Nunavut is months away from taking control of most of its public lands and natural resources, but Parliament is considering a new federal power that could cancel or restrict mineral rights in the territory.

The power is contained in Bill C-31, a large federal budget implementation bill introduced on May 6, 2026. As of October 16, it was at consideration in committee in the House of Commons. The Senate was also conducting a pre-study, which lets senators examine parts of a bill before it reaches them from the House. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

The proposal is not yet law. No devolution delay has been announced. No public record reviewed for this report identifies a mine, mineral claim, company or sale process that the federal government intends to target.

The immediate problem is timing. Nunavut has already prepared a draft Public Lands Act to replace federal land legislation on transferred lands. If Parliament changes that federal legislation now, Nunavut may have to revise its draft while also meeting the fixed April 1, 2027 transfer date.

This is more than a paperwork issue. The laws will govern thousands of mineral claims, leases, permits and water licences. They will help determine who administers existing rights, how new interests are recorded and what happens when a government believes a mineral interest conflicts with a broader public concern.

What Ottawa is proposing

Part 4, Division 14 of Bill C-31 would add proposed section 12.1 to the federal Territorial Lands Act.

If an action were considered to be in the “national interest,” the Governor in Council — meaning the federal cabinet — could act on the recommendation of the Minister of Northern Affairs. Cabinet could cancel a prospecting licence, recorded mineral claim or mineral lease on territorial lands in Nunavut.

An order could also stop new claims or leases, block renewals or transfers, restrict affected rights holders and related people from applying for new interests, or close specified land to prospecting for a set period. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

The bill does not define national interest. At a Senate hearing, federal officials described the idea broadly. They said it could include security as well as social, political and economic matters. They presented the amendment as a safeguard for unusual circumstances rather than a tool for routine mineral administration. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

That breadth is one of the central unanswered questions. Without a definition or binding criteria, a future cabinet would have significant room to decide when the power should be used. Regulations, policies or an eventual order might offer more detail, but none of the material reviewed for this report establishes a binding test.

The bill sets out what happens after an order. Affected rights holders would receive notice. The order would have to be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days, although it would be exempt from the usual process under the Statutory Instruments Act.

For eligible former or current rights holders, the minister would have 180 days to decide whether compensation is payable and in what amount. That period could be extended by up to 180 days. The bill also says no other compensation, damages, indemnity or relief may be claimed for an interest affected by the order. The method for valuing a cancelled or restricted mineral interest is not set out in the bill.

The proposal does not appear to expressly require consultation with the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated or an affected community before cabinet makes an order. That does not settle whether constitutional duties, treaty duties or other legal requirements would apply. It does leave an important procedural question unanswered in the text now before Parliament.

Why the timing is difficult for Nunavut

Nunavut’s devolution agreement was signed by Canada, the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated in Iqaluit on January 18, 2024. It sets April 1, 2027 as the date when Nunavut is to take over administration and control of most public lands, inland waters and non-renewable resources. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

The transfer has deep roots. The Nunavut Agreement was signed in 1993, and Nunavut became a territory in 1999. Yet Canada continued to administer most federal Crown land, inland waters and non-renewable resources. Yukon completed a similar transfer in 2003, followed by the Northwest Territories in 2014.

Devolution requires more than moving files and employees. Federal laws that now govern transferred public lands must stop applying there, while Nunavut needs territorial laws ready to take their place.

Section 3.8 of the devolution agreement requires Nunavut to enact laws that substantially mirror the federal laws being displaced. The aim is continuity: existing rights, applications and regulatory processes should not fall into a legal gap on transfer day.

Nunavut took a major step on June 11, 2026, when the territorial government tabled the draft Public Lands Act and three other draft devolution statutes in the Legislative Assembly. The government said the bills were intended mainly to preserve the existing system rather than make major new policy choices. Formal introduction was planned during the fall 2026 and winter 2027 sittings. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

Bill C-31 creates a moving target. Nunavut drafted its proposed law using the existing Territorial Lands Act. The territory cannot precisely mirror a federal provision that Parliament has not enacted, and it does not yet know whether Parliament will pass, amend or remove Division 14.

