Bill C-21

Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty Act

An Act to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment gives effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a modern treaty, from my personal perspective, is so important because I love my city, my province and my country. In order for us to move forward and reach our potential, we need to get modern treaties in place.

All we need to do is look at the footprint. A lot of the growth and a lot of the positive things that are happening in communities today are rooted in the MMF. If we are ever going to hit our potential, these modern treaties are absolutely critical.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating President Chartrand and the Manitoba Métis Federation for all of their efforts, and the Métis community of Manitoba.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty. At its core, the bill is about something fundamental. It is about whether we, in this House, are prepared to respect what should never have been denied in the first place: the inherent right of indigenous peoples to govern themselves.

For generations, indigenous peoples in this country have fought for recognition, dignity and the ability to make decisions about our own communities, our own laws and our own futures. These are not demands. These are rights protected by the Constitution. These rights are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. They are rights that are inherent and do not come from the Crown.

Bill C-21 seeks to give legal force to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty. It recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis and affirms the people's authority to govern their own internal matters; to determine their citizenship; and to structure their leadership in a way that reflects their customs, traditions and priorities. This is significant. It builds on decades of advocacy, resilience and leadership by Métis people. It is part of a longer journey towards justice, recognition and the restoration of self-determination. Let me be clear: The NDP supports this journey.

We support this bill at second reading because we believe in the right to self-determination and indigenous people's ability to define our own futures. We believe that modern treaties, when done right, can be powerful tools to affirm rights, to clarify jurisdiction and to strengthen indigenous governance. However, support does not mean silence or ignoring concerns. Support does not mean we abandon our responsibility to ensure the rights of all indigenous peoples are upheld because, alongside that promise of the bill, there are also serious questions that must be addressed.

We have heard concerns from first nations, including many first nations in Manitoba, about how this treaty may impact their rights. There are concerns about land, resources, hunting, fishing and harvesting. There are concerns that decisions made here could affect relationships and responsibilities that existed long before Parliament. These concerns cannot be dismissed or rushed. They must be heard. That is why I support my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North's assertion to get this bill to the standing committee for further study.

We are proposing an amendment to the bill as well, to ensure that nothing could be construed as denying the rights of other indigenous people nor abrogating or derogating from them. This proposed amendment is justified by article 95 of the treaty, which would force indigenous peoples who believe their rights are adversely affected by the treaty to have to exhaust all appeals before the conflict can be addressed. Is it the goal of the government to hold up indigenous peoples in the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court?

If we are truly committed to reconciliation, then we must be equally committed to doing this work properly. This means listening. That means engaging in good faith. That means ensuring that one nation's recognition does not come at the expense of another's rights. Reconciliation is not a check box. It is not a slogan. It is a process rooted in respect, accountability and truth. Truth requires us to acknowledge sometimes things that are uncomfortable.

The government has far too often failed to uphold indigenous rights when it matters most. We have seen legislation put forward without the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. We have seen decisions made that undermine sovereignty rather than strengthen it. We have seen promises of partnership followed by actions that erode trust. When the government tells indigenous peoples to trust them on the bill before us, it is not an abstract question, it is grounded in lived experience. Trust is not given, it is earned, and it must be earned again and again through action. That is why the committee study will be crucial.

We must hear directly from indigenous people, Métis citizens, first nations and those who support this treaty, but also those who have concerns. We must create space for those voices to shape this legislation, to identify risks and to propose solutions, because getting this right matters. Getting this right will impact relationships, either positively or negatively. It matters not just for the Red River Métis, but for the broader framework of indigenous rights in this country. It matters for how treaties are understood, how jurisdictions are respected and how relationships between indigenous nations are upheld.

We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past, where decisions were imposed rather than co-developed, and where rights were ignored rather than respected. We have an opportunity here to do better and to move forward in a way that honours the inherent right to self-government, to strengthen the legal recognition of Métis governance and to ensure that the rights of all indigenous peoples are upheld, not just in principle, but in practice.

Yes, we will support the bill at second reading. We will support it, because we believe in self-determination. In fact, we believe in the right of self-determination of all peoples. We will support it because we recognize the long-standing struggle of the Red River Métis for recognition, but we also have to do our job as legislators. We have to ask hard questions. We will listen carefully. We will work to ensure this legislation reflects the voices of those it impacts.

