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

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

moved that Bill C-21, An Act to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe, whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial.

I rise today grateful for the opportunity to speak to the bill, a bill that would bring into force the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty.

This self-government treaty marks a historic milestone. It promotes reconciliation, recognizes the right of the Red River Métis to organize and govern themselves, and formalizes our government-to-government relationship with the Manitoba Métis Federation under Canadian law.

With the legislation, we would honour the legacy, the rights and the future of the Red River Métis, and we would reaffirm their rightful place in the social, legal and legislative fabric of Canada.

This self-government treaty is the result of working closely with the Manitoba Métis Federation president, David Chartrand, his cabinet and their team on a co-developed process shaped through the recognition of indigenous rights and self-determination discussion table. I wish to applaud President Chartrand and the MMF for their work to bring us to this day.

The journey leading to this self-government treaty with the Red River Métis began more than 150 years ago. Over generations, the Red River Métis have forged a distinct identity as a people with a rich and deep-rooted culture, language, and heritage. They have charted their own course by governing themselves according to their distinct vision, values, and priorities.

In the late 1800s, the Red River Métis formed their own provisional government of Assiniboia during the Red River Resistance. That government, led by Louis Riel, was formed to give voice to the Red River Métis. The Red River Métis colony was where Manitoba sits today.

In 1869, the Red River Métis provisional government began negotiations with the Crown about joining the country as its fifth province. These negotiations led to the Manitoba Act, 1870, and included promises to the Red River Métis. The Province of Manitoba was born. The promises never materialized.

The Red River Métis have had to undertake, often collectively, numerous court challenges to win Canada's recognition of rights they had exercised as a people for generations, which they were trying to negotiate into the law of the land in 1869 through 1870. These court challenges and the Constitution Act, 1982, set the stage for this: the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty.

It is in the Constitution Act, 1982, where Métis are legally recognized. Section 35 identifies three distinct indigenous groups: first nations, Inuit and Métis. It also affirms that all three hold aboriginal and treaty rights. Despite the promise of section 35, it still took subsequent court challenges to establish precedents upholding indigenous rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada's 2013 decision in Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada was one of the catalysts for a series of negotiations and agreements with the MMF, which led to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and the proposed implementing legislation that is being debated today.

While today's moment is what Louis Riel and his government sought more than 150 years ago, the text, spirit and meaning of this landmark self-government treaty were developed in full partnership with the Manitoba Métis Federation over the last seven years.

The bill before us today is a co-developed, living document setting out rules, regulations and processes for self-governance crafted by the Red River Métis on their terms and agreed to by Canada, not imposed by the Crown. The treaty recognizes the Red River Métis' right to self-government and the MMF's role as their government. It formally recognizes the MMF's jurisdiction over citizenship, leadership selection and government operations. This includes determining how their government is structured and operated, how they manage their finances, how they are accountable to their citizens and how they administer and enforce their governance laws.

Significantly, it will be the first self-government treaty achieved with the Métis government in Canada. This self-government treaty was developed in full partnership with the MMF and is the result of the negotiations that began in 2016. The MMF and Canada signed a framework agreement for advancing reconciliation that year, setting the stage for formal negotiations. Early in these negotiations, the MMF identified self-governance as a priority.

The Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty delivers on a key commitment made in an earlier recognition agreement signed by the parties in 2021. The treaty has the same focus on internal governance, and it affirms and builds on the recognition of the MMF as an indigenous government in the 2021 agreement, but the treaty includes more details on key issues such as implementation, harmonizing laws and dispute resolution.

The self-government treaty was approved by Red River Métis citizens in June 2023, and it was also shaped by over a year of engagement with other indigenous groups, including first nations in Manitoba and other Métis governments. On November 30, 2024, the Government of Canada and the MMF signed the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty at a historic ceremony held in Winnipeg.

The treaty needs federal legislation to make it legally binding and bring it into force. At that time, it will replace the 2021 agreement. Passage of this bill by Parliament is this final step in the process.

The treaty also sets out a process for negotiating other self-government arrangements with MMF in the future. The potential topics for such future negotiations are listed in the treaty. This includes, for example, education, economic development, language, heritage and culture. If any additional jurisdictions, i.e., law-making powers, are negotiated with the Manitoba Métis Federation in the future, Crown consultations will take place at that time with other indigenous groups on matters that may affect them. These consultations will take place, in keeping with the Crown's duty to consult, before any such future self-government arrangements with the Manitoba Métis Federation can be finalized.

I mentioned that early on in our negotiations toward the 2016 framework agreement, the MMF identified self-government as a priority. Self-governance empowers indigenous peoples to deliver programs and services in ways that reflect the traditions, priorities and goals of their people, by their people. This is what the Louis Riel-led provisional government of Assiniboia sought in 1869.

Self-government agreements also help to create stability, which paves the way for new investments, economic growth and better social outcomes in indigenous communities. Communities that have entered into self-government agreements often achieve better outcomes for their members when it comes to education, job opportunities and income.

Self-government agreements recognize and support indigenous rights, particularly the right to self-government and the right to self-determination. The right to self-determination is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 4 of the declaration states, “Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs”.

Self-government agreements are negotiated based on the unique needs and aspirations of different peoples and different communities.

We are also working with indigenous partners to jointly develop self-government agreements and other rights-based agreements by holding round tables across the country. These partners represent over 500 indigenous communities with a total population of approximately one million. We deeply value our relationships with all indigenous partners, and we look forward to continuing these conversations in a true spirit of reconciliation, shared prosperity and partnership.

Canada is a nation founded on many treaties. These are lasting commitments that shape relationships, empower communities and create opportunities for generations to come.

The self-government treaty with MMF would come into force once the implementing legislation is passed. Doing so would affirm the inherent rights of the Red River Métis, and it would also mark a critical step forward in Canada's ongoing journey of reconciliation and nation building. Passing this legislation would continue to strengthen our relationship with the Manitoba Métis Federation and position them as full partners in building Canada's future. The Red River Métis have always been nation builders, from the fur trade to the founding of Manitoba, and now through major projects in energy, housing and environmental stewardship.

By passing this bill, we would fulfill a promise carried forward by generations of Métis leaders. We would affirm rights, unlock potential and empower the Red River Métis to continue shaping Canada's future as equal partners. This treaty is a foundation for long-term success. It would affirm the rights of the Red River Métis to lead in shaping their communities. Our modern-day treaty on governance with the MMF is a commitment to partnership, progress and shared prosperity. By supporting Métis self-governance, we are investing in a future where indigenous communities lead the way in building a stronger, more resilient Canada.

As our overall talks with the MMF continue and our joint work advances, the rights and interests of other indigenous peoples, third parties and all Canadians will be respected during the negotiation of any shared solution, agreement or approach to reconciliation. Canada and the MMF have developed an implementation plan that sets out what actions each must take to deliver on their commitments in the self-government treaty and put it into action. This plan would help smooth the transition to self-government based upon the terms and conditions of the treaty. An intergovernmental relations committee would also be created to provide a forum for the parties to jointly oversee the successful implementation of the treaty.

