Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide a personal explanation to clarify why I, as Attorney General, made the decision to intervene in the Supreme Court case relating to Bill C-92, an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, Metis children, youth and families.

Yesterday, it was stated in this House that the intervention was an indication that the GNWT reversed its support for the law passed by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation pursuant to this federal Act. This is not accurate. The very first sentence of the oral submission to the Supreme Court of Canada was, quote, "Let me begin by saying that the Northwest Territories is supportive of the inherent right of self-government government, and we also support enabling Indigenous groups to create and operate child and family services."

The GNWT remains committed and is actively working with the IRC and the Government of Canada on finalizing the NWT's first coordination agreement under the federal act.

It was also stated in the House yesterday that the GNWT is putting its own interests to retain power and control above the interests of Inuvialuit children and youth.

Mr. Speaker, I assure you that these were not my motives. The NWT does not have the same constitutional protections as the provinces do, and it was critical for the Supreme Court of Canada to be aware of the potential impacts of the federal law. The decision to intervene was, in part, driven by the need to obtain judicial clarity now in order to avoid a separate court process in the future if disagreements arise regarding the ambiguities of the federal act.

I am hopeful that the submissions made to the SCC will prove helpful and will provide judicial guidance on the interaction between Indigenous laws and territorial laws, and later today I will be tabling a document with further explanation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.