Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tlegohli Got’ine Bill

Thank you, Senator Duncan, for the work that you did on this bill as its sponsor but also for the many years leading up to this time.

I was not able to be at the committee meeting for the study because I was in the chamber, so I just wanted to thank the committee members for the work that they have done on this bill.

Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading of Bill C-27, An Act to give effect to the Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tlegohli Got’ine and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

As we recently observed the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation on September 30, we are reminded that true reconciliation is an ongoing process that cannot rest on principle alone. It requires remembrance, reflection and concrete action to redress the lasting impacts of past injustices and the structural inequities that continue to be experienced across generations. It also requires that the commitments we make today be supported by the practical means to fulfill them tomorrow.

As the critic of this bill, I want to state from the outset that I support its passage. Conservatives in both houses of Parliament support the bill. At the same time, as the critic, I have the responsibility in this chamber to shed light on the questions that do still persist and the potential situations that may arise that must be carefully considered.

For an agreement of this importance, good intentions are not enough. Its long-term success will depend not only on what is set out in the agreement but also on whether the commitments that follow are carried out with the transparency and accountability Canadians deserve and the care and foresight necessary to achieve meaningful outcomes. These are not objections to self-government. They reflect our responsibility to help ensure that this agreement rests on a sound and sustainable foundation for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įn Government, or TGG, and hard-working Canadian taxpayers.

Honourable senators, the legislation before us today is the culmination of decades of negotiations and dedication. The 1993 Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement not only obligated Canada to negotiate self-government with five Sahtu communities but also marked a significant step toward meaningful reconciliation. It recognized that reconciliation must go beyond acknowledging past injustices and create pathways toward fairness.

Reconciliation must also recognize Indigenous Peoples’ right to greater control over their own affairs and support the exercise of their inherent right to self-government.

Following the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement, the TGG self-government agreement is the second of five potential Sahtu self-government agreements to be advanced. Negotiations began in 2005, followed by a framework agreement in 2007 and an agreement in principle in 2019. The final agreement was signed in 2025, after 20 years. This agreement has been two decades in the making. The legislation before us represents an important and long-awaited step for the TGG. Behind these milestones are years of hard work by leaders, elders, negotiators, community members and their allies whose perseverance deserves our recognition.

This bill gives legal effect to the final self-government agreement for the TGG, recognizing their government and enabling it to exercise authority, make laws and develop programs in key areas of community governance such as citizenship, culture, social services, education and language.

The agreement provides for the foundational laws and institutions needed to govern, including the structure and operation of the legislative council and the procedures through which laws are proposed, enacted and published.

The agreement also gives the TGG jurisdiction over certain jointly held Sahtu settlement lands, subject to written agreements with the other Sahtu groups that share those lands.

At its heart, this agreement recognizes an important principle: Decisions about a community should be informed by the people who know that community best. No matter how extensive consultation may be, those who are part of a community and have lived its realities understand its needs and priorities in a way that distant lawmakers may not or cannot.

Bringing decision making closer to the people affected can help ensure that programs and services reflect local circumstances; preserve language and culture; and respond more effectively to community priorities.

That same principle applies to economic growth where greater TGG control over decisions affecting their community can allow economic priorities to be shaped more closely around their needs and challenges to be addressed more effectively.

The promise of this agreement is, therefore, not simply a change in governmental structures. It is the opportunity to build stronger institutions, support local employment and business development and create greater stability for future generations.

When the agreement takes effect, the TGG will initially operate as an Indigenous government for its citizens rather than as a public government for all residents of Norman Wells. The municipal government of the town will continue to exist and exercise its powers alongside the TGG, unless and until a transition to Indigenous public government takes place under the agreement’s provisions.

The latest published estimate from the Northwest Territories Bureau of Statistics places Norman Wells’s population at 745 as of July 1, 2025, of which 295 are Dene, Métis or Inuit.

During my departmental briefing, which I had after the second reading, officials advised that TGG citizens currently represent approximately 12% of the town’s population and that their total number across Canada is approximately 350 people.

These are different measures. The number of Indigenous residents of Norman Wells is not the same as the number of TGG citizens. The figures provided, therefore, indicate a substantial non-TGG majority, which includes both Indigenous and non‑Indigenous residents.

Under the agreement, when TGG citizens ordinarily resident in Norman Wells reach at least 70% of the town’s population, the TGG may pass a resolution requiring transition. Reaching that threshold does not itself dissolve the municipality.

The agreement also provides for an earlier transition with the agreement of Canada and the territorial government. If the transition proceeds, the town of Norman Wells would be dissolved on the transition date. An Indigenous public government would assume local government responsibility for all residents, in addition to exercising its Indigenous self-government powers under the agreement.

Recognition as a government brings both authority and responsibility. In a public government, that responsibility includes serving Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents fairly and respecting their rights and needs.

The agreement provides for electoral participation by eligible resident Canadian citizens, including those who are not TGG citizens, while establishing distinct rules concerning the presidency, beneficiary council and seats that may be reserved for TGG citizens.