This treaty is a turning point in our shared history. It would help address a historic wrong and set the foundation for a renewed, respectful and enduring government-to-government relationship. When passed, the legislation will mark a historic milestone. The treaty is set to take effect on the day of royal assent, a moment that would formally recognize, at long last, the Red River Métis' right to self-government in Canadian law and formally affirm the MMF as their government.

This treaty is the result of years of aspiration, dialogue, negotiation and consultation. It began more than a century and a half ago and came together when thousands of Red River Métis citizens overwhelmingly approved the draft treaty in 2023. Let us finally act on their voices.

Marsi.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her well-thought-out and respectful speech. We do not see that in this House as much as we need to, nor as much as the provinces or the taxpayers deserve.

I have a question. I will be honest. I do not know as much about this file as perhaps others do, but I have a question that has been brought forward to me. In the Powley decision, the courts emphasized that Métis communities are diverse, with distinct histories and traditions across different regions. This treaty may risk pushing that diversity into a single narrative and elevating the Red River Métis above other authorities. I wonder if perhaps the minister can explain how this bill promotes inclusion as opposed to exclusion.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Métis self-government agreements represent the Métis communities. Today, the item before the House is the Manitoba Métis Federation self-government agreement. The Government of Canada is also negotiating agreements with other Métis governments across Canada. Once those agreements are concluded, we will bring those to the House, but today's legislation is about the representation and the self-governance of the Red River Métis.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill. We think this is a way to right an injustice that has lasted 150 years, since the promise of a treaty to Louis Riel and his provisional government.

My question is somewhat similar to that of my colleague. The treaty is with the Manitoba Métis Federation, or MMF, but there are other Métis groups, like the Union nationale métisse Saint‑Joseph du Manitoba. Will there be other treaties with these other groups? Unless they want to be part of the MMF, is there a mechanism to cover all Métis people within the various groups?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, this bill concerns the Red River Métis and the Manitoba Métis Federation. However, we are also negotiating treaties with other Métis governments in Canada, including in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the Northwest Territories. Yes, we are committed to making additional treaties with other Métis governments that represent other Métis people across Canada.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to provide some brief commentary. I remember being a grade 6 French immersion student and winning a ticket to go to the Festival du Voyageur, which, all people from Manitoba will know, is a marquee event that helps us to understand our history. The deeply embedded culture of the Manitoba Métis people, the Red River Métis, is on full display during that time of year.

Hypothetically, because I am not allowed to draw the attention of the House to people in the gallery, if President Chartrand were here with us today, I would tell him and those with him that we are incredibly proud to have worked alongside their government and their people to enrich the fabric of our city, our province and our country. Louis Riel, Manitoba's first premier, is no doubt smiling down on the House today, a House he had to sneak into after being a duly elected member so many years ago to fight for the rights that we are recognizing in this chamber today.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I want to elaborate on two questions that were asked before.

This treaty includes robust non-derogation language, setting out that nothing in the treaty would affect, recognize or provide any rights, affirmed by section 35, of any indigenous community, collectivity or people other than the Red River Métis.

The other thing that is important to note is that individuals have a choice as to which Métis government represents them, so to become a Red River Métis citizen, an individual must apply. The treaty would establish that those who self-identify as Red River Métis have to show a demonstrable connection to the historical Red River Métis community. They also have to be accepted by the contemporary Red River Métis community. It is important with this treaty that it is also about membership and selection of leadership.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for bringing this forward. Certainly, we see self-determination on behalf of any indigenous community, any Métis community included, as being a good thing.

The minister ended her last comments by talking about registration and identifying as a part of that community and that nation. The Liberal government took a different approach when it came to consultation regarding Bill S-2, which would ultimately define who first nations people are as part of the status in the Indian Act. They have undertaken significant consultations and delayed that bill.

On this one, I have heard from first nations that they have had zero or very minimal consultation on this. I am wondering if the minister could explain the level of consultation taken with first nations on this bill versus Bill S-2.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed to ensuring that the duty to consult is met and, where appropriate, that accommodation is made for any indigenous group whose rights may be adversely impacted.

On August 24, 2023, Canada initiated a consultation and a strategic engagement process on the treaty with recognized Métis governments and those who assert section 35 Métis rights who could potentially be impacted by the treaty, as well as broader strategic engagement with all first nations in Manitoba and with the Government of Manitoba.

Correspondence and meetings took place between Canada and consultees between August 2023 and October 2024. The consultation process ended on October 9, 2024. I just want to note again that this legislation is about the self-governance of the Métis. Therefore, it does not touch on land, resources or harvesting rights.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just indicated that the treaty formally recognizes Métis self-determination in Canadian law, but it is my understanding that Métis self-determination and self-government were already recognized under section 35.

I am wondering if the minister could clarify that for me.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate.

This legislation recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as an indigenous government mandated to represent the Red River Métis in respect of its right to self-government and recognizes the law-making powers of the Manitoba Métis Federation in areas related to internal organization and governance, which includes matters such as the determination of citizenship, leadership selection, internal operations, accountability mechanisms, and measures for administering Red River Métis laws and for enforcing violations of those laws. We now have the opportunity to add this to Canadian legislation.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today we get to correct a historic wrong. I want to thank the minister for bringing Bill C-21 to the House, the self-government treaty. I want to applaud her, and I also want to applaud our Minister of Public Safety, who did a lot of the work to bring this to fruition. I know that a number of the Manitoba MPs were at a special signing ceremony last year, and the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the House was one of those there.

Today, indeed, is a very special day. I give a big shout-out to the Manitoba Métis Federation, particularly President Chartrand for his persistence and collaborative spirit in bringing us to today.

I am wondering if the minister could respond to how signing this treaty and implementing this legislation would show the way on the reconciliation journey that all Canadians are on.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I think the importance of this legislation is establishing the self-governance of the Manitoba Métis Nation. Part of the legislation also talks about the opportunity for supplementary self-governance arrangements. The opportunity to negotiate the next steps would be language, culture and heritage, child and family services, health services, and education.

The opportunity for the Manitoba Métis to be leading programs for their people, I think, is an important next step.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois clearly supports the principles of the bill. I commend the minister and thank her for her speech.

Bill C-21 implements the first modern treaty between Canada and a Métis government, which represents a historic milestone for the Red River Métis. Recently, in committee, the president of the Manitoba Métis Federation, David Chartrand, indicated that the treaty is more symbolic than anything else. The Métis people are not asking for funding or anything else from the federal government. They are simply asking for the right to have the recognition treaty that was promised to them a long time ago.

This bill corrects a historical injustice by making good on the promise of a treaty made to Louis Riel and his provisional government 150 years ago when Manitoba entered into Confederation. The bill addresses the shameful way in which Canada has treated the Métis in the past by marginalizing them, stripping away their rights, imposing military repression and making them invisible in the education system. The bill finally grants express legal and political recognition. It is consistent with the goal of nation-to-nation co-operation in that it formally recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis and establishes a lasting policy framework for intergovernmental relations.

The treaty clearly recognizes the political unity of the Red River Métis as a distinct indigenous community with a recognized democratic government, rather than merely a collection of scattered communities. It enshrines the right to self-determination and self-government for the Red River Métis, recognizing that this right is inherent and protected by the Constitution and is no longer dependent on the federal government's goodwill.

