Rebecca Alty
Northwest Territories, Northwest Territories · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I find it disingenuous that the members opposite continue to suggest that we are not protecting the private property rights of Canada. Here is what we have been doing: We disagreed with the B.C.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an important question and one that is currently before the courts. In the recent Wolastoqey decision, the Court of Appeal in New Brunswick, which is the highest court in the province, has refused leave to appeal. It found that aboriginal title cannot be declared over private property.”
“By advancing this legislation today, all members of the House have the opportunity to support a stronger future for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. This moment has been a long time in the making. All of us know that the heart of this legislation is in the north, in the Sahtu and with the people of Norman Wells.”
“If passed, it would establish the agreement as a self-government treaty in Canadian law. It would formally recognize the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę government as the government of the Sahtu, Dene and Métis of Norman Wells and would affirm what has always been true, which is that the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę hold inherent rights of self-government, righ…”
“Mr. Speaker, beyond the investments such as the Mackenzie Valley Highway, the Slave geological province and the Taltson hydro expansion, the important thing about accelerating this legislation is really the importance of the self-governance to the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę.”
“It was a landmark for not only the Sahtu but also the entire country. It created certainty, stability and a foundation strong enough to support other self-government negotiations into the future.”
The complete record
Every one of 168 lines we hold for Rebecca Alty, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“That means quitting the fearmongering, quitting the misinformation, starting to learn and starting to build relationships. They need to recognize that reconciliation and economic growth are not opposites. They are partners when done properly. I will close where I began. To Canadians watching today, they still own their home and they can still renovate it, and our government is fully committed to protecting their property rights. In indigenous treaty or agreement discussions, private property is not on the table. It is not today and it will not be tomorrow. What we are doing is building a stronger, more honest, more stable foundation for coexistence and prosperity. What is on the table is whether this House chooses clarity over chaos, unity over division and serious governance over fear-based politics.”
“Many Canadians were not taught about treaties or unceded land, but a lack of education is not an excuse for the Conservatives' spreading misinformation now. Leadership means explaining complexity, not exploiting it for fundraising opportunities. Let us be serious. We can protect private property. We can advance aboriginal title and rights. We can do both without reopening the Constitution as this motion proposes because, frankly, we do not have time for a constitutional wrangling exercise. Canadians want homes built, projects approved and the economy growing. We can do that right now within our existing constitutional framework. Hope is not a plan and nostalgia is not a strategy. If the Conservatives ever hope to lead, they will need to learn how to work with all Canadians, including indigenous partners.”
“Title clarifies the rights of indigenous partners; it does not invent duties out of thin air. In 2014, when the Supreme Court affirmed aboriginal title in the Tsilhqot'in decision, some critics predicted chaos. They warned of economic collapse. They said Canadians would lose their land. None of that happened. That was 12 years ago. We have gained clarity about the nature and location of lands covered by Tsilhqot'in aboriginal title. That clarity has provided certainty to investors, communities and the government, which has enabled them to build. [ English ] One of the greatest harms of this motion is not legal, but social. It invites Canadians to fear reconciliation. That is not leadership.”
“It means that key infrastructure, like ferry terminals and highways, continues to be operated and maintained by the province. It means that provincial and municipal services provided by Haida Gwaii, including health, education, transportation and fire and emergency services, also continue as they are. The agreement and provincial legislation came into effect on July 5, 2024. It has been almost two years and the sky has not fallen. Life has continued on for folks. [ Translation ] That is what negotiated coexistence looks like in a constitutional democracy. With regard to aboriginal rights and treaty rights, we will continue to hold consultations on mines and major projects of national interest. None of this is new. Even before the title was established, the Crown always had a duty to consult.”
“Let me offer the House a concrete example of a title agreement, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, which became a law in B.C. on May 16, 2024. The law confirms the “Rising Tide” Haida Title Lands Agreement and enshrines the recognition of Haida aboriginal title in the laws of B.C. The agreements and legislation provided important protections such as the following: Private property, residential, commercial or industrial, is not affected by the recognition of Haida aboriginal title; and privately owned land, or fee simple property, remains under provincial jurisdiction and the recognition of Haida aboriginal title will not change any rights associated with it. (1055) This means that business licences, building permits and zoning continue as is through the reconciling process.”
