19.05.2014 Views

Our Children Our Future Our Vision - People for Education

Our Children Our Future Our Vision - People for Education

Our Children Our Future Our Vision - People for Education

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Our</strong> <strong>Children</strong>, <strong>Our</strong> <strong>Future</strong>, <strong>Our</strong> <strong>Vision</strong><br />

“Her Majesty agrees to maintain a school in the reserve, allotted to each band, as soon as they<br />

settle on said reserve, and are prepared <strong>for</strong> a teacher.”<br />

(Treaty 4, 1874) 40<br />

“to pay the salary of such teachers to instruct the children of said Indians”<br />

(Treaty 7, 1877) 41<br />

However, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the Badger and Sundown cases set out several<br />

key treaty interpretive principles that confirm that treaties are not only sacred agreements, but that<br />

they are also an exchange of solemn promises which create mutually binding obligations. 42 They<br />

also held that the honour of the Crown is always at stake when considering the scope and content<br />

of treaties which means that we must assume the Crown always intended to fulfill its promises.<br />

Since the treaties were written by representatives of the Crown, any ambiguities in the words of<br />

the treaty are to be resolved in favour of the Indians. 43<br />

Equally important are the findings of the SCC in Marshall which relied on the decision in Taylor<br />

and Williams to support the proposition that the content of treaties are not determined only by the<br />

specific clauses contained in the treaties, but also by the understanding of the parties at the time<br />

and by the content of treaty negotiation minutes. 44<br />

In my view, the Nova Scotia judgments erred in concluding that the<br />

only en<strong>for</strong>ceable treaty obligations were those set out in the written<br />

document of March 10, 1760, whether construed flexibly (as did<br />

the trial judge) or narrowly (as did the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal).<br />

The findings of fact made by the trial judge taken as a whole demonstrate<br />

that the concept of a disappearing treaty right does justice<br />

neither to the honour of the Crown nor to the reasonable expectations<br />

of the Mi’kmaq people. It is their common intention in 1760 -- not<br />

just the terms of the March 10, 1760 document -- to which effect<br />

must be given. 45<br />

Thus, when considering the treaty right to education <strong>for</strong> First Nations in Ontario, one must look<br />

at more than just a single clause in an individual treaty, but also to the larger context, the understanding<br />

of the parties at the time, and any agreements made outside of treaty document during<br />

40 Ibid. at 129.<br />

41 Ibid.<br />

42 R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771 [Badger]. R. v. Sundown, [1999] 393 [Sundown].<br />

43 Ibid. See also: M. Hurley, Parliamentary Research Branch, “Aboriginal and Treaty Rights” (Ottawa: Government of<br />

Canada, 2000), online: < http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/EB/prb9916-e.htm>.<br />

44 R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456 [Marshall]. R. v. Taylor and Williams (1981), 62 C.C.C. (2d) 227, leave to appeal<br />

refused.<br />

45 Marshall, supra note 44 at para. 40. (emphasis added) See also page 52 where they explained that to do otherwise<br />

would have left the Mi’kmaq with an “empty shell of a treaty promise”.<br />

Chiefs of Ontario<br />

10

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!