Bill C-27, the proposed Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Act, would create a new federal law and amend other Acts, including the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Its stated goal is to give legal effect to the self-government agreement; the agreement’s full text was not supplied, so its wider provisions cannot be assessed here.
The agreement would be approved, given the force of law, and treated as a treaty under sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It would generally prevail over conflicting federal laws, but the Sahtu land claim agreement and its Act would prevail over conflicting provisions.
The Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Government would be a legal entity with the powers and rights of a natural person. Laws it makes under the agreement would have the force of law.
Subject to a provision in the agreement, the Indian Act would stop applying to the government and its citizens when the relevant section takes effect.
Changes to resource-management law would give the government consultation rights and powers to issue certain binding policy directions. The directions must not require the Sahtu Land and Water Board to exceed its approved budget.
The bill would change permit rules on Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę lands, including requiring a permit under Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę law where one is required, even if federal regulations do not require one. It would also allow that law to exempt some uses within lands described in the agreement.
Most provisions would start on dates set by the Governor in Council. The bill would let the Governor in Council set the agreement’s Effective Date and Transition Date. It would also deem parts of the agreement to have effect from November 20, 2024.
Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Government and citizens: The agreement’s rights and duties would become legally binding. The Indian Act would no longer apply to the government or citizens from the specified start date, subject to the agreement. The agreement’s full text is needed to explain the full practical effect.
People seeking to use Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Settlement Lands: A Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę law may require a permit even where federal rules do not. For some uses within lands described in the agreement, that law may instead remove a permit requirement.
Resource boards and governments: The Sahtu Land and Water Board would have to consult the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Government before issuing, changing or renewing certain licences, permits or authorizations on Settlement Lands. The government could give certain policy directions to the Board after consultation; those directions would bind it only within its approved budget.
People bringing legal challenges: Applications for judicial review of decisions by the government or its institutions would go to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, after any appeal and review steps under Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę law are completed.
People and businesses generally: The bill does not itself set a new tax rate or create a general tax. It adds the government and specified lands to federal tax-law provisions, but the practical tax rules depend on material not supplied.
No cost information is in the supplied material. No publicly available information.
The bill allows the Governor in Council to make orders and regulations to carry out the agreement, but gives no spending estimate or staffing figure.
It gives conditional tax-law recognition to the government if it levies and collects certain property taxes. It also adds the government and lands to a schedule under the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act; the supplied material does not state any rates or expected revenue.
The government would not have to pay certain water-use or waste-deposit fees for non-commercial purposes on its lands.
The agreement’s full terms are not supplied. Its lawmaking powers, rights, duties, eligibility rules, funding arrangements and transition details cannot be verified.
The tax treatment agreement is not supplied, so its tax rules and financial effects are unknown.
The bill gives dates and some conditions by reference to the agreement, but the timing of key changes depends on commencement orders and agreement provisions.
The parent Acts are not supplied, so the exact change to existing access-to-information, privacy, tax and resource-management rules could not be checked against current law.
The bill does not state the cost of implementing the agreement or how much funding the new government will receive.
The bill would put a negotiated self-government agreement into federal law and make it binding, rather than leaving it as an agreement without the force of this Act.
Giving the government legal powers and a role in resource decisions on its lands could support local decision-making.
The bill sets a route for judicial review while requiring people to use any appeal or review process in Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę law first.
Its limits on binding policy directions—especially the approved-budget condition—could help avoid directions that require the Board to exceed its budget.
The agreement would prevail over conflicting federal laws in many cases, but the supplied material does not show the full scope of that priority or the rights and duties it would affect.
The agreement gives the government powers over resource decisions, but the supplied material does not show the agreement’s procedures or how affected land users would take part.
Requiring people to complete internal appeal and review steps before seeking judicial review could affect how quickly they can challenge decisions; the details depend on Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę law.
The bill does not provide cost estimates, and the government’s tax arrangements and funding are not clear from the supplied material.