“Again, despite what the Conservatives would have Canadians believe, it does not interfere with fee simple property ownership. The maps circulating online showing “land being given away” are maps of Musqueam's claimed historical territory, not title. Conservatives confusing the two is either careless or deliberate. The government has not agreed to anything new with respect to these areas. We will not, cannot and will never negotiate away Canadians' private property. There are no clauses transferring private homes. There is no sudden erosion of municipal or provincial authority, and there is no legal basis for the climate of panic the Conservatives are attempting to create. I will remind the members on the other side of the aisle that responsible leadership means actually reading agreements before condemning them.”
“We are all one and we are here to stay. It was impossible for this misunderstanding to go on. We wanted to reach a mutual understanding and that is why we gathered together to make an informed decision. In the spirit of reconciliation and consistent with the principle of nəća̓ʔmat ct [which means we are all one], Musqueam will continue to work collaboratively with Canada to further our mutual interests to transform conflict and injustice, to create partnerships in the spirit of unity, with the aim of developing processes for shared decision-making, revenue and benefit sharing, and dispute resolution. This agreement is the result of more than 10 years of negotiation. Negotiation, instead of litigation, provides clarity, stability and better outcomes for everyone involved.”
“It is important to note that all discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level protect private property. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land. Further, it is important to note that the Musqueam themselves have been clear. In fact, just a few weeks ago, Musqueam's chief negotiator said that private property was never on the table. It was a non-starter from the very beginning. As the agreement itself states, this work is about building relationships, establishing principles and setting out processes for future discussion, not transferring land. I really want to highlight one bullet from the agreement for us to remember throughout the debate today. It reads: For a long time we, Musqueam and Canada, misunderstood each other.”
“This is not a title agreement, and it is not a land claim. Let me be absolutely clear on a point that has caused concern: This agreement does not affect private property. In fact, it cannot affect private property because it is a bilateral agreement between Musqueam and the federal government. Why does that matter? It is because, again, private property falls under provincial jurisdiction. As I have said, section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes provincial authority over property rights, placing legislative control over property ownership and use within provincial jurisdiction. The federal government does not have the authority to negotiate Canadians' privately held lands, and this agreement does not in any way attempt to do that.”
“(1050) Regardless of the directive, the government would never make arguments that do not have a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada is currently reviewing all legally viable arguments for the Cowichan appeal and all potential defences remain on the table. However, even if the Conservatives are not listening, I want to reassure Canadians at home who are watching that Canada will advance all legally viable arguments on appeal to protect private property. I now want to turn to the incremental rights recognition agreement with the Musqueam first nation, another area where misinformation has flourished. This agreement did not appear overnight. In 2017, Cowichan and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding. In February 2026, that work evolved into a framework agreement.”
“We must respect the judicial process and continue to seek resolution of this matter through the courts. The Conservatives have suggested that the directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples restricted Canada's ability to advance legally viable defences in the Cowichan litigation, specifically referring to litigation guideline number 14. Litigation guideline number 14 of the directive does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences, but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence. Canada is currently reviewing potential legal arguments for the Cowichan appeal, and all potential defences remain on the table. Again, our government will always raise valid arguments that we believe will be successful in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve.”
“We consented to this application because we believe that when people may be directly affected by legal ruling, they deserve to be heard. Canadians know what they can expect from our government. We have appealed the Cowichan decision, and we will advance all legally viable arguments to preserve the certainty of private property interests. As I said at the beginning of my speech, though, the Conservatives believe that they should use Parliament to relitigate an active court case. Let me be clear. Having these discussions here on the floor of the House of Commons or in a special parliamentary committee, instead of in a courtroom where they belong, has the potential to negatively impact Canada's legal position and may actually undermine arguments on appeal that would protect private property.”