Premier John Main told senators that Nunavut supports protecting the territory and Canada from economic and security risks. He also warned that waiting for the federal bill could create a significant risk to Nunavut’s legislative readiness for April 1, 2027. Main said Nunavut needs to remain open to foreign investment while recognizing that limited infrastructure can create vulnerabilities. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

That is a warning about risk, not an announcement that devolution has been postponed. The agreement’s transfer date remains in place. The practical question is how much time legislators, legal drafters, translators, Inuit organizations and the public will have to examine any late changes.

Thousands of existing rights must move

The administrative transfer is large. Federal briefing material from June identified about 5,425 licences and permits expected to move to the Government of Nunavut.

That total includes 4,239 mineral claims, 539 mineral leases, 74 land-use permits, 79 surface leases and 494 water licences. Approximately 90 positions were also expected to transfer from the federal government to the territorial government. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

Those figures help explain why legal continuity matters. Each authorization can carry records, dates, conditions and expectations that need to remain clear when the administering government changes.

A mineral claim is not approval to build or operate a mine. It generally gives its holder an exclusive exploration interest in a defined area. A proposed mine would still have to move through other applicable processes, which can include land-use planning, impact assessment, water licensing, land access and additional regulatory decisions.

The Nunavut Planning Commission, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Nunavut Water Board and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal remain parts of the co-management system created through the Nunavut Agreement. Bill C-31 would not replace those bodies or automatically approve or reject a project.

The proposed power would first affect prospectors, claim holders, lessees, investors and the governments administering mineral tenure. Its wider effects could reach communities, Inuit organizations and businesses if an order changed expectations around exploration, jobs, infrastructure, environmental stewardship or future resource revenues.

Those wider effects are possible consequences, not established outcomes. They would depend on where, why and how a future order was used.

The amendment applies to territorial lands in Nunavut governed by the federal Territorial Lands Act. It does not directly rewrite the legal system for Inuit Owned Lands, where mineral interests are administered under the Nunavut Agreement and by the appropriate Inuit organizations.

Federal authority will not disappear

On April 1, 2027, the Territorial Lands Act is to become inapplicable to the Public Lands transferred to Nunavut. Nunavut’s legislation would then govern those lands. Federal law would continue to apply to land that remains under federal administration.

Federal officials told senators that the amount remaining under the Territorial Lands Act would be comparatively small. A precise public map and legal schedule of retained federal land, Federal Areas, Impacted Sites and other excluded lands was not available in the records reviewed for this report. That makes it difficult to show where the proposed federal power could continue to apply after devolution.

Ottawa will also retain separate authority under the devolution agreement. Sections 3.34 to 3.37 allow Canada, in specified circumstances, to take back administration and control of land or prohibit interests and activities.

Those provisions address matters such as national defence, security, protected areas, major transportation or energy infrastructure, treaty obligations, settlements and Indigenous claims or agreements. They generally include notice and consultation with the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. For certain prohibitions, the agreement also calls for public notice and consideration of representations.

Bill C-31’s proposed section 12.1 is different. It is a specific mineral-tenure power placed directly in the federal land statute. It could cancel or restrict an interest without Canada first taking back administration and control of the land under the devolution agreement.

Federal officials say the continuing Territorial Lands Act would not let Ottawa simply overrule Nunavut on lands that have been transferred. On that reading, the proposed power would apply after devolution only to land still under federal administration. The exact geographic scope nevertheless needs to be confirmed against the final transfer schedules and maps.

Devolution also carries major public funding

The agreement commits substantial federal funding to the transfer. It provides up to $67,250,000 to the Government of Nunavut for one-time transitional work and $15,000,000 for human-resources development before the transfer.

After devolution, the territorial financing base is to receive $85,800,000 annually. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated is to receive up to $1,750,000 for transitional work and $3,000,000 annually after the transfer. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

The money is part of building the administrative capacity needed to manage land, water and resource responsibilities. It does not resolve the legislative timing issue. Staff can prepare systems and files, but they still need to know which law will be in force on transfer day.

Late amendments could also create practical work beyond changing English legal text. Nunavut legislation must move through public debate, committee review and translation. Departments and boards may need updated forms, guidance, training and procedures. Existing rights holders need clear notice of the rules that will apply to them.

These effects are foreseeable possibilities if the territorial bill changes late. The reviewed records do not provide a cost estimate or say that the existing devolution funding would be insufficient.