As for its contents, the treaty begins with the internal governance of the Red River Métis: citizenship, institutions, elections, accountability, government operations. It does not infringe on the areas of jurisdiction of other levels of government. It is the result of a process of co-development and ongoing negotiations between Canada and the Manitoba Métis Federation, where the Red River Métis defined their own governance priorities rather than having a unilateral model imposed on them.

This treaty is the culmination of a process that began formally in 2018, and unlike other initiatives like Bill C‑33, it meets the requirements of a truly modern treaty in terms of form and content. Those other bills were not the fruit of this type of negotiation and did not explicitly recognize self-government. Rather, they were intended to give the federal government a blank cheque in its negotiations with other nations that claimed to be Métis.

Bill C-21 is a government bill introduced by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who just addressed the House. Bill C-21 begins with the gradual political and legal recognition of the Manitoba Métis Federation, or MMF, as the government of the Red River Métis. As of 2018, Canada and the MMF began formal self-government negotiations under the authority of the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, with the aim of moving from a simple political agreement to a genuine modern treaty regulating governance institutions.

A key milestone came in 2021 when, under a recognition agreement, the Manitoba Métis Federation was recognized as the Métis government and Canada's interlocutor for the collective rights and interests of the Red River Métis. This agreement serves as the foundation for more ambitious work on self-government and paves the way for the recognition of broader internal legislative powers.

This process culminated on November 30, 2024, with the official signing of the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty. It was signed in Winnipeg by the president of the MMF, David Chartrand, and the federal minister currently responsible for public safety.

The government press release describes this treaty as “first-of-its-kind” and “the first Self-Government Treaty concluded with a Métis Government in Canada” reaffirming the right of the Red River Métis to self-determination and formally recognizing the Manitoba Métis Federation as their government, with powers to make laws on who their citizens are, how their leaders are selected and how their institutions operate. The press release points out that the treaty centres on governance rather than land or harvesting rights and that, once it takes effect under the act, it will be protected by the Constitution. The treaty will replace the recognition agreement signed in 2021, and it represents a major milestone toward reconciliation with this indigenous people.

After the treaty is signed, the relationship between Canada and the MMF enters into an implementation phase, during which the parties prepare the necessary legislation to give the treaty force of law within the Canadian legal system. The treaty itself provides for the negotiation of other self-government arrangements and a framework for collaboration and consultation with other indigenous groups, but its full entry into force depends on federal legislation that ratifies it and incorporates it into domestic law.

It is in this context that, on February 12, 2026, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations introduced in the House of Commons Bill C-21, an act to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and to make consequential amendments to other acts, which we are discussing this afternoon.

The news release accompanying the introduction of the bill notes that this is the first self-government treaty concluded with a Métis government, described as the culmination of 156 years of effort on the part of the Red River Métis since 1870. It explains that the bill seeks to give force of law to the treaty, to recognize the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis and to clarify the legislative powers of that government in the internal matters covered by the treaty.

The purpose of the treaty is to recognize and implement the Red River Métis' right to self-determination and self-government as part of an approach to reconciliation that is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is specifically designated as a treaty within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, has the force of law, is binding on Canada, the Manitoba Métis Federation and all persons and bodies, and engages the honour of the Crown.

The treaty also goes over colonial history, the historical role of the Red River Métis—the Red River Resistance, the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia, the Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada case—and Canada's responsibility to address the “unfinished business of reconciliation”, including in relation to section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870.

The treaty affirms that the Red River Métis are a distinct indigenous community that collectively holds rights protected under section 35, including the inherent right to self-government, and that the Manitoba Métis Federation is their democratic government and their exclusive representative for collective rights and interests, including section 35 rights and land claims.

In addition, the treaty confirms that the right to self-determination and the inherent right to self-government of the Red River Métis are not dependent on Canada's recognition or the implementation legislation. Rather, they are explicitly recognized and affirmed as section 35 rights, which are protected by section 25 of the charter. It clarifies that no section 35 right of the Red River Métis are extinguished or surrendered, that the governance rights listed are not comprehensive, and that other areas of self-government may be added through subsequent complementary self-government arrangements.

Chapter 4 identifies the particular Red River Métis jurisdictions, that is, the areas where the federation of the Red River Métis can enact legislation, with precedence over federal law in the event of conflict or inconsistency in the areas I will list.

With respect to the citizenship of the Red River Métis, the citizenship criteria, registration, renunciation, remedies, and the requirement of a demonstrable connection to the historic Red River Métis, the current register of the federation of the Red River Métis becomes the official register. In principle, a person cannot be both a Red River Métis citizen and a citizen of another recognized indigenous community, such as a first nation, other Métis group or modern treaty, unless that person is unable to give up that other standing. The treaty does not prevent individuals from choosing another indigenous body.

In terms of the method of selecting MMF representatives, the organization has full authority over its electoral processes and the appointment of its representatives, members, officers and others. With regard to the structure, operation, finances and accountability of the MMF, its internal organization, asset management, financial management and the rules governing civil liability and personal immunity of officers and employees, the privileges and immunity are comparable to those of parliamentarians. There is also a regime governing access to information and the protection of personal information within the MMF.

There is also democratic accountability: The Manitoba Métis Federation can adopt its own rules for accountability to Métis citizens, such as conflict of interest prevention rules, internal mechanisms and so on.

There is also administration, enforcement, prosecution and adjudication. The MMF can establish institutions to administer its laws. It can impose sanctions such as fines, restitution and imprisonment within certain limits. It can incorporate proportionate traditional sanctions and put in place mechanisms for enforcing and prosecuting its laws. In all of these areas, if there is an inconsistency or conflict between a Métis law and a federal law, the Red River Métis law prevails, to the extent of the conflict, for matters that are clearly covered by the treaty.

There is also taxation and financing. The treaty defines the concept of “expenditure need” and the “fiscal arrangements” that are meant to provide the MMF with a fiscal capacity comparable to that of other governments or public bodies performing similar functions. These fiscal arrangements are negotiated between the parties and specify the federal contributions and the responsibilities of the MMF. They are not part of the treaty within the meaning of sections 25 and 35, but they are governed by the treaty.

The treaty establishes the MMF's authority in matters related to access to information and the protection of personal information held by its institutions, along much the same lines as existing government systems but adapted to the Métis reality. It also acknowledges the specific role of the Manitoba Métis Federation in the areas of Red River Métis culture and language, as well as child and family services, particularly in relation to An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. The treaty specifies that it has no effect on the Constitution of Canada, does not abrogate or derogate from the other rights of indigenous peoples, and does not preclude the existence of other distinct Métis collectivities that may also hold section 35 rights. It states that nothing in the treaty limits the future rights of the Red River Métis or the possibility of recognizing new governance jurisdictions through negotiations. The treaty must be interpreted in a manner that upholds their section 35 rights without diminishing them.

The Manitoba Métis Federation was established in 1967 to provide democratic, responsible and accountable governance on behalf of the Red River Métis using the constitutional authorities delegated by its citizens. It subsequently incorporated as a legal entity to meet a federal government requirement in order to apply for programming.