I am pleased to see that the TGG’s constitution and the TGG final self-government agreement expressly recognize the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to its government and institutions, subject to the qualifications set out in that constitution.

Nevertheless, families deserve a clear explanation of how those arrangements would work in practice; how they would elect their representatives; how local services would continue; and how their interests as residents and property owners would be respected.

When I asked officials about the impact on non-TGG residents, the response emphasized the current 12% figure but did not address the substance of my question. That figure describes the present situation; it does not explain a possible future transition. Some TGG citizens living elsewhere may choose to return. We should not assume that they will do so or that the 70% threshold will inevitably be met.

However, because the agreement expressly provides for a future transition, its implications for everyone who calls Norman Wells home deserve careful consideration. The purpose is not to raise alarm but to ensure that any change proceeds with clarity, continuity and respect for the rights of all residents in the spirit of reconciliation.

As a senator from British Columbia, I am mindful of the questions our province and its citizens have been grappling with concerning the relationship between Aboriginal title and fee-simple private ownership alongside the recognition of Indigenous self-government through legislation enacted by Parliament. Those experiences inform the lens through which I examine Bill C-27 as critic.

This agreement is not the same legal situation as an Aboriginal title dispute, but I am not suggesting that it extinguishes residents’ private property rights. However, I am asking that the implications of its governance and land provisions be clearly understood and explained.

I respect the goodwill of the TGG leadership and the Norman Wells council, the dedication of federal and territorial officials and the work of all those who have been at the table over two decades.

With that respect, I simply wish to place these questions on the record so that the interests of both TGG citizens and the wider community remain part of the implementation discussion.

Honourable senators, I want to emphasize that the importance of this agreement makes careful consideration of its implementation processes all the more necessary, especially in light of the many lessons learned over the years from existing self-government agreements.

After second reading, Bill C-27 was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. The committee studied the bill and heard from TGG leaders, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and government officials on the agreement and its implementation. I thank the committee members and witnesses for their work in examining this legislation.

I also had the opportunity to meet with departmental officials in a dedicated briefing to review the bill in greater detail. My questions focused on the division of responsibilities between governments, the planning required for implementation and the fiscal and practical implications of the legislation.

As the sponsor of the bill, Senator Duncan, explained at second reading, attention has been given to a two-year period of implementation and continuity of leadership. That should not be confused with the full duration of implementation planning. The community’s published explanation of the agreement describes an initial 10-year implementation plan.

Having the flexibility to assume certain powers gradually allows the TGG time to develop expertise and establish the administrative and institutional structures needed for a stable government, rather than having to take on many responsibilities all at once.

However, Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę are a relatively small nation, with approximately 350 citizens in Canada, according to the departmental briefing, and 261 eligible voters in the 2025 ratification process.

Establishing a new government involves responsibilities that require specialized expertise, from financial administration and legal drafting to program delivery and public reporting. This raises a practical question about how the necessary staff, training and administrative support will be secured, particularly when only a portion of the nation resides in Norman Wells.

Let me be clear: This concern is not about whether the TGG are capable of governing themselves, but about whether their government will receive the support essential to its success. Population alone does not determine capacity, and expertise can also be recruited from outside the community.

Nonetheless, it is reassuring that planning for the initial transition is in place, and that President Sherry Hodgson of the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Government Inc. intends to remain as president during this period of transition. Continuity of leadership and the experience of those who helped negotiate the agreement will be valuable.

Throughout this process, the federal and territorial governments must also continue to work in partnership with the TGG to ensure they have the resources needed to carry out their responsibilities.

For the TGG to function effectively, it must have reliable and adequate funding. This brings me to an issue on which greater clarity is still needed. In connection with the departmental briefing, I asked whether officials could provide my office with any available costing information related to the implementation of Bill C-27 once the legislation comes into force.

In particular, I requested an estimated overall fiscal profile, including any one-time transition costs and anticipated ongoing funding requirements. I was somewhat surprised that the response did not provide those estimates. Instead, officials explained that certain responsibilities currently carried out by the federal or territorial government would be assumed by the TGG, with funding following those responsibilities.

As I understood that explanation, some funding would be redirected from existing activities rather than represent entirely new expenditure. That distinction is important, but it does not establish the overall fiscal impact. Parliament should be able to distinguish the amounts being transferred for existing responsibilities from any additional costs of transition, administration and ongoing operations.

Nor does a government-to-government relationship mean that the parties have identical jurisdictions or responsibilities. The agreement recognizes the TGG within Canada’s constitutional framework, with the powers and responsibilities set out in the agreement.

Officials advised that funding for self-government is determined using collaborative fiscal policy, a standard expenditure-needs model co-developed with self-governing Indigenous governments. This model takes into account factors such as population and the scope of responsibilities assumed, with established methodologies and indexation formulas intended to support predictable and sustainable funding.

