🚀 go-pugleaf

"Stephen Eggleston" <seggleston@shaw.ca> wrote 
> >
> {SE} Unfortunately, you guys, the real problems involving land claims in
> Canada are not in those parts of Canada where treaties were signed (all
> sorts of other problems exist with regards to what Aboriginal rights involve
> and rights to self government, however).  The problem with land claims is
> largely in British Columbia, where almost no treaties were signed.  In this
> case, the Aboriginals never signed anything away.  Therefore, as they were
> the only ones there before contact, and never surrendered their rights, they
> retain the right to their land (or so goes the claim -- I would be most
> interested in any facts/legal argument that could seriously reach a contrary
> conclusion).

Lawyer Mel Smith wrote a book arguing otherwise about 10 years ago,
and not one of his assertions has been supported in the case law that
has developed since then.

If my personal lawyer was that wrong that often, I would assume he did
not understand the law very well, and replace him with someone who had
a better track record.  I sure wouldn't want Mr. Smith handluing a
divorce or probate.

A UBC history (or poli-sci) prof (can't remembr his name) wrote
another book around the same time which set out his understanding of
the rights -- which have stood trhe test of time much better than
Smith's views.  If I recall correctly the book is called something
like "Aboriginal People and Politics - the Land Question in British
Columbia," and was published by UBC press.