The Red River Métis are defined as an indigenous collective made up of its citizens and individuals entitled to be citizens located within Manitoba, as well as elsewhere inside and outside of Canada. In terms of identity, the Manitoba Métis Federation states that it uses the 2002 Métis Nation definition resolution of the Métis National Council and presents itself as the continuation of the “one and only Métis Nation” rooted in its Red River origins. Its mission is to protect the Red River Métis “beyond borders” throughout their homeland and wherever its citizens live, including outside Manitoba. It describes itself as the protector of the Métis Nation and national definition.

The MMF places this mission within the context of the legacy of colonialism, emphasizing that provincial borders and other institutional boundaries have cut up traditional Métis territory and fractured Métis governance. It states that, since 2014, it has taken steps to unite the Red River Métis, and it clarifies that MMF citizens do not have to be residents of Manitoba. The organization also views its evolution as part of a longer historical arc: Since the ethnogenesis of the Métis people, they have had three governance institutions—the president, the council or cabinet, and the assembly—which it traces back to the collective decision-making structures of the time of the buffalo hunt.

These institutions are described as a hard-won and constantly evolving legacy formed in the crucible of a unique history of cultural practices, military campaigns and political arenas. As they are currently configured, MMF president Mr. Chartrand and a cabinet of 22 ministers provide reports to the assembly and seek its guidance. The assembly is described as integral to providing open, accountable and democratic governance. Finally, the MMF administers a wide range of programs and services, including child and family protection, justice, housing, youth, education, human resources, economic development and natural resources. To do so, it relies on a network of affiliated corporations, authorities and agencies with more than 1,100 employees.

I would also like to remind the House that, in the 19th century, the Red River Métis formed a society descended from indigenous people, especially members of the Plains First Nations, and Europeans linked to the fur trade. They lived primarily in the Red River Colony area in the heart of modern-day Manitoba.

From the turn of the century, they played a central role in the northwest economy as buffalo hunters, pemmican suppliers and middlemen in the fur trade, while developing a distinct culture that was both Catholic and largely francophone, but also anglophone and Protestant, with collective practices such as big hunts organized according to democratic rules.

The Red River Colony was founded in 1812 under the auspices of the Hudson's Bay Company and Lord Selkirk and gradually grew into an important population centre, with francophone and anglophone Métis making up a significant proportion of the population. They had their own leaders, including Cuthbert Grant and later Louis Riel.

Starting in the 1860s, the context changed dramatically as Canada sought to expand its sovereignty westward. In 1869, the Hudson's Bay Company sold Rupert's Land to the Dominion of Canada without consulting the Métis settlers, raising fears that their land, language and religion would be jeopardized, especially as Canadian surveyors entered the colony without clear land title guarantees.

In October 1869, the Métis disrupted survey work and, under the leadership of Louis Riel and other leaders, took control of Upper Fort Garry, the company's main outpost, to force Ottawa into negotiating terms for the region's entry into Confederation. They created the National Métis Committee and a provisional government composed of francophone and anglophone Métis who developed a list of rights that would serve as the basis for the Manitoba Act.

The negotiations led by the provisional government resulted in the Manitoba Act, 1870, which created the province, recognized bilingual institutions and denominational schools, and granted 1.4 million acres of land to the children of Métis families in settlement of their “Indian land title”. That was the terminology used at the time.

However, the fulfillment of these promises was chaotic and delayed, and the fact that a Métis court executed Orangeman Thomas Scott in March 1870 sparked violent anti-Métis hostility in Ontario, leading to the dispatch of an expeditionary force that carried out reprisals and acts of violence against the Métis population. In this climate of fear, a significant proportion of the Métis left the region. They migrated westwards, to the present-day provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, or southwards, and the Métis gradually lost their majority status in Manitoba. By the 1880s, they accounted for only a small proportion of Manitoba's population.

The Northwest Rebellion of 1885 was the second major uprising led by the Métis and certain first nations allies against the Canadian federal government, building on the events of Red River.

In the 1870s and 1880s, the Métis living in the Northwest Territories denounced the lack of clear title to their lands, the government's inaction in response to their petitions, and the deterioration of their economic conditions following the collapse of the buffalo population, all of which fuelled a sense of marginalization and injustice.

In 1884, Métis delegates brought Louis Riel back from exile in Montana to help them formulate demands. They drafted a new list of grievances, and when Ottawa did not give them a satisfactory response, the movement shifted to an armed confrontation. In the spring of 1885, a provisional government was established in Batoche, under the political authority of Riel and the military leadership of Gabriel Dumont. After some initial successes, the Métis and their allies were ultimately defeated at the Battle of Batoche in May 1885 by British Major-General Frederick Middleton, his Northwest Mounted Police paramilitary troops and the volunteer militias, mostly Orangemen. Major-General Middleton was already a master at suppressing indigenous uprisings, having earned his stripes fighting the Maori in New Zealand.

I see that I am running out of time. I had more to say about the history and evolution of these events. For example, on November 22, Quebec premier Honoré Mercier told a huge crowd gathered on the Champ-de-Mars in Montreal that “[Louis] Riel, our brother, is dead”. Riel's surrender, his trial for high treason and his execution in November 1885, as well as the sanctions imposed on several indigenous leaders, marked a major political and military defeat for the Métis.

Today, we have an important role to play in repairing the injustice inflicted on this nation over these many decades, for over one and a half centuries. I sincerely applaud this bill and I want them to know that the Bloc Québécois and I are with them wholeheartedly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Riding Mountain, Mental Health and Addictions; the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, The Economy; and the hon. member for York—Durham, Housing.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the Red River Métis Nation, I think of Louis Riel. A couple of years ago, we recognized Louis Riel as Manitoba's first premier. Further to that, I think about the Manitoba Métis Federation. I have been a parliamentarian for over three decades now. It has been such a wonderful thing to witness first-hand how the MMF has stood consistently to ensure that the Red River Métis Nation not only continues to live on, but in essence, carries the city of Winnipeg, our province and indeed our country in many ways.

We hear of individuals like David Chartrand, Will, and others who instilled in the minds of so many Canadians how important it is to recognize the Red River Métis Nation and the fine work that it does. It is worthwhile to recognize the strong presence of MMF members in the parliamentary precinct today. I know they are listening to the debate.

Would the member not agree that it would be a wonderful thing to see the debate collapse so that we could actually get this significant piece of legislation through the House of Commons?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is important to move forward. I believe that if this nation had been respected 150 years ago, if its rights had been guaranteed and not betrayed, its culture would have flourished and we would be the better for it today. Better late than never. I sincerely commend the government and the minister for their commitment in this regard.

I would like to share a little story. May 1, International Workers' Day, will soon be here. It is a product of strikes and unrest in the United States and in Chicago. These associations called Louis Riel their brother, demanded his release and spoke out against everything that was done. He is an inspiring leader. On this day, which is celebrated by workers the world over, the example set by Louis Riel commands praise.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, currently, the Canada Energy Regulator has confirmed that the Manitoba Métis Federation does some level of consultation in northern B.C. for major projects on the environmental effects of traditional section 35 rights. Should one day the Métis be in Quebec and want to acknowledge section 35 rights there, would my colleague from the Bloc Québécois be okay with that level of new jurisdiction in Quebec as well?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, naturally, in Quebec, we fully recognize the rights of all indigenous nations, whether they be first nations, Inuit or Métis. Our position is to conduct nation-to-nation negotiations. I would remind the House that a former Quebec premier, the late Bernard Landry, set an example in this regard by negotiating the peace of the braves agreement.

