most intrusive of the provincial programs, could be extended to
the reserve without any consultation whatsoever.
 In sum, the 1965 agreement was a watershed event that
extended some 18 provincial welfare programs, including child
welfare services, on a province-wide and provincial standards
basis to Indians on the reserves. The obligation to consult as set
out in s. 2(2) applied plainly and unambiguously to every provincial welfare program, including child welfare services. There
was no carve-out for child protection services.
 For the balance of my analysis, I will focus on the obligation to consult as it related to the extension of the provincial
child welfare regime to the reserves.
No Indian Bands were Ever Consulted
 The plaintiff says no Indian bands were ever consulted
and the full reach of the provincial child welfare regime was
extended to all of the reserves without any consultation and concurrence on the part of any Indian band.
 The plaintiff is right.
 On the record before me, I find that no Indian bands were
ever consulted before provincial child welfare services were
extended to the reserves and no bands ever provided their “
signified concurrence” following such consultations. The evidence
supporting the plaintiff on this point is, frankly, insurmountable.
In any event, Canada offered no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Canada Breached the 1965 Agreement
 I find that by failing to consult the Indian bands, Canada
breached s. 2(2) of the 1965 agreement. This finding may seem
self-evident but it requires some explanation.
 Under s. 2(1) of the agreement, Ontario undertook to
extend the listed provincial welfare programs to Indians on
reserves but did so “subject to (2)” which required consultation
by Canada. One could argue that it was Ontario that breached
s. 2(1) and (2) of the agreement because it proceeded to extend
the named provincial programs to the reserves even though
Canada had not consulted any Indian band. The plaintiff, however, filed this class action against Canada, not Ontario.
 The question therefore is whether Canada breached
s. 2(2) of the agreement. Strictly speaking, there is nothing in
s. 2(2) which explicitly obliges Canada to actually undertake the
consultations referred to therein. However, the undertaking to
do so can be implied from the language and context of this provision. The law is clear that a contractual term can be implied if
it is a contractual term that must have been intended by the