Wasn't there a question about what they suggest to do to fix it? I remember one of the options talking about higher courts deciding or something. I don't remember, grrrr.
Yes… the Ottawa (or Ontario) court interpreted land rights in this instance more conservatively than in other modern instances. The author felt that the Supreme Court would better address the issue.
This is what happened in real life… didn’t the header sentence say that this article was published in the late 80’s. I think TIME Magazine was cited in the back of the test booklet…. anybody want to look it up?
PS - The only issue with Oral tradition is that the O court excluded any traditions made after English colonization of the territory making it impossible for the aboriginals to prove to the O court that the tradition should be protected under the constitution. The author felt that this requirement was unreasonable and would not be upheld by the Supreme Court. It was not that he wanted oral tradition in it was that he didn’t like the pre/post colonization requirement.