Rebecca Alty
Northwest Territories, Northwest Territories · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I find it disingenuous that the members opposite continue to suggest that we are not protecting the private property rights of Canada. Here is what we have been doing: We disagreed with the B.C.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an important question and one that is currently before the courts. In the recent Wolastoqey decision, the Court of Appeal in New Brunswick, which is the highest court in the province, has refused leave to appeal. It found that aboriginal title cannot be declared over private property.”
“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.”
“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, righ…”
“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.”
“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 complete record
Every one of 168 lines we hold for Rebecca Alty, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, I find it disingenuous that the members opposite continue to suggest that we are not protecting the private property rights of Canada. Here is what we have been doing: We disagreed with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling and appealed it; we supported Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to present evidence that was not before the court during the trial. Section 92 of the Constitution sets out that private property is provincial jurisdiction. It is excluded from all discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level. For Cowichan, B.C. is acting within its jurisdiction to put measures in to support any implicated property owner—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an important question and one that is currently before the courts. In the recent Wolastoqey decision, the Court of Appeal in New Brunswick, which is the highest court in the province, has refused leave to appeal. It found that aboriginal title cannot be declared over private property. On the other side of the country, in the Cowichan case, the B.C. judge found that they could coexist. We disagree with B.C.'s decision and are appealing it to maintain the clarity and certainty of private properties. However, as we are seeing differing views in the courts, we continue to be there to get the certainty.”
“Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is important that we distinguish among self-government agreements, land claim agreements, comprehensive agreements and constructive arrangements, such as parks agreements. It would be important to understand the Conservative position when it comes to only self-government agreements, because they are sometimes stand-alone agreements that are separate from land agreements and other constructive agreements. If I could understand the Conservatives' position when it comes to self-governance, that would be really appreciated.”
“Mr. Speaker, again, for the House, I will say that a comprehensive agreement can include a self-government piece as well as a land piece. There are agreements that are just about land, but there are also agreements that are just about self-government. If it is not about land, are the Conservatives supportive of legislation that is just about self-governance?”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to get clarity. When the government brings forward self-government agreements, as long as they are focused on areas like governance, citizenship, culture, language and education and they are not focused on land or private property, is it the Conservative position that the Conservatives would be supporting self-government agreements?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition for supporting this legislation. As mentioned, this is one community of five. Déline was approved in 2016. We are moving forward with this one. The consultation is in process for Colville Lake, which is one of the other communities. If that legislation comes forward and is similar to Déline and Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, I wonder if the members opposite would support an expeditious passing of that legislation as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, in February, we did sign three Musqueam agreements. One was a framework agreement, which is really outlining how we will work nation to nation. Included in that is section 5.1, which says that it is not a land claim, and section 5.2. Again, I encourage the members opposite to look them up, as they are available online. For the other two agreements, one was about fisheries and one was about marine stewardship, but they are not about private property. Today, for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, this is a self-government agreement. The land claim was settled in 1993.”
“Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is important to note that the self-government agreement is legislated under the Constitution: their legal authority to pass their own laws, to set up their own elections and to protect their culture. The first self-government agreement was the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement. It will be having its 10th year anniversary this year, and we have really seen how incredibly important it has been in the community of Déline. I really look forward to seeing the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę's self-governance as it continues to grow in the community of Norman Wells. There is the opportunity to also consider moving to the indigenous public governance. However, at this stage, it is not looking to have that authority.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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. (1555) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 .”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. Bill C-27. Second reading 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.”
“Mr. Speaker, we will not be changing the Constitution. The Constitution must be respected, including section 35. When advancing on major projects, we will be ensuring that the duty to consult and accommodate will be followed.”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal government, the province, the City of Richmond, Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Cowichan are all appealing the Cowichan decision. There is also another court case. It is in New Brunswick. The Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion than what was reached in Cowichan. We now have two courts in Canada taking very different approaches. This divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity we are seeking in the Cowichan case. The Cowichan case is in active litigation, including today. We will defend private property.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, our government will always raise legally viable 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. Regardless of the directive, the government would never make arguments that do not have a principled basis and evidence to support them. Canada has appealed the Cowichan court ruling, and all viable defences remain on the table.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, an agreement cannot be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-30 , an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.”
“Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member opposite to read all of litigation principle number 14. He has only read the first sentence. However, what I will talk about is the Cowichan case and the current status. As far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of litigation. However, the courts ruled against that. Since the ruling last summer, we consented to the Montrose application, and we are now awaiting a ruling from the judge on that. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial and be added as a party. That will allow an impacted private property owner to be heard at trial.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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—”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Justice Arbour for her report, as well as congratulate her on her recent appointment as Governor General. With the world more and more uncertain and divisive, I would like to ask my colleague if she can speak to the importance of passing this legislation as soon as possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that, yes, I also speak to many residents who are concerned and have questions, but the important thing is to talk with residents and to explain the issue and not to stoke fear and confusion. In December 2025, the New Brunswick Court issued a decision on aboriginal title that ruled differently. Therefore, we have two court cases and two different decisions. We have appealed the Cowichan decision because there is a need for further clarity. I have not met a Conservative yet who has read the Musqueam agreement. Section 5.1 of the Musqueam agreement specifically states that it is not a land claims agreement. Can the member opposite please explain? If this is not explicit enough, what would it take?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have many concerns about that statement, but I am wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement. The Musqueam agreement does not reference private property because it does not deal with private property. Agreements do not reference everything they do not deal with. We only talk about things that the agreement is about. I am just wondering if the member opposite has read the Musqueam agreement.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan case is still in active litigation and we are not going to talk about our legal strategy on the floor. However, what we can talk about are public agreements, which the Conservatives have called “secret”, the Musqueam agreements. They are available online. I encourage my Conservative colleagues to read them. These agreements did not appear overnight. In 2017, Musqueam and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding. In February 2026, that work evolved into a framework agreement. However, it is not a title agreement, it is not a land claim. Let me be absolutely clear. The agreement does not affect Canadian—”
“Mr. Speaker, one part of the motion, part (c), calls on the government “to make no agreement without explicit property protection so that fee simple property rights are enshrined in all future agreements with First Nations”. However, agreements relate to education, health and policing. We do not reference private property there. Are the Conservatives proposing that we include the health transfer for the Government of British Columbia or any type of provincial government? Why is it limited to first nations?”
“Mr. Speaker, the case is being appealed, so I would like to ask my colleague a question. Does she think that getting Parliament to influence the outcome of a trial could blur the boundary between political debate and judicial independence?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding section 92 of Canada's Constitution. Private property clearly falls under provincial jurisdiction. In Cowichan, British Columbia is backstopping the properties. My question for the member is as follows: Can she explain how important it is for the provincial and federal governments to respect each other's jurisdictions?”
“I also encourage the Conservatives to read the whole directive, because I think it will enlighten them. Again, we are looking at all viable options in the appeal.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to mention litigation guideline number 14, which the Conservatives have referenced a number of times. I encourage them to read beyond the first sentence and actually read the whole principle. If they get to the second sentence, they will see that all defences are available. However, “defences must not be pleaded simply in the hope that through discoveries or investigation some basis for the defence may be found.” We can only use defences “where there is a principled basis and evidence to support the defence”. We are in active litigation. We are continuing to review all viable legal arguments. However, when the members mention guideline number 14, I really encourage them to read beyond sentence number one and get through the whole principle.”
“Mr. Speaker, the courts and litigation create uncertainty. This case began in 2014. The ruling ended in 2025. All parties appealed the decision. Montrose has asked for the trial to be reopened. We are awaiting the decision from the judge. Litigation can create uncertainty while we are working through these steps, which is why we prefer to work through negotiations. Agreements like that with Haida, where the federal government, the province and the Haida Nation were able to come together and actually work through how private property and aboriginal title can work together, are a prime example. It is ensuring that Canadians understand the current stage of the legal process, because it is being appealed. There is the opportunity that the trial may be reopened in a limited way.”
“Mr. Speaker, tied to both of my colleagues' questions, I think about the opportunity for improved communications, but also the uncertainty and fear that can happen in the investment world when the education is lacking. When there is talk about the federal government giving away all this land, which is inaccurate, that is misinformation and it leads to that uncertainty the member is speaking of. Canada was just at the United Nations indigenous peoples forum. We are a leader that many countries look to with regard to reconciliation. We can continue to shine. Our journey toward reconciliation is not over. It is a long journey, and we need to continue to evolve. Making sure that we continue to advance modern treaties and aboriginal title in a way that protects private property is important work that we need to continue.”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, I think that there is an opportunity here to discuss how we can improve awareness about treaties. There is a lot of disinformation and denialism about history. We would love it if the committee could take this opportunity to look into how we can improve awareness about treaties and residential schools. I think it would be a good exercise. It would also be a good idea to look at how we can address the issue of aboriginal title, since there are numerous examples across Canada. How can we explain this better and educate Canadians on this?”
“When an agreement does not touch on private property, we do not include it, because it does not touch on private property.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last point regarding the Musqueam agreement, it is an incremental rights and recognition agreement. If folks are interested, they can go to the website and there is a description of what an MOU is and what a framework agreement is. We are currently at the framework agreement. Back in 2017, we signed the MOU with Musqueam. It took nine years to come to the framework agreement. It outlines the next steps for discussion. The other two agreements that were signed were about marine stewardship and the fisheries. The motion the Conservatives are proposing says we have not included private property in every agreement. I ask the Conservatives why we would include that in every agreement, including the education agreements, the health agreements and the self-government agreements.”