Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the Member's question, we don't anticipate the Daniels decision resulting in more program responsibility for this government, but it does help clarify that there is legislative jurisdiction for Metis and Non-status in Canada that is the responsibility of Parliament. How that shapes out and what that means in practice will take some time to determine, so it does leave open the question, as the Minister stated, what does this mean for jurisdictions that have stepped in to fill that gap and provide programs and services specific to Metis when now a strong argument can be made that Canada might be the more appropriate government for that responsibility to fall to, and there are things like education funding and health funding that will have to be considered and that might lead to different results. Not necessarily a sure thing but it will be something that we will have to consider and engage with our federal partner moving forward.
On the claim side, the Daniels decision really dealt with one constitutional question, and that was legislative responsibility for Metis. Are they within Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act or not? The Court there made it clear that they were in Section 91(24). They shouldn't be treated any differently than Indians or Inuit who are clearly within Section 91(24).
On the Aboriginal rights side, though that really deals with a different section of the Constitution, Section 35. Under that, the court was clear; that really isn't a live controversy. It's well recognized and well understood that Metis have Aboriginal rights under Section 35. So not much changes in that regard for the Northwest Territories as a result of that decision.
As the Minister noted, though, we do anticipate Daniels reinforcing calls for equal treatment for Metis, and that includes equal treatment for how their Aboriginal rights agreements, as they are negotiated, are treated as well. Canada has historically taken the position that, in the case of the NWTMN agreements, that that could somehow be treated outside Section 35 and not be a constitutionally recognized agreement, but just be entered into as a contract. It's long been the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories that that would be unfair and highly challenging, and that agreement should be a constitutionally recognized agreement. We do look forward to continuing that discussion with Canada with the support of the Daniels decision. Thank you, Mr. Chair.