Reconciliation demands more than words. It demands that we act with integrity, humility and honesty. It demands that we act with a clear commitment to justice. The path forward must be guided by one principle above all else: The rights, dignity and sovereignty of indigenous peoples are not negotiable. Let us move forward with that understanding. Let us do the work properly and let us ensure, when we pass legislation like Bill C-21, that we are not only recognizing rights, but truly upholding them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the NDP's position on validating the need to allow the legislation to get to committee. I think that is a very strong, encouraging and positive word, which does not preclude everything in the legislation being ironclad.

I look forward to seeing the amendments. I encourage the member to speak within the department, and maybe do other consultations in advance, so that we get as much notice as possible in regards to her thoughts.

This was more of a comment than a question.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no legislation ever goes to committee without critique. Committees are important to make sure we get things right, get other opinions, get expert testimony and make sure that, when the bill is actually signed off and passes royal assent, we do not end up in the courts. We need to make sure this is ironclad.

This is a big deal for Winnipeg. As the hon. member mentioned, the Manitoba Métis Federation and many other indigenous peoples in Winnipeg are building our city. We need to make sure that goes forward smoothly and without a hitch.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe. There is a small indigenous population living in London—Fanshawe.

Regarding Bill C-21, there are jurisdiction concerns that the treaty lacks clear geographic limits. Would the member opposite please explain how this will affect other first nations throughout Canada?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really clear. No legislation going forward, certainly not this treaty and certainly not the implementation bill, is without issue. All bills have amendments when they go to committee, and that would give us an opportunity to provide the clarity that is needed to help other nations, or even other Métis nations that are having difficulties with the bill, to have more assurance.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, with whom I have had the opportunity to serve on several committees, including the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

In her speech, she noted that certain communities had concerns, particularly regarding resource development. She seemed to be saying that they still need to be listened to and still have concerns. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we have often talked about the fact that indigenous and Métis women are disproportionately affected by so many issues.

How will this bill actually help indigenous and Métis women? What can my colleague propose to truly ensure that their rights are respected?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was such a pleasure working with my hon. colleague in the status of women committee. I certainly miss being on that committee.

Part of the reason why modern treaties, when they are done right, are so important is that nations are able to determine how they wish to deal with those matters, and that includes the safety of their members. That includes women within their nation. Let us not forget that prior to colonization, we did not have a crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women, girls and diverse-gendered folks. That happened since colonization. Our communities were healthy. Asserting our sovereignty, asserting our self-determination, is a way to support healthy communities and healthy families.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the citizens and residents of Calgary Signal Hill.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, legislation that seeks to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty.

Let me be clear at the outset. Conservatives support reconciliation. We support the inherent rights of indigenous peoples, including Métis, first nations and Inuit communities, to self-government. We support the recognition of those rights in a manner that is respectful, inclusive and grounded in law. However, supporting reconciliation does not mean abandoning responsibility. It does not mean rushing forward with flawed legislation. It certainly does not mean ignoring the voices of those indigenous communities that are raising serious and legitimate concerns.

That is precisely what is happening with Bill C-21. This bill asks Parliament to ratify a treaty of enormous consequence, one that establishes for the first time a Métis self-government agreement of this scale. It recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the exclusive representative of the Red River Métis and grants it law-making authority over matters such as citizenship, governance and internal administration. On its face, that may sound like progress, but when we examine the details, serious problems emerge, problems that cannot and must not be ignored.

First and foremost, there has been a clear and undeniable failure to consult. This treaty does not exist in a vacuum. It has implications far beyond Manitoba. The language contained within it, particularly in the preamble and key provisions, extends its potential reach across western Canada and even beyond. We see this in provisions that explicitly state that the geographic scope of the Red River Métis is not defined. We see it in language that acknowledges that Red River Métis citizens may be “located within what is now Manitoba as well as elsewhere inside and outside of Canada.” We see it in provisions that prevent any other indigenous organization from representing individuals who may be considered Red River Métis. Taken together, these clauses create ambiguity, ambiguity that has real-world consequences.

What has been the response from other Métis governments? They are sounding the alarm.

The Métis Nation of Ontario has warned that this treaty uses deliberate ambiguities to justify intervention in matters far outside Manitoba. It points to instances where the Manitoba Métis Federation has already sought consultation on projects in British Columbia, thousands of kilometres from the Red River.

