Debates of April 22nd, 2026

Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty Act

[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.