“Further, since the ruling last summer, we, Canada, consented to the Montrose application and we are now awaiting a ruling. For those who are unfamiliar, Montrose is a company that operates in Richmond and claims to be the largest landowner in the declared Cowichan title area. Montrose has applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reopen the trial and be added as a party. If the trial is reopened in a limited way, Montrose, an impacted private property owner, will have the opportunity to present evidence and its perspective on the impacts of this decision. The judge will rule on whether or not there should be a limited reopening of the trial. This may impact the decision made by the judge in August 2025.”
“The New Brunswick Court of Appeal states that it is open for a court to make a finding of aboriginal title over private property, which could lead to a compensation award against the Crown, but that a declaration of aboriginal title cannot be made over private property. Canada is waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada to confirm whether it will hear an appeal of the Wolastoqey Nation decision, and we are monitoring this case closely. We now have two courts in Canada taking opposite approaches. That divergence is exactly why clarity from the court is needed. We recognize that the Cowichan decision has caused uncertainty and anxiety. Canadians deserve to feel secure in their homes and investments. That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation.”
“Section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes provincial authority over property rights, placing legislative control over property ownership and use within provincial jurisdiction. The Conservatives continue to ignore the fact that this is constitutional reality, not political choice. To that end, British Columbia has appealed. British Columbia is acting within its jurisdiction, and British Columbia is working on measures to support potentially impacted private property owners. When it comes to aboriginal title, more generally, it is important to note that the law is far from settled in this regard. For example, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion in J.D. Irving, Limited et al. v. Wolastoqey Nation, as compared to the B.C. Supreme Court's decision in Cowichan.”
“Throughout the case, Canada has consistently defended the validity of Crown grants of fee simple title, and we continue to do so today. That position has not changed. We also recognize that private ownership is a foundational part of Canada's legal system. It gives people certainty and confidence in their homes and businesses. That matters to Canadians and it matters to our economy. Canada has formally appealed the decision because we believe further legal clarity is required, particularly with respect to private property interests. We will advance all legally viable arguments to protect that clarity. Importantly, the court ruled that British Columbia, not the federal government, has the duty to negotiate in good faith regarding privately held lands, because jurisdiction over private property and land registries rests with the provinces.”
“It suggests that, because of the Musqueam agreement, Canadians could lose their homes. None of that is true. What is true is that this motion is an opportunistic political play by the Conservatives to create fear, stress and division. If they truly cared about addressing Canadians' concerns, they should have put forward a motion grounded in facts and that reflects the situation as it is, not one that only serves their political interests. Let us turn first to the Cowichan decision. This case has a long and complex history. It is, in fact, the longest civil trial in Canadian history at over 500 days. At its core, it raises legal questions about aboriginal title and how it interacts with Crown obligations and existing land ownership systems.”
“It is not spread disinformation, and it is certainly not to use political opportunism. The key is to sit down at a table, have constructive discussions and responsibly carry out the difficult work of reconciliation. That is what our government is doing, but that is precisely what this motion seeks to undermine. (1045) [ English ] This motion wraps itself in the language of private property while fundamentally misrepresenting the government's position, the facts on the ground and recent federal agreements with indigenous partners. It also confuses the results of a court decision, one that our government fundamentally disagrees with, and a negotiated agreement that does not deal with Canadians' private property interests. It suggests that government agreements are giving away private land.”
“None of those modern treaties, negotiated agreements or federal approaches have led to Canadians losing privately owned land. It is important to note that any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level has protected and will protect private property. [ Translation ] Before I go any further, I would like to briefly share my perspective on this debate. I come from a region shaped by modern land claims based on historic treaties. I am not indigenous. I own private property in an area covered by a modern treaty. I have lived, worked and governed in contexts where indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians have learned—sometimes imperfectly, but always constructively—to coexist on the same territory. This experience has taught me a fundamental lesson: The key to success is not to stoke fear.”
“Further to that, this motion is redundant as it calls on the government to do things we are already doing. For example, in the Cowichan case, the government has defended the validity of grants of fee simple title by the Crown and will continue to do so on appeal. Again, as the Prime Minister said last week, “private property rights are fundamental...[and we] will always defend them