This is not simply a matter of saying that we will try to guarantee them something. It is about fully recognizing who they are, their culture, their nation. We need to respect their territory and their resources. I would say that, right now, Quebec does not sign any economic development agreements unless the rights of first nations, indigenous peoples and Métis are at the heart of the negotiations and fully respected. We are symbolically correcting a mistake that was made 150 years ago. We must never repeat the colonialism that has taken place over the past 150 years.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, particularly at the beginning of the year, people's understanding of history varies greatly. However, there is an old saying: to know where we are going, we have to know where we came from. There are very direct and very close ties between the Métis people and Quebec. My colleague seems to have touched briefly on the historical aspect at the end of his speech. Are there any other historical details he would like to add to provide members with more information?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the history of the Manitoba Red River Métis and everything that happened there is fundamental to the identity and culture of the French Canadians who would later become Quebeckers. In fact, according to some historians, the imprisonment and hanging of Louis Riel was the trigger that led people to realize that something had happened there.

Honoré Mercier said “our brother is dead”. I will not repeat in the House the unfortunate reply of Sir John A. Macdonald, who called us animals because we were against what had just been done to the Métis leader.

We came to a sudden realization at that time. Later on, the writer and thinker Jacques Ferron said that this was the first time that a Québécois identity emerged. Standing up for our fellow brothers and sisters who were scattered and oppressed in the west was the trigger that led us to wonder what we could do in the province of Quebec to support ourselves.

We stand with our Métis brothers and sisters.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his support for the treaty, his many stories and all his knowledge about the Métis.

I had the same question as his Bloc Québécois colleague. I was wondering if he would like to share another story with the House. I hope that all members will agree to conclude this debate today.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the minister for this excellent bill, which ensures that the treaty has the force of law in Canada. Indeed, I hope we can conclude the debate today so that the bill can be passed more quickly. I have countless other anecdotes and stories to share, both from the perspective of Quebec and that of the Métis nation, regarding the history of Canada.

I would remind the House that, throughout the first few centuries of Canada's history, first nations, indigenous peoples and the Métis were constantly cheated. For example, during the war between the British Empire, which held Canadian territory, and the Americans, the British Crown promised a state to first nations in western Canada, a state that ultimately never materialized.

It is time to right the wrongs of the past and, today, Bill C‑21 is a step in that direction, so I sincerely thank the minister.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise and speak to this bill on the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty.

I want to begin with respect for the Manitoba Métis Federation. The work we discussed today did not appear overnight. It reflects decades of organizing, advocacy, negotiations and constitutional work done by the Manitoba Métis Federation and the Red River Métis citizens.

The Red River Métis people have fought for recognition and their place on the land since before Canada became a country in 1867. In most recent history, the agreement itself records a long path, a 2016 framework agreement, a 2018 incremental reconciliation plan, a 2000 interim fiscal financing agreement and a 2021 self-government recognition and implementation agreement, all leading up to today.

The treaty also links itself to the unfinished reconciliation identified in the Manitoba Métis Federation v. Canada action.

I want to acknowledge President Chartrand and his leadership, which has led to the Manitoba Métis Federation becoming a socio-economic driving force in Winnipeg, Manitoba and beyond.

I also want to show respect for those other indigenous governments for helping with the conversation about what could be improved within the treaty and for their courage for respectfully bringing their concerns to the broader discussion. I know from experience that indigenous critics can experience the most severe forms of abuse from outsiders and insiders via lateral violence, despite the shared goal of building solid foundations for future generations.

As members of Parliament, we have a duty to combat such abuse and bring respectful dialogue to such important matters, and this is a very important matter. We need to take the time to make sure this bill that proposes to bring the agreement into Canadian law and constitutional law is well-built. This is why this debate should not be reduced to a false choice between reconciliation and scrutiny. Parliament can support reconciliation and still insist on precision. In fact, when legislation will constitutionalize a treaty under sections 25 and 35, precision is a part of reconciliation.

Conservatives support treaty rights. We support Métis self-government. We support modern agreements that are durable, constitutional and workable. We even support the Manitoba Métis Federation's choice, as is their right, to negotiate and enter into an agreement that empowers them to move away from the Ottawa bureaucracy.

As a first nations person, I would not personally support growing the ISC bureaucracy as a part of implementing this treaty. A key part of the Manitoba Métis Federation's self-governance is its freedom to choose its partners even if ISC has shown a long history of being unreliable and abusive to other indigenous communities. Supporting the Manitoba Métis Federation's self-determination and governance over its own people does not require us as legislators to ignore potential challenges with implementation. It requires us to confront them before they become drawn-out lawsuits, which can still happen despite the best efforts of drafters, and to anticipate and resolve disputes in more conciliatory ways. It requires us to ask whether consultation in other indigenous communities was sufficient to anticipate the potential challenges this treaty might face.

The first reason for caution is that the treaty itself says that it is a treaty within the meaning of sections 25 and 35, that it has the force of law, is binding on all persons and bodies, and engages the honour of the Crown. Once Parliament gives effect to that, the courts, not the ministers, become the final interpreters of what this text means. If Parliament leaves ambiguity in a constitutional instrument, Parliament is not choosing flexibility, but risking future litigation.

The implementation legislation before us would give the treaty and future Manitoba Métis Federation laws the force of federal law, which would prevail in many areas over inconsistent other federal laws. Among other features, it has the potential to give non-Manitoba Métis Federation police forces and provinces the power to enforce Manitoba Métis Federation laws on non-members of Manitoba Métis Federation, including the possibility of the power to prosecute and imprison accused individuals. Because the Manitoba Métis Federation is not definitively geographically bound or defined in the treaty, Manitoba Métis Federation laws could potentially apply anywhere inside western Canada and beyond. Several Métis groups have made the point that the Manitoba Métis Federation jurisdiction should not extend to other Métis traditional homelands and territories, and that it should be up to the Métis justice systems, not the Crown courts, to determine what Métis laws mean and how they apply.

Modern treaties have the opportunity to place aboriginal and non-aboriginal relations in a shared legal system where we can build certainty, continuity, transparency and predictability.

Ambiguous modern treaty drafting can produce years of conflict. It is not fearmongering to remember the decades of history when interpretation and poor relations resulted in unintended division. Canada still lives with that today. We see this playing out in British Columbia. Governments, federal and provincial, are learning hard lessons about focusing their work on reconciliation rhetoric rather than the hard work needed to bring as many people along as possible, indigenous Canadians and non-indigenous Canadians alike.

There is much in the treaty that deserves acknowledgement. It recognizes Red River Métis self-determination and the inherent right of self-government. It recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis in paragraph 9. It provides concrete jurisdiction now over citizenship, leadership selection, internal operations, accountability, administration, enforcement and related matters. This is serious work, and it deserves respect, but respect for the work done by the Manitoba Métis Federation does not erase the duty of Parliament to ask what this text does, what it does not do and what it may be read to do later.

