Bill C-14 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act
An Act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 19, 2004
- Debated in principleNov. 2, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 7, 2004
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 9, 2005
- Became lawFeb. 14, 2005
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
69% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (23,482 words introduced, 16,512 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with mostly the same core provisions on the Tlicho agreement but with formatting fixes, added assent details, and completed definitions that were truncated in the introduced version. Minor wording and structure adjustments appeared in the final statute without altering the overall purpose or obligations.
- Added royal assent date and chapter number to the title.
Before: “FIRST READING, OCTOBER 19, 2004”
After: “[Assented to 15th February, 2005]”
- Completed the truncated definition of Tlicho First Nation.
Before: “"Tlicho First Nation" means the aboriginal people of Canada to whom section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 applies, consisting of all Tlicho ci”
After: “"Tlicho First Nation" means the aboriginal people of Canada to whom section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 applies, consisting of all Tlicho citizens.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies many exact definitions tied to dated agreements and numbered chapters, creating clear boundaries for most terms and geographic areas. Operative rules, however, repeatedly insert board or ministerial opinions plus likelihood tests that turn on subjective judgment.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of the board”
makes issuance of licences hinge on an official's subjective assessment rather than an objective rule.“likely to substantially alter the quality, quantity or rate of flow”
uses imprecise qualifiers that invite prolonged argument over degree and probability.“any orders and regulations that are necessary for the purpose”
grants open-ended power without statutory limits on content or duration.“measures that it considers reasonable”
leaves the content of remedial orders to judicial or administrative discretion.
Clear-cut
“signed on August 25, 2003”
anchors the Agreement to a fixed date and specific parties.“liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $15,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both”
states a concrete maximum penalty with no variable scale.“the area described in part 1 of the appendix to chapter 1 of the Tlicho Agreement”
refers to an external but fixed geographic description.
Discretion. Boards, the Governor in Council and ministers retain wide latitude to decide what is necessary, reasonable, likely or in their opinion, especially for licences, regulations and environmental conditions.
Challenging the law itself. repeated use of 'likely', 'opinion' and 'necessary' could ground a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. an accused could readily dispute whether an impact meets the 'substantially alter' or 'reasonable measures' thresholds.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
The Act successfully gave effect to the Tlicho Agreement, establishing the Tlicho Government and transferring lands and rights as intended, with ongoing tripartite implementation monitoring confirming foundational achievements. However, annual Implementation Committee reports and academic analyses highlight persistent challenges in full realization of self-government objectives and integration with broader governance.
- Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement, progress report of the Implementation Committee 2005-2009reviewThe report details achievements in establishing the Tlicho Government, land ownership, and initial implementation activities from 2005 to 2009 by the tripartite Implementation Committee.
- Report of the Implementation Committee: Tłı̨chǫ Agreement 2019/2020reviewAnnual reports document ongoing monitoring, obligation fulfillment tracking, and reviews of the Implementation Plan, indicating continued but evolving implementation efforts.
- Tłı̨chǫ Government v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 NWTSC 9courtThe court addressed issues related to the Tlicho Agreement's provisions on land and water management boards in the context of devolution legislation.
- Dǫ nàke làànı̀ nàts’etso: A critical review of self-government implementation in Canada’s North (thesis)studyThe study concludes that implementation of the Tłı̨chǫ self-government agreement has transformed Indigenous structures in ways that may undermine cultural sovereignty despite legal recognition.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.