Public positions remain incomplete

Federal officials have described Division 14 as a proactive safeguard for Nunavut’s free-entry mineral system. In a free-entry system, a qualified person can generally acquire a mineral claim by following the prescribed process rather than first winning a discretionary government decision.

Officials told the Senate that Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated had asked Canada to address risks on federal Crown land with tools comparable to controls available for Inuit Owned Lands. That is the federal government’s account of NTI’s request; it should not be treated as a complete statement of NTI’s position on every clause in Bill C-31. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

Federal briefing material says Canada engaged five Indigenous groups with asserted or established rights in Nunavut between December 2025 and March 2026. It says the engagement produced no changes to the amendment. The groups’ submissions, objections and positions on consent were not available in the reviewed record. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

Nunavut Senator Nancy Karetak-Lindell questioned the lack of a definition for national interest during the Senate study. Senators also raised questions about litigation, consultation and whether Ottawa could override Nunavut after the transfer.

Official minutes confirm that Main and territorial Justice Minister Stephen Mansell appeared on October 6. NTI President Gloria Uluqsi, NTI executive director Dustin Fredlund and former Nunavut Impact Review Board executive director Ryan Barry also appeared. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

The complete official transcript of that hearing was not available for this report. It would be unsafe to reconstruct the detailed positions of Uluqsi, Fredlund or Barry from summaries. Their evidence may be important to understanding Inuit participation and the relationship between mineral tenure and Nunavut’s assessment system.

No comprehensive public position was located from the territory’s mining industry, individual claim holders, regional Inuit associations or the five Indigenous groups identified in federal briefing material. The available evidence therefore does not support describing either support or opposition as broad.

The Senate committee adopted a draft report on Division 14 on October 7 and authorized its deposit. The final report and any recommendations or observations were not located. Those findings could materially affect the debate. ᓇᑭᓐᖔᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ↗

What could happen next

The cleanest timing scenario would be for Parliament to settle Division 14 before Nunavut completes its Public Lands Act. Nunavut could then decide whether and how to mirror the final federal wording. The trade-off would be limited time for legislative scrutiny, translation and implementation before April 1, 2027.

A second possible path would be for Nunavut to pass legislation based on the existing federal act and amend its law later. That could protect progress toward the transfer date, but it might require a second territorial bill. Lawyers would also have to assess any temporary difference between the federal and territorial systems under the devolution agreement.

Parliament could amend Division 14. Possible changes discussed publicly include defining national interest, adding consultation requirements, narrowing the types of orders, creating review mechanisms or changing the compensation rules. If Parliament made a significant change, Nunavut would have to reassess its draft.

Bill C-31 could also stall, or Parliament could remove Division 14. Nunavut could then continue with legislation based on the current Territorial Lands Act. A later federal amendment would reopen the question of whether Nunavut should make a corresponding change after devolution.

If devolution proceeds as scheduled, Nunavut’s law would govern transferred public lands while the federal act would remain on retained federal lands. Ottawa’s separate powers under the agreement would also remain. That division of authority is why the missing land map and final legal schedules matter.

If a future federal order affected a mineral interest, the rights holder would receive notice after the order and enter the compensation process described in the bill. An order could still face political, treaty or administrative-law scrutiny, even though the proposed provision limits claims for compensation and other relief. The exact routes for a legal challenge would depend on the order and the law then in force.

Foreign-investment reviews, court-supervised company sales, land-use planning and project assessment would remain separate processes. Bill C-31 should not be read as automatically blocking a foreign buyer, approving a Canadian buyer or deciding the future of any named Nunavut mine. There is no evidence in the reviewed record that it was drafted for a specific company or transaction.

The next important records will be the final Senate report, any House committee amendments, and Nunavut’s formally introduced Public Lands Act. A clause-by-clause comparison will be needed once both texts are available.

Readers should also watch for a definition or policy for national interest, clear rules for consultation before an order, a compensation method and a map showing where federal jurisdiction will remain after April 1, 2027.

Until those details are public, the central issue is not whether Ottawa will keep managing most of Nunavut’s public land. Under the signed agreement, that responsibility is still scheduled to move to Nunavut. The issue is whether a late federal change can be fitted into that transfer without weakening scrutiny, creating uncertainty for existing rights or putting the timetable under added pressure.