Rebecca Alty

In response to a question from Caroline Desrochers

“I want the House to pass this bill quickly. It gives the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę self-government so they can make their own laws, choose their leaders, and protect their language and culture.”

“Mr. Speaker, beyond the investments such as the Mackenzie Valley Highway, the Slave geological province and the Taltson hydro expansion, the important thing about accelerating this legislation is really the importance of the self-governance to the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. With that, it would be able to make its own laws, elect its own leaders and protect and revitalize its language and culture. This is incredibly important. Without this legislation, it is right now an organization that has to follow the not-for-profit guidance, and so it is a bit disrespectful, really. We should be passing the self-government agreement. This is part of the 1993 land claim agreement that we would be going on to self-government. This would be the second of the five communities that would be seeking self-government. Again, I urge my colleagues to pass this as quickly as possible.”

In response to a question from Jamie Schmale

“We know that Indigenous groups in the United States are taking British Columbia to court, but the federal government is not part of that case. The Supreme Court has said that governments might have to consult groups that live outside Canada in some situations. We are watching these cases closely and will update our plans if needed.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the legal challenges from the United States-based indigenous groups against the Province of British Columbia. However, Canada is not a party to this litigation. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that decisions about consultation with non-resident groups may be required in certain circumstances. However, the federal government is monitoring all legal cases when it comes to duty to consult and accommodate, and we are updating when necessary. Again, we are monitoring the B.C. legal challenges closely and we remain committed to building Canada strong.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Caroline Desrochers

“We worked out this treaty with the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę and consulted with 30 Indigenous nations. The community and the territorial government have already approved it. I want the House to pass this bill quickly, before the summer.”

“Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, this is a treaty, so it was negotiated with the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. Following the negotiations, we came to the draft. A consultation then occurred with 30 indigenous nations, which had minor amendments that were then incorporated. The community then ratified this in March 2025. The territorial government ratified it in March 2026. I am looking for the House to expedite this so we can have this approved before the summer.”

In response to a question from Jamie Schmale

“We are working to speed up the Mackenzie Valley Highway project. This road will let people get food and fuel all year instead of relying on barges and winter roads. We are also investing in mining in the region.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important to go through the regulatory process. One of the initiatives that will support the Mackenzie Valley region, including Norman Wells, is the government’s announcement of referring the Mackenzie Valley Highway project to the Major Projects Office. That is the opportunity to work with communities as well as the territorial government, which is the proponent on this project, to accelerate it. With the Mackenzie Valley Highway, it would benefit residents with local food supply and fuel being able to be shipped all year and not depending on barges and winter roads. Already we are seeing more mineral exploration in the region, and we are continuing to support that through critical mineral investments that were announced in budget 2025.”

In response to a question from Jamie Schmale

“This bill helps set up self-government for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. It builds on other work we support, like programs that protect the land, create local jobs, and build highways in the North.”

“Mr. Speaker, what is before the House would be an important part of that, meaning the establishment of the self-government of the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. One of the other initiatives that Parliament approved was funding for Our Land for the Future, which is a land guardian program. It is working with indigenous governments across the Northwest Territories to develop the land guardian program. Another indigenous government in the Sahtu region is Fort Good Hope. I was just talking to them yesterday about their land guardian program. It is creating 2 million dollars’ worth of local wages, which is 12 full‑time positions and over 100 community members participating throughout the year. It has been important for land, for culture, for wildfire protection and for many more things, so I tip my hat to all the land guardians across the Northwest Territories. The other thing I would note in the Sahtu is the recent Mackenzie Valley Highway. We are working to expedite that project, and we have seen that Rio Tinto is looking to explore for copper in the region.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill quickly. It makes the self-government agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę legally binding, letting them make their own laws, deliver services, and manage their land.”

