In a recent letter “A different perspective on treaty negotiations” in The Whistler Question on March 10, 2015, John Weston, Member of Parliament, argued that he could not support the Sliammon Treaty because in his view “only one set of laws should govern Canadians.”

He argued that if Sliammon law conflicts with Canadian or provincial law, and Sliammon law prevails, this opens up the potential for inequality and fragmentation among all. Mr. Weston refers to how he made similar arguments in an unsuccessful legal challenge to the Nisga’a Final Agreement.

article continues below

We believe Mr. Weston to be in error. Despite his attempt to suggest otherwise, one set of laws does indeed govern all Canadians — that law is called the Constitution of Canada. It is the highest law of the land, and it recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada. It also makes provisions for the protection of land claims agreements with Aboriginal Peoples.

Treaties that include provisions on the making of laws by Aboriginal governments, such as the Nisga’a Treaty and those that have followed, do not enable anyone “to transcend Canadian law.” They are rather a part of Canadian law. Generally, under these agreements, Aboriginal governments’ laws will prevail in respect of matters integral to the continuing cultural identity and integrity of the Aboriginal signatories, and in respect of our collective assets and exercise of treaty rights. Mr. Weston does not explain why these matters must be subject to the final authority of federal or provincial governments.

Mr. Weston committed similar errors of reasoning in the legal challenge to the Nisga’a Final Agreement that he commenced in 2000. However, one doesn’t have to take our word for it — simply read what the British Columbia Court of Appeal said in 2013 about the arguments advanced by Mr. Weston and the lawyers who took over the case after Mr. Weston became a Member of Parliament. In the court’s unanimous rejection of his former clients’ (the appellants) appeal from their loss at trial, it stated at paragraph 48:

“As will become clear, in my view, the appellants mischaracterize the effect of the Treaty in material ways. Their misinterpretation of the legal effect of the Treaty substantially undercuts the merit of the core arguments they advance on this appeal. To put the matter baldly, the Treaty does not do what they say it does…”

The Court made a similar point at paragraph 68:

“I am, with respect, unable to agree with this [the appellants’] interpretation of the legal effect of the Treaty. In my view, the appellants both read more into the provisions of the Treaty on which they rely, yet ignore other provisions that do not support their argument by treating them, in effect, as meaningless surplusage.”

The Court summed up its view of the Nisga’a Treaty at paragraph 49. Contrary to Mr. Weston’s views, the Court concluded:

“The Treaty has been carefully crafted to respect constitutional principle and to fit into the wider constitutional fabric of Canada. It is what it purports to be: an honourable attempt to resolve important but disputed claims, to achieve reconciliation, and to lay the foundation for a productive and harmonious future relationship between the Nisga’a Nation and the non-Aboriginal population of Canada.”

The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an appeal from this decision.

The people of the Nisga’a Nation are proud Nisga’a citizens; we are also proud Canadians. Our Treaty makes provision for both, and we see no inconsistency in this, as perhaps Mr. Weston does despite the categorical rejection of his arguments by the courts. Like all other Canadians, we pay our taxes, we own our homes, and must earn our daily bread. We strive for sustainable prosperity to improve the quality of life for our families, and our future generations. Our Treaty has made all this progress possible. It’s hard to understand why Mr. Weston would be opposed to that.

H. Mitchell Stevens

President, Nisga’a Lisims government