The Métis Nation Saskatchewan has expressed concern that the treaty could allow the Manitoba Métis Federation to supersede its authority within Saskatchewan.

The Métis Nation of Alberta has gone even further, alleging that the agreement could enable the Manitoba federation to actively recruit members within Alberta, undermining existing Métis governance structures.

These are not minor disagreements. These are fundamental disputes over identity, jurisdiction and rights, yet the government is asking us to proceed as though these concerns do not exist. Reconciliation cannot be built on division. If multiple Métis governments across this country are telling us that they were not properly consulted, that their rights may be impacted and that this treaty risks overriding their authority, then we have a duty to listen.

We also have a legal duty. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes and affirms the rights of indigenous peoples. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that these rights are held by distinct communities, not by a single, centralized entity claiming to speak for all. In the Powley decision of that court, the court emphasized that Métis communities are diverse, with distinct histories and traditions across different regions. That principle is essential, yet this treaty risks collapsing that diversity into a single narrative, one that elevates the Red River Métis as the defining authority, potentially at the expense of other legitimate Métis communities. That is not reconciliation. That is exclusion.

The concerns are not limited to Métis groups alone. First nations have also raised serious objections. The Dakota Tipi First Nation and the Canupawakpa Dakota Nation have gone to court, arguing that they were not consulted and that the treaty infringes upon their rights. They have made it clear that they never ceded their ancestral lands and that any agreement affecting those lands must involve them. The Treaty 5 nations have expressed “serious concerns” about the inclusion of the Manitoba Métis Federation in decision-making processes within their territory, calling it a direct affront to their sovereignty.

These are not abstract concerns. These are constitutional issues, issues that go to the heart of the Crown's duty to consult and to accommodate, and if those duties have not been met, this treaty is vulnerable to legal challenge. In fact, it is not a question of whether there will be litigation; it is a question of how much. We have already seen similar agreements challenged in court. The Federal Court's decision in Metis Settlements General Council v. Canada raised concerns about overly expansive recognition that limits the Crown's ability to negotiate with other indigenous groups.

Bill C-21 appears to repeat those same mistakes. By granting exclusive recognition to the Manitoba Métis Federation and embedding that recognition within a constitutionally protected treaty, the government would effectively lock in a framework that may disadvantage other Métis communities and do so in a way that cannot easily be undone or even corrected. Once ratified, this treaty will have constitutional status under sections 25 and 35. That means it could not be unilaterally amended or revoked. Any flaws, any oversights and any failures in consultation would be frozen in place. That is not careful governance. That is recklessness.

There are also serious concerns about the scope of authority that would be granted under this treaty. The Manitoba Métis Federation would be empowered to create laws, establish institutions and even impose sanctions, including fines and imprisonment, for violations of those laws. While there are provisions that attempt to reconcile conflicts with federal law, the reality is that this would create a complex and potentially conflicting legal landscape.

Even more concerning is the implication that these laws could apply beyond Manitoba, given the treaty's refusal to define geographic boundaries and its recognition of citizens located across Canada. This raises fundamental questions about jurisdiction, enforcement and the rule of law. Could a government created under this treaty exercise authority over individuals in another province? How would conflicts between provincial laws and Métis laws be resolved? What mechanisms would ensure accountability and consistency? These questions remain unanswered.

There are also fiscal implications that deserve scrutiny. The treaty would commit Canada to ensuring that the Manitoba Métis Federation has the financial capacity to meet its expenditure needs. It contemplates ongoing transfer payments and future agreements on taxation, yet we have little clarity on the long-term costs, the accountability mechanisms or the impact on other indigenous communities seeking similar arrangements. At a time when Canadians are already facing economic uncertainty and headwinds, Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that any new fiscal commitments are transparent, sustainable and fair. That has not been demonstrated here.

Finally, I want to address a broader concern, one that goes to the legitimacy of this agreement. The Manitoba Métis Federation is incorporated as a legal entity, MMF Inc. While that may be appropriate for administrative purposes, it raises important questions about the nature of this treaty. A treaty in the constitutional sense is meant to be a nation-to-nation agreement. It reflects a relationship between distinct peoples, not between the Crown and a corporate body. By structuring this agreement through an incorporated entity, the government risks blurring that distinction and undermining the very principles it claims to uphold.