The next area of concern is the definition of Red River Métis, relationships with other Métis governments and the question of constitutional space for others. The Red River Métis should be the ultimate authority on determining who is Red River Métis. Paragraph 1 defines the Red River Métis as an “Indigenous collectivity...originally established within the historic Northwest and centred in the Red River Valley,” distinct from any other indigenous collectivity and collectively holding section 35 rights, including the inherent right to self-government.

Paragraph 10 then says the Red River Métis acts “exclusively” through the Manitoba Métis Federation in exercising collectively held rights, in pursuing scrip claims and in Crown consultation respecting potential adverse effects on Red River Métis section 35 rights.

Paragraph 19 adds that any existing section 35 rights of self-government in respect of the definition of Red River Métis and the exclusive representation of the Red River Métis by the Manitoba Métis Federation continue and will be exercised in accordance with the treaty.

To many Red River Métis citizens, these provisions are long overdue recognition and nation building. That perspective needs to be heard. However, to other Métis governments, these same provisions raise alarms. The treaty's definitions and scope are read as expansive and ambiguous. We have heard from other Métis nations the concern that the treaty may fail to leave constitutional space for other Métis groups. Once implemented, it will be binding on third parties, including other federally recognized Métis governments. Self-government agreements and treaties with different Métis and other indigenous governments must coexist with each other.

There are strengths in drafting this agreement with flexibility and limiting language, but there is also too much ambiguity. Paragraph 13 says nothing in the treaty may be interpreted to determine the geographical location or the extent of the Red River Métis. There is also nothing in the treaty to imply that the Red River Métis is the only Métis collective under section 35. It also does not imply that the Manitoba Métis Federation represents any other Indigenous collectivity than the Red River Métis. It preserves the possibility that there are other Métis collective rights holders, which is a good thing, established before effective European control, that include individuals with Red River Métis ancestry and may hold distinct section 35 rights. Those are important safeguards, and any fair reading of the treaty should say so.

There is respect from other Métis governments that have also worked for years at securing recognition of their own rights-bearing communities and self-government agreements. Their concern is not that the Manitoba Métis Federation should have no treaty. It is quite the opposite. Various Métis groups appreciate, celebrate and support Canada's modern treaty-making with Métis governments and recognize the Manitoba Métis Federation's right to pursue self-determination through this agreement.

A second area of concern is land and aboriginal rights ambiguity. Supporters of the bill frame this as an internal governance treaty, not a land claims treaty. The treaty's immediate operative jurisdictions are about governance, citizenship, internal structures, accountability, adjudication and related institutional matters, not a direct land transfer.

In recent months, disagreements about how treaties and other agreements about land-based rights should be interpreted have led to much uncertainty on the part of Canadians and much undeserved ignorance, interpretation and hatred directed toward indigenous peoples. Canada's failure to be precise and to communicate about several recent agreements in B.C. has caused harm to everyone. If Canada wants to say now that the Manitoba Métis Federation treaty does not recognize land-related rights, it has a duty to spell that out explicitly, inclusive of protecting fee simple property.

Too often, it seems the current government wants to intentionally leave in that ambiguity so it can take credit but not responsibility for the decisions made. Why does this matter? Chapter 9 lays out the process for future supplementary self-government arrangements in areas including wildlife, migratory birds, and fish harvesting and management; environmental assessment and protection; administration of justice; and any other matters reasonably related to self-determination, self-government, or other rights and interests of the Red River Métis. For many first nations and other indigenous peoples, a traditional paradigm is that we are a part of the land, inclusive of wildlife and plant life.

Paragraph 88 goes further and says that the treaty contemplates future negotiation or recognition of Manitoba Métis Federation jurisdiction over lands that may be held by the Red River Métis, and the preamble of the treaty itself refers to the unfulfilled land-grant provisions of the Manitoba Act, implying the potential for redress.

For non-indigenous Canadians, especially those worried about their recreational or life-sustaining use of the land, it is important not to inflame fear. This treaty would not, on its face, threaten fee simple title. It does not contain a clause expropriating private home ownership. However, it would create a legal framework that could affect future consultation questions, future jurisdictional negotiations and future litigation over the scope of rights. The responsible position is neither alarm nor denial. It is clarity.

For indigenous folks, especially Métis, first nations and Inuit people, the issue is equally serious but different. It is whether constitutionality can be protected via a treaty drafted in a way that leaves room for one indigenous government's hard-won recognition without crowding the constitutional room needed by others. It is whether reconciliation is being advanced through careful pluralism or through avoidable conflict. It is also about whether an indigenous community needs recognition in a treaty in order for its self-government rights to be exercised.

The Liberal government must acknowledge the push-back it received on Bill C-53 in consideration of the bill before us, not because the Manitoba Métis Federation is in the same category as other Métis in question in Bill C-53 but because other indigenous concerns were expressed explicitly. A fundamental question must be answered by the government, a question that I have received and that I know the Liberal government has received as well: How would this treaty overlap with the historic numbered treaties in Canada?

We cannot shy away from the fact that the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs in Alberta recently passed a resolution against the proposed treaty in question today. The chiefs of Treaty 3 in Ontario have said, in a submission to the Liberal government, that they have concerns about pre-approved modern treaties that will supersede historic Confederation-era treaties, practically making them second-class citizens. We have heard and we know that with the Liberal government, there has been little to no consultation with first nations across the numbered treaties in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba regarding the bill.

The Liberal government has started a significant consultation on Bill S-2 while doing no consultation on things like Bill C-5, and now, again, first nations are questioning the inconsistent politics being played by the government on when consultation is used and when it is not used. These concerns are real, and I know the Manitoba Métis Federation is aware of these concerns from first nations as well. I do not hear any indigenous nation, Métis, Inuit or first nation, wanting to see other indigenous peoples fail, but the process and details must be addressed. All of these types of agreements and treaties must live together, and we as indigenous and non-indigenous peoples must coexist.

A third area of concern is everyday predictability in governance and in how we grow the Canadian economy. The Canada Energy Regulator's process in British Columbia has seen the Manitoba Métis Federation relying on the treaty and the Red River Métis homeland claims to assert consultation rights far beyond the Red River, two provinces away. This can result in confusion, cost and delay in resource development. The impacts are not only political disputes but real, on-the-ground impacts that can hold back timely growth of Canada's economy for all treaty peoples.

As Parliament constitutionalizes a treaty whose wording and surrounding narratives are already being used in regulatory settings, Parliament has a duty to consider how wording matters outside this chamber. The commitment to a financial arrangement that would meet the expenditure need of the Manitoba Métis Federation to exercise its defined self-government functions is good in concept but poorly spelled out. Those IOUs promise big buckets of potential rights and obligations and a bureaucratic framework to ensure that Ottawa would get plenty of say in how it wants to maintain control over such agreements and this indigenous nation.

That brings me to my final point. The fairest and most constructive position is not to attack the Manitoba Métis Federation or deny legitimacy of the Red River Métis self-government. It is to say we honour the work that brought this treaty here, we recognize the unfinished business of reconciliation, and we accept that the Manitoba Métis Federation has spent years building toward this milestone. However, because this treaty would be constitutionally entrenched and binding on everyone, we owe it to the Manitoba Métis Federation, other Métis governments, first nations, provinces and everyday Canadians to draft the implementation legislation with maximum clarity.

