Debates of April 22nd, 2026

Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty Act

[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.