“moved that Bill C-27, An Act to give effect to the Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak to the second reading of the legislation that would give legal force to the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę self-government treaty. It is very timely that we are having this debate now as we celebrate National Indigenous History Month. While this month is a celebration, it is also a reminder, not only for Canadians but also for us as parliamentarians, of the work we need to do to help build a stronger, more equitable future for indigenous peoples. By advancing this legislation today, all members of the House have the opportunity to support a stronger future for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. This moment has been a long time in the making. All of us know that the heart of this legislation is in the north, in the Sahtu and with the people of Norman Wells. It began with elders, leaders and families that carried a vision for their nation. It began with their determination to see their governance restored, their authority recognized and their future placed back in their own hands. When we speak about progress, we must also speak about legacy. In the Sahtu, that legacy is profound. More than 30 years ago, the signing and enactment of the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement fundamentally changed the landscape of indigenous governance and land management in Canada. It was a landmark for not only the Sahtu but also the entire country. It created certainty, stability and a foundation strong enough to support other self-government negotiations into the future. The agreement brought clarity to land stewardship and resource management across a vast region that has since shaped decisions, influenced national policy and guided how we approach modern treaties across Canada. It set a precedent, and communities across Canada refer to it as they advance their own agreements. It made space for new models of partnership between indigenous governments and Canada, between communities and industry, and between northern peoples and the federal system. The 1993 agreement changed the way Canada understands shared responsibility for land, water, wildlife and resources. It proved that reconciliation, when grounded in respect, can create not only fairness but also stability for investment, planning and shared prosperity for future generations. From that foundation came the first self-government agreement in the Sahtu, the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement, which was a milestone that inspired and encouraged others across the region. Today, we are here to advance the second of five potential agreements that were envisioned all those decades ago, the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę self-government treaty. This treaty is not an isolated achievement. It is part of that continuum, a living legacy of a region that has consistently led the way on land claims, self-determination and innovative governance. Today, we build on that legacy through Bill C-27. If passed, it would establish the agreement as a self-government treaty in Canadian law. It would formally recognize the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę government as the government of the Sahtu, Dene and Métis of Norman Wells and would affirm what has always been true, which is that the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę hold inherent rights of self-government, rights affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. This is practical, meaningful and legally binding recognition. The treaty confirms the authority of the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę to make their own laws; elect their own leaders; protect and revitalize their languages; strengthen their culture; deliver their own programs and services, including education and health care; manage land use and development decisions within their jurisdiction; and chart their own path forward as a nation. However, I also want to consider what this means not just for governance but also for people. Fundamentally, self-government is a deeply human concept. It affects the classrooms in which a child learns. It affects the homes in which families live. It affects the care a grandparent receives, the language heard in the community hall, the decisions made at the council table and the confidence and optimism of young people imagining their futures. Self-government means that programs are designed locally by people who understand the community. It means language and culture are protected, not as an afterthought but as central priorities when developing policies and programs. It means that governance reflects Sahtu values rooted in respect, responsibility and relationships. For the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, this treaty is a return to an age-old system of governance grounded in culture and social and spiritual practices passed down over countless generations. Their ancestors governed themselves long before Canada existed, and this legislation would recognize that truth and restore the space for indigenous decision-making to flourish again. These authorities reflect what the community has long envisioned: decisions being made by the people who live there, who know the land, who share the culture and who carry the responsibility for future generations. This legislation would honour commitments, renew relationships and, just as importantly, help unlock new opportunities for the nation to build and prosper on its own terms. I can say with confidence, because the community has shown it again and again, that the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę are ready. After 20 years of negotiation, countless meetings and tireless leadership, they are ready to take on self-government. One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the foundation it would establish for economic opportunity. Under the legislation, the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę would have jurisdiction with respect to direct taxation of its citizens within its land and authority over internal and local affairs, as well as the ability to finance their self-government. These tools would help support long-term planning, create jobs and generate their own revenue. As an indigenous government, the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę government would be positioned to engage directly on development projects, ensuring that benefits flow into the community and that development reflects local priorities and values. This is good news for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. It is good for the region, it is good for the Northwest Territories, and it is good for Canada. Stable governance encourages investment. It speeds up decision-making, gives clarity to investors and aligns economic development with cultural and environmental stewardship. It also means that projects can move forward with community support. This is how the north succeeds, by making certain that the people who live closest to the land have a real voice in how it is used. Before I close, I want to take a moment to thank everyone who played an important role in getting us to where we are today. I thank leaders, elders, youth, negotiators and community members. They have shown what can be achieved when partnership is genuine and relationships are built on trust. To the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, mahsi cho for their leadership, mahsi cho for their patience and mahsi cho for their partnership. As a proud northerner, as a minister of the Crown and as someone who has spent my life working with and learning from communities across the Northwest Territories, it is an honour to play even a small role in this moment. As we observe National Indigenous History Month, this legislation gives us the chance to live up to our highest ideals as a country, to honour our commitments and to walk forward with indigenous peoples together. I urge all members of the House to join me in working to pass this critical piece of legislation without delay.”

In response to a question from Tamara Jansen

“The Conservative motion from yesterday is full of false information about the Musqueam agreement. The agreement is online, and it clearly says it is not a treaty or a land claim. The Conservatives should actually read it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the motion that was presented yesterday was full of false information, including when they talked about the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement is available online, but I know the Conservatives have not read it. I will feel free to read section 5.1: “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements”. I will also read section 5.2: “This Agreement does not create, amend, define, establish, abrogate or derogate from Musqueam’s Rights and Title.” The whole agreement is available online, and I encourage the Conservatives to read it.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“We will keep defending private land ownership in court. This issue belongs in the courts, not in the House of Commons.”

“Mr. Speaker, at trial, Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown, and we will continue to do so on appeal. That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued before the court that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. This is why we supported Montrose’s application to present evidence that was not before the court during the trial, which is occurring today. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs, in the courts, not on the floor of the House of Commons.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from John Williamson

“Two different courts have made opposite decisions on this issue. That is why we and many other groups appealed the Cowichan case to get a clear answer from the courts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite flagging the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. They reached a very different conclusion from Cowichan. Therefore, we now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity that we are seeking in the Cowichan case, which we appealed, the Government of British Columbia appealed, the Cowichan appealed, the Musqueam appealed, the Tsawwassen appealed and the City of Richmond appealed. It is active litigation before the courts.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “We now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Mel Arnold

“The Conservatives do not understand the rules or the Musqueam agreement. The agreement is not a secret. It is public, and they should read it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read.”

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“I will not discuss our legal strategy for the Cowichan court case because it is still before the courts. We appealed the ruling, and we will use any legal argument that is supported by facts and principles.”

“Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we are not going to discuss our litigation strategy. The Conservatives have referenced the litigation direction, but they have read only one sentence out of principle number 14. Our government will always raise valid arguments in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Litigation guideline number 14 does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences, but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada has appealed the Cowichan ruling, and all viable defence—”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Chak Au

“I will not talk about our legal strategy for the Cowichan court case here. The Conservatives keep asking about the Musqueam agreement, but they should just read it themselves. The agreement clearly says it is not a treaty or a land claims deal, and it does not change Musqueam rights or title.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan case is under active litigation and we will not be discussing our legal strategy on the House of Commons floor. However, yesterday, the Conservatives had a lot of questions about something that is public and available for them to read, which is the Musqueam agreement. Let me read the Musqueam agreement since they will not read it themselves. Section 5.1 of the agreement states, “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements...”. Section 5.2 states, “This Agreement does not create, amend, define, establish, abrogate or derogate from Musqueam’s Rights and Title.” There is more on the website for them.”