical value in Canada and that it is therefore important for all Canadians to be governed by one, singular law. Such people believe that by allowing for any Aboriginal local, Sharia, or other type of law to prevail, Canadians may as a result be governed differently by different laws. They fear disunity and inequality as a consequence. Canadians share an instinctual sense that we are equal and where our arrangements are inconsistent, we should move to improve those arrangements.
Local and national good are best advanced under one sovereign entity. The integrity of Canada equates to benefit for all Canadians. There are more than 200 Aboriginal communities in B.C. — a patchwork quilt of sovereign entities is not good for individual Aboriginal people or other Canadians.
For over 35 years, I have advocated for one law for all Canadians, since long before becoming an MP, working in constitutional affairs for the provinces of B.C. and Quebec, in the courts, and in speeches across the country. Among other things, I helped found the Canadian Constitution Foundation as a bulwark for constitutional freedoms.
What’s the alternative for this or other treaties? Simply to say in future treaties that, in the event of conflict between Canadian law and any other law, Canadian law will prevail. It may be too late to make the change for this treaty, but I do hope that future treaties will embody language that more clearly promotes the equality of Canadians and the sovereignty of our country.
John Weston
Member of Parliament
West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky
