![]() |
![]() Some Perspectives on the Origin and Meaning of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
ReferencesHawkes, David C. (1989). Aboriginal Peoples and Constitutional Reform: What Have We Learned? Kingston, ON: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University. Romanow, Roy, John Whyte, and Howard Leeson (1984). Canada ... Notwithstanding: The Making of the Constitution, 1976-1982. Toronto, ON: Carswell/Methuen. Schwartz, Bryan (1986). First Principles, Second Thoughts: Aboriginal Peoples, Constitutional Reform and Canadian Statecraft. Montréal, PQ: Institut de recherches politiques / Institute for Research on Public Policy. Sheppard, Robert, and Michael Valpy (1982). The National Deal: The Fight for a Canadian Constitution. Toronto, ON: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Smith, Melvin H. (1995). Our Home or Native Land? What Governments' Aboriginal Policy Is Doing to Canada. Victoria, BC: Crown Western.
About the authorMelvin H. Smith, qc, spent 31 years in the public service of British Columbia. A lawyer by profession, from 1967 until 1997 he was the ranking official on constitutional law and constitutional reform issues for four successive provincial administrations. He was a key player in the Patriation of the Constitution in 1981 and also served as a Deputy Minister for 13 years in various Ministries until his early retirement in 1991. A leader in the "No" campaign on the Charlottetown Accord, he now spends his time as a consultant, commentator on public issues, columnist, and university lecturer. He is the author of the Canadian best seller, Our Home or Native Land? He lives in Victoria, British Columbia.
Other Publications about Aboriginal Issues
1996Native Land Claims Settlements
1998
The Delgamuukw Case: What Does It Mean and What Do We Do Now?
Aboriginal Land Claims in British Columbia:
Understanding the Nisga'a Agreement and Looking at Alternatives.
1999
Comments on the Draft Nisga'a Treaty.
A Principled Analysis of the Nisga'a Treaty.
2000
Principles for Treaty Making.
Beyond the Nass Valley: National Implications of the Supreme Court's Delgamuukw Decision. Notes
|