Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 4. Euro-Canadian History 1758-1871 16signalled in 1846 by the repeal of the Corn Laws. That change had huge economic/politicalimplications for the people who lived in Britain's remaining North American colonies.[101] In a mercantile economy, colonists were required to send/sell all their produce to themother country and to purchase all their goods from it. If it cost them $1.00 to produce and shipa quantity of goods from Nova Scotia to London, and a producer in the United States couldproduce and ship the same for $.50, the British would impose a tariff of at least $0.51 to makethe American goods more expensive than the colonial goods. That tariff was thought to bebeneficial to the colonial merchants because they would not otherwise have been able to competewith non-colonial producers. Since Britain required the shipment of all colonial goods to it, ithad no need to purchase goods produced elsewhere. It could use its huge trade surpluses to coverthe costs of its Empire, including defence, administration and Indian expenses.[102] However, as Britain moved from an agricultural to a largely commercial/industrialeconomy, goods with tariffs applied to them became more and more expensive for members ofits increasingly urban-based workforce, people who did not grow but purchased their own food.When they demanded higher wages to meet their costs, industrialists lobbied the government toabolish tariffs and allow the inflow of the cheapest possible food/commodities. Free tradelegislation was eventually passed.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[103] Once free trade was implemented, the trade surpluses inherent in a mercantile economywere no longer available to pay the costs of Empire. Once the economic benefits of Empire werediminished, lobbyists (most notably members of the Little England Movement) urged the Britishgovernment to trim the costs of Empire, including the costs of conciliating and civilizing theIndians.[104] Saywell said (April 6, 2009 at p. 60) that "with the triumph of free trade, the end ofmercantilism, the British forced [us] to pay for the Indians ourselves."[105] Milloy gave evidence that at the same time, in some areas, as the settler populations wereincreasing, settler militias were diminishing the need for military alliances with the Indians.Nevertheless, until 1860 in Ontario, Britain continued to negotiate and honour treaties and toprotect Indians from frauds and abuses by local settlers and governments. If Indians didn'tchoose to become civilized, its policy was to allow them to follow their old ways.Euro-Canadian Contact with the Treaty 3 Ojibway from the Euro-CanadianPerspectiveThe HBC Territories[106] Milloy gave evidence that in Britain from the mid to late 1840s through the mid-1860s,there was increasing concern about the HBC Territories. While reluctant to pay defense andother costs for the reasons just mentioned, Britain nevertheless wanted to preserve them asBritish territories. The HBC held Rupert's Land under its 17 th century Charter; the NorthwestTerritories were held by it pursuant to Imperial trading licences.