The department further explained that, upon the effective date of the agreement, the TGG would receive ongoing funding under this policy to support its governance activities. Officials also indicated that funding amounts would be made available on the Open Government website once Canada transfers the money.

That explanation was helpful in describing the process. However, it did not answer the question about the anticipated cost. A funding methodology tells us how an amount will be calculated. It does not tell us what that amount is expected to be. We should not speculate about whether the eventual funding will be higher or lower than existing transfers. What remains necessary is a clear account of the anticipated amounts, the responsibilities they will support and any additional expenditure required.

Similarly, disclosure of funding after it has been transferred is not a substitute for an estimated fiscal profile while Parliament is considering legislation. Both have a role to play: prospective information supports informed scrutiny, while subsequent disclosure supports accountability for the commitments made.

I recognize that some costs may depend on the pace at which responsibilities are assumed and that funding requirements may evolve. I am not suggesting that every future expenditure can be predicted with precision. But where final amounts are not yet available, Parliament should be given the best available estimates, the assumptions underlying them and a clear explanation of what remains to be determined.

Existing federal support for the TGG through the Norman Wells Land Corporation provides some historical context. Those transfers, however, should not be treated as an estimate of the cost of establishing and sustaining a self-governing administration. The distinction between existing support, one-time transition costs and ongoing funding requirements is important if we are to understand the fiscal implications of this agreement.

Furthermore, there must be transparency about how much taxpayer money is being allocated and how it is being used. Adequate funding and fiscal accountability are not competing objectives; they are complementary requirements of responsible implementation.

Greater clarity would serve not only Parliament and Canadian taxpayers, but also the TGG themselves. A new government needs a reliable basis on which to recruit staff, establish institutions and plan the delivery of services. Uncertainty about resources should not undermine the promise of an agreement that it has taken so many years to achieve.

Honourable colleagues, these questions about resources and implementation take on added importance when we consider the economic changes now taking place in Norman Wells. Reconciliation is not only about addressing past injustices and present challenges; it is also about laying the groundwork for the long-term success and prosperity of Indigenous communities.

In August 2026, Imperial Oil ended production at its Norman Wells Operations after 106 years. This is a major turning point for a community whose livelihoods and economy have long depended on the oil industry.

According to the company, its annual property tax payments to the town had amounted to approximately $6 million, representing around 70% of the municipality’s budget. The end of production, therefore, raises significant questions about the town’s future tax base, employment and economic stability.

At the same time, there are opportunities for economic development in the region. In September, the federal government announced $405 million to advance the Mackenzie Valley Highway project, including environmental assessment and design work, bridge construction and related infrastructure. These investments can help strengthen regional connections and support future economic activity.

Imperial Oil also anticipates that closure planning, remediation and reclamation will take approximately 20 years. That work may provide continued employment and training opportunities for local residents. Those opportunities are important, but their benefits will depend on meaningful local participation, access to training and the nature and timing of the work. They should not be assumed to replace all the employment and revenue associated with oil production.

My concern is that the TGG will be establishing itself while the community is adjusting to the loss of a major local industry. The loss of a major local industry could have consequences that complicate the work of establishing a new government institution, as reduced economic activity, employment losses and possible population decline could place additional pressures.

It is, therefore, important to ask whether the fiscal and implementation plans have adequately accounted for the effects of Imperial Oil’s production shutdown on the town of Norman Wells and the TGG. The town’s municipal finances and the new government’s funding are distinct matters. Nevertheless, both governments will operate within the same changing local economy, and the practical implications deserve careful consideration.

Despite these challenges, self-government may help the TGG respond more effectively to the changes ahead. Greater authority over their own affairs can strengthen their ability to shape community priorities and participate in decisions and discussions about economic development.

For that reason, it is important to ensure that the TGG have both the authority and the resources to respond to these changes and participate meaningfully in shaping their community’s future. The fiscal and implementation plans supporting their government must take account of the economic circumstances in which that government will begin its work.

Honourable colleagues, my support for Bill C-27 is clear. So, too, is my expectation that the federal government provide a more complete account of the anticipated implementation costs and ongoing funding commitments, distinguishing what is known from what remains under consideration. I also expect that the implications of any future transition for non-TGG residents will be clearly explained, including their electoral participation, local services and interests as property owners.

A carefully negotiated agreement deserves equally careful implementation. None of the concerns I have highlighted today diminish the importance of the bill before us. Rather, they are matters that deserve to be clearly understood and placed on the public record as the agreement moves towards implementation.

Bill C-27 is a crucial step in a very lengthy journey. It represents years of perseverance, collaboration and determination by the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę people to see their right to self-government become a reality. Their achievement deserves our respect, and their government deserves the opportunity to succeed.

But this journey does not end with the passage of this bill. Our responsibility continues throughout its implementation, through ongoing cooperation, careful oversight and ensuring that the commitments made under this agreement are fulfilled.

It is with this understanding that I support the passage of Bill C-27 at third reading and encourage all honourable colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.