This means asking whether Bill C-21 should include explicit protections making it clear that this treaty would not negate other Métis agreements, would not make the Red River Métis the only Métis people under section 35, would not constrain future negotiations with other Métis groups, would not recognize land-related section 35 rights unless Parliament intends to say so explicitly, and would protect private property of everyday Canadians.

These proposals are not antireconciliation. They make reconciliation more stable, more transparent and more durable at a time when many Canadians feel uncertain about where we are going. Modern treaties are too important to be carried out by implication when explicit language is available. Canada's own legal history teaches us that when treaty wording is uncertain, courts will spend years, sometimes generations, trying to reconstruct the common intention of the parties, while communities and Ottawa are left to deal with the unexpected consequences.

Parliament still has time to reduce that uncertainty here, so let us proceed with respect: respect for the Manitoba Métis Federation, respect for other rights-bearing Métis communities, respect for indigenous rights, respect for legal certainty and respect for Canadians who deserve laws that are clear enough to understand and that promote unity, not down-the-road division.

We look forward to discussing how to improve this bill, with consideration of any amendments, in committee.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his well-thought-out speech and for his final comment there about one of the best places, in my view, to discuss the details, which would be at committee. I am hoping the members opposite will consider letting this debate collapse today, because I do think the best opportunity to go through this in detail would be at committee, to the member's point about ensuring that the Manitoba Métis, other rights holders and all Canadians are able to express their support, provide amendments and raise any concerns they have.

Again, I hope the member opposite could speak to whether they would let the debate collapse today so we can move this to committee to be studied in more detail.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for all her hard work on the file. It is a very difficult file on which to find the balance and everything. I will say, though, that debate on every aspect is very important. To be very blunt, I have heard from first nations in the last 48 hours that have serious concerns.

Every level of debate is important, but I do anticipate that the bill will move to committee so that those voices can also be heard in a timely manner.

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

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

He spoke at length about the importance of ensuring that this treaty does not conflict with other treaties and that future treaties with other first nations and Métis nations are harmonized.

Can he elaborate on the measures he would suggest for ensuring that all first nations are respected in the treaty-making process?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to go back to basics. Too often when it comes to indigenous relations, Inuit, Métis, and first nations alike, a lot of things are complicated. They are vastly complicated. This is a nation of many Inuit communities, many Métis communities and 600-plus recognized first nations across the country, so it is a very complex process when we are negotiating new modern treaties. That said, going back to basics includes the respect of having other first nations and indigenous groups in the conversation right from the get-go.

We hear the Liberals say this all the time. They are learning their lesson in that regard, but I think the first nations would want to be part of the conversation, in particular when it comes to historic treaties, maybe some of the modern treaties, but more the historic treaties on the Prairies, because that is where this will be interpreted to affect the most. I would like to have seen them engaged in the conversation from the get-go in a more structured way, rather than maybe a more government-defined way, a structured way defined by them.

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

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

Regarding Bill C-21, how would this treaty affect land or resource rights?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good things about the bill, and there are some things that I think are a little too ambiguous. The first thing is that it would bring a level of certainty and new definitions to the section 35 rights of the Manitoba Métis Federation and the Red River Métis people. That is a very good thing because certainty, at the end of the day, is good for investors, good for business and good for things moving in a more structured way, in a more timely way.

However, the ambiguous nature of this means there are concerns from other indigenous groups that it is encroaching on their territory, encroaching on their space or jurisdiction. We have to hear those concerns in consideration of implementing the bill. Creating division among indigenous groups is not something the Canadian government should be striving toward, in the interest of creating business and moving this country forward.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague a bit more about the concern he has about the lack of provision in the bill to safeguard the constitutionally enshrined rights of other indigenous peoples, which was something he brought up a lot. I also wanted to ask for his understanding of the term that was used in the treaty, which is “collectivity” versus “peoples”.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am first nation. I am a former chief from the Enoch Cree Nation. That is where my roots come from, but I also have Métis roots, to be frank. I have a Métis grandfather. It is very difficult as a member of Parliament to balance all the hats we wear and to be a Canadian, a member of Parliament, who represents everybody else beyond the distinction of indigenous peoples.

This bill is very important. It is a precedent setter when it comes to Métis governments, and it is going to go up against scrutiny and historic treaties that have not been implemented, and the honour of the Crown has not been upheld. First nations, rightly so, are of the position that they would like to see that honour upheld in consideration before anything else comes to this space. I think that discussion can line a solution. We will move forward on that.

I do think there is ambiguity in the term “collectivity”. I think it has to be better defined in consideration of other Métis groups.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening to many of the comments members put on the record today.

There is a bit of an expectation that we would afford the opportunity to hear more comments, maybe answer some specific questions, by allowing the legislation to get to a standing committee. The time on the floor is wonderful, and we will get opportunities on third reading and so forth, but to see it go to a standing committee is really important, I think, not only to the Métis Nation, but also to Canadians and the interests of Canadians as a whole.

I would like to get the member's thoughts on the important role that the standing committee could play if we were to allow the bill to advance.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that getting it to standing committee would be a good thing because those voices who felt they had been left out of the government processes in the lead up to this bill would have their opportunity to be heard. It is very important that we get there.

I also want to, again, acknowledge the inconsistencies when it comes to engaging those voices in consultation with the Liberal government. Bill S-2 is going through a multi-year engagement. On things like this, we hear from communities that there has been no level of engagement and consultation, and the only room left for them is through things such as standing committees.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton Northwest talked quite a bit about the ambiguity in the treaty and how that ambiguity might lead to confusion between various Métis groups.

I am wondering about the Métis Nation British Columbia. Yes, there is one, and it has jurisdiction over 30,000-plus Métis people. What assurances are there that this will not impact the very important work that they are doing in my home province?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is language that attempts to create safeguards amongst jurisdictions. As mentioned in my speech, there is language in this treaty that acknowledges that there are other distinct collectivities and groups.

Given some of the precedent that has been set, I am certainly aware that the Canadian Energy Regulator is doing consultations with the Manitoba Métis Federation and arguably the jurisdiction of the B.C. Métis Nation. Those things are ambiguous and clearly not spelled out. I think the space for that dialogue needs to happen and those things need to be overcome before taking a serious run at the next steps of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are so lucky in the House to have my colleague's expertise. There are a lot of people watching from across the country who may not quite understand, because the bill is very complicated.

If he were to choose one thing in the bill that we should be focusing on that concerns him, could he mention what it is and what needs to change before we would be supportive of the bill?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, currently, in 2026, as of today, I see a real concern when it comes to property rights and, in the bigger picture, when it comes to reconciliation. I would like to see some consideration of the Canadian-Métis relationship, every other Canadian considered in this and a protection of property rights, quite frankly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

I want to pick up on a couple of points that my colleague and friend from the Conservatives raised. I believe we are at a very significant moment in time. Just yesterday, we were talking about modern treaties. We were talking about how important it is that we advance modern treaties. We have before us a modern treaty that would go a long way in dealing with an issue that has been outstanding for generations.