None of this is to deny the importance of recognizing Métis self-government, a goal we all share in the House, but recognition must be implemented effectively. It must be inclusive, be legally sound and reflect the rights and voices of all affected communities. Bill C-21 as currently drafted would fail on all three counts. It would exclude key stakeholders, introduce legal ambiguity, and risk deepening divisions within and between indigenous communities. That is why Conservatives cannot support the bill in its current form.

We are calling on the government to do the responsible thing: to pause, listen and engage in meaningful consultation with all affected parties. Let us bring this bill to committee; hear from Métis governments across the country, first nation leaders, legal experts and those whose rights may be impacted; and do the hard work of getting this right, because reconciliation is not achieved through shortcuts. It is built through trust, dialogue and respect. Canadians expect us to uphold these principles. Indigenous communities deserve nothing less.

For those reasons, I urge all members of the House to oppose Bill C-21 in its current form.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member said to let us get it to committee. That is one encouraging remark I heard in his comments.

The issue of membership comes up. I think of someone who is very proud of his or her Red River Métis nation heritage and, in fact, of their core identity. In order to identify themselves as Red River Métis, a proud man or woman, they do not have to live in the city of Winnipeg or in rural Manitoba. There are individuals who live outside those areas but want citizenship in the MMF.

The reason I say this is that if members have issues surrounding things of that nature, the best place for us to be able to deal with them is at committee, and the member said he would be open to the bill's going to committee. That is why I say that aspect is encouraging. We are not saying that it has to pass second reading unanimously. We are suggesting that we allow it to get to committee so we can hear feedback and get answers

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the advantages of getting the bill to a standing committee sooner rather than later.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, of course, our committee process in the House is for doing that, to take the opportunity to hear from individuals who can provide experience, expertise and knowledge. The process is intended to refine and improve legislation. Certainly I think that is a requirement in this case.

I express only my disappointment that the initial bill as presented to the House has not incorporated more of that consideration, more of those voices. When we in the opposition can locate those parties that say they have expressed these things to the government yet they are not reflected in legislation, it moves the starting point that much farther back. Can this be improved in committee as we support the general goal? Yes, there is a lot of work to be done there, and I look forward to the House's accomplishing its objectives.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

From what I understood from his speech, there was not enough consultation to really ensure that the agreement does not take rights away from other Métis communities or other first nations.

Does my colleague not think that the bill could be amended to leave room for future agreements in order to respect the rights of all Métis communities?

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly does appear that there are voices that have stated that they have not been consulted, so whatever exact process was undertaken, it appears to have come up short at this point in time.

To the extent that additional voices need to be heard, it is up to the proponents of the bill to determine the best way to do that, to bring information to the House and to satisfy the House that those parties have been duly and appropriately consulted, not just out of legal and moral obligations but also out of the obligation of sound judgment that the House must use to bring legislation to our country as a whole.

When a group such the Manitoba Métis Federation is to enter into a historic agreement with the Government of Canada with far-reaching, important implications, we have to get it right.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very concerning when a bill such as this one comes forward and there is so much dissent against it, yet government representatives, MPs, are wondering why we are bringing forward concerns. That is definitely why we are here.

Again, there have been first nations and Métis governments raising concerns, including the Dakota nation, arguing that a failure to consult violates constitutional duties. Treaty 5 nations object, and some first nations say that the MMF participation in government oversteps jurisdiction.

I could keep reading the list, but basically I want to ask this of my fellow MP: What needs to change? It seems as though a lot needs to change. What should we be worrying about when there is so much dissent against the bill?

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly, the issue of consultation is extremely important. Again, the greater the magnitude is of the legislation, its impacts and the changes it would effect, the greater the necessity for broad consultation is. I think this would be obvious to anyone giving it some consideration. Clearly, consultation cannot be selective. It is not a process of calling the people who may support one's position, those with whom one is friendly, and seeking only that input. Consultation needs to be broad, and it needs to consider the various parties that would be affected by the legislation that is proposed.

As I said earlier, when we in the opposition have been able to identify groups that have spoken out in opposition to this legislation on the basis of a failure to effectively consult, it is difficult for us to understand how the government could be satisfied with the work it has done to bring the legislation forward. It seems obvious to me that when groups speak out to say they have not been consulted on this, the obvious answer would be to consult with them, to hear what their perspectives are, to understand why they feel they would be impacted, and then to undertake the duty to consult.