included blind and disabled person allowances, mothers’ allowances, care of the aged and child welfare services, that is, “
services to children, including the protection and care of neglected
children, the protection of children born out of wedlock
and adoption services provided under the [Ontario] Child Welfare Act . . .”.
 There is no doubt that Canada could have enacted its own
child protection statute aimed only at Indian children on
reserves14 or, indeed, any of the other 17 provincial laws that
formed part of the 1965 agreement. But it chose not to do so.
Ontario already had operating provincial programs in place. And
even though the province could have extended these laws to the
reserves as “laws of general application” under s. 88 of the
Indian Act,15 it was clearly not doing so. It made sense, therefore, for
Canada to fund the provincial extension to the reserves of the 18
listed provincial laws as an exercise of its spending power. Canada’s financial obligation under the 1965 agreement was to
reimburse the province for the per capita cost of the provincial
programs that were so extended, in accordance with the formula
that was set out in the agreement.
 It is important to understand, however, that the 1965
agreement was more than a federal spending agreement. It also
reflected Canada’s concern that the extension of the provincial
laws would respect and accommodate the special culture and
traditions of the First Nations peoples living on the reserves,
including their children.
 That is why s. 2(2) was added.
Obligation to Consult under s. 2(2)
 Ontario’s undertaking to extend the provincial welfare
programs as set out in s. 2(1) was made “subject to (2)”. Subsec-
tion 2(2) of the agreement said this:
No provincial welfare program shall be extended to any Indian Band in the
Province unless that Band has been consulted by Canada or jointly by Can-
ada and by Ontario and has signified its concurrence.
14 Given its exclusive jurisdiction over “Indians, and lands reserved for the
Indians” under s. 91.24. of the Constitution Act, 1867. Also see Brown v.
Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONSC 6967 (Div. Ct.), supra, at para. 26.
15 Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-16, s. 88. And see NIL/TU-O Child and Family
Services Society v. B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union,  2
S.C.R. 696,  S.C.J. No. 45, 2010 SCC 45, at paras. 34 and 35.