The member raised the issue of consultations. I have been a parliamentarian, both here in Ottawa and in the province of Manitoba, for well over three decades, close to four decades now, and I can say first-hand that, in the discussions and consultations, a great amount of effort, passion and tears have gone into trying to get the recognition. I remember during the early 1990s when Louis Riel was finally recognized as a founding father of Manitoba. Louis Riel, just two years ago, was recognized as Manitoba's first premier. The province of Manitoba is what it is today in good part because of the impact of the Métis people.

We do not have to have an absolutely perfect bill that passes today. We have the opportunity to allow the legislation to pass. Through the consultations, whether it was the Prime Minister or members of cabinet who put so much effort into what we have before us today, if there was an interest in looking into this or that and amendments were put forward to make it a healthier, stronger treaty, I can assure members that minds were open. I think the worst thing we could do would be to draw a conclusion and say it is not perfect so we will just have to wait and see. I have seen that happen in the past, which can really cause problems for legislation, and I do not want to see that with this particular piece of legislation.

I heard concerns about other Métis nations across the country. The Red River Métis Nation, from my perspective, has done its homework. Members should come to the province of Manitoba and look at downtown Winnipeg, where there is child and family services, child care, housing and education. They are there in a very real way for the people of the Red River Métis Nation and beyond.

I was at a day care opening where individuals from the Ukrainian settlement community were contributing. The Métis Nation in Manitoba recognizes it is a better Canada if we have a strong and healthy Métis Nation. All people need to do is drive around and they will witness it first-hand, not only in the city of Winnipeg but also in the many different communities throughout the province. It is one of the great prides, and it is a growing pride within our community.

I see the legislation as a wonderful example of a modern treaty that could potentially be emulated by other first nations and Métis. It has great potential, at the very least, for Métis. I suggest that we have to look at the uniqueness of indigenous people and make adjustments, because we cannot make one fit all. At the very least, we could recognize the true value of what we are talking about today with this particular treaty and Bill C-21.

As I have pointed out, if we want to get a real sense of some of the things that have gone exceptionally well in the city of Winnipeg, it is there. It is tangible. I made reference to this earlier. When I think of the Red River Métis, I think of Louis Riel. He was a member of Parliament. I do not believe he was ever allowed to take his seat in Parliament. He has been an inspiration for Métis and non-Métis alike. In mid-November, November 16, I believe it was, we had the Prime Minister of Canada visit the gravesite of Louis Riel with the Métis Federation. It was a very memorable moment.

Members can think of what Louis Riel had to go through to try to get a seat in Parliament, even though he was voted in for that seat, to be able to sit in Parliament, and we have a sitting Prime Minister going to the gravesite.

I think that we are going to be able to do that, whether it is things of that nature or that recognition from the province, the hanging of his portrait as Manitoba's first premier or just recognizing the many different aspects that are here today that are tangible, where they are reforming and changing lives.

Little Stars Playhouse on Selkirk Avenue is one of the child care facilities. I was talking about getting some federal dollars, and it was having a difficult time. That was when the president made contact with Gerrie, and it was ultimately virtually resolved overnight. We can see that there are children being provided with first-class care as a result of MMF's direct involvement working with the federal government and, no doubt, the provincial government.

I would suggest to members that there are endless examples of what I just cited. That is why, when I take a look at the legislation, and I am very familiar with the process, as we would well know, we have an opportunity to see this potentially go to committee as early as next week. That could happen. It does not mean that one has to support the legislation. We can see it into the standing committee stage. If one has ideas that one believes could improve the legislation, I encourage members, by all means, to make those suggestions. If members feel there were not enough consultations done, let us have the standing committee invite guests to come and address the standing committee, so they can ask them the questions and get the presentations.

It would be a very significant accomplishment to be able to have the legislation passed before the end of the month. I realize it is a tall order, but it would be a nice thing to see. At the very least, what we can do is ensure that it gets to a standing committee, where we can get representatives outside of the chamber to be able to provide their thoughts on what I believe is something that is necessary, a modern treaty with the Red River Métis.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech. He mentions he has been doing this for about four decades. From this side of the House, it feels like it has been eight decades of him speaking.

To get back to the issue at hand, the Liberals seem to want to push this idea that nothing should be debated in this House and everything should go right to committee. They are pushing this again and asking us to let debate collapse. I understand the sentiment of this bill, but we have seen that the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Dakota, Treaty 5 and, from Edmonton, the Otipemisiwak Métis nation have lots of issues with this bill.

Does the member for Winnipeg North not believe that those voices should be heard by way of their representatives in this House, or does he only believe in the Liberal way of pushing the bill right to committee without those voices being heard?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a valid point in terms of making sure that voices on all sides of the issue are being heard. The point I am getting at is that we are all very familiar with the finite amount of time here on the floor of the House. In allowing the bill to go to committee, we have more time for members to express themselves. The individuals that the member referenced would potentially be able to come before a committee.

There are all sorts of opportunities to provide feedback, and there is still a report stage and a third reading stage. It is not like we are surrendering a great deal in order to allow legislation to go to committee. I am not saying that we have to pass the third reading—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member in order to continue with questions and comments.

The member for Joliette—Manawan.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to an historical issue regarding the impact on the Métis population and on Manitoba today.

The Manitoba Act established the province of Manitoba in 1870, but it was limited to a very small territory and did not get control over its natural resources, unlike British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, which both joined Confederation around the same time. Manitoba and Ontario then got into a boundary dispute over the forest. The Privy Council in London granted a large forested area to Ontario. The Privy Council would later state that it is Ontario, not Ottawa, that holds the rights to its natural resources.

What concerns does this raise for the Métis Nation and the people of Manitoba to this day?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are many individuals, possibly even in the House, who would be better equipped to answer that specific question.

I was quite impressed with the amount of knowledge the member had on the issue in his speech, and I compliment him on that. For me, it is about recognizing the value of the legislation that we have before us on a modern treaty and advancing something that should have been advanced many years ago.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments regarding the modern-day treaty that has been 150 years in the making. I especially appreciated hearing him describe how it has shaped the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba.

I would like to hear him speak on the sentiment from the general population in the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba regarding this modern-day treaty.

[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.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a friend pointed out to me that there is no provision in Bill C-21 to safeguard the constitutional rights of other peoples that may be compromised. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on this?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is definitely a question of concern. It is one of the problems with the legislation in its current form: simply that the extent of the impacts the legislation would have are not completely understood. As I mentioned, once this were enshrined as a Government of Canada treaty, any kind of changes or adjustments would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make, so we need to understand.

It is not always easy to look into the future. If anybody in the House today has a good crystal ball, I would be happy to borrow it from time to time, but legal scholars, people in government and people with expertise in certain areas are entrusted with that task all the time. It would be the purpose of committee to get information from people who can project what the impact of the legislation would be, based on their own experiences and on their knowledge. We need to draw on that.

It is our view, as the Conservative Party, that the task was not undertaken fully and completely. Instead, we have been left with a bill that is not fully ready for passage before the House. To return to some of those processes to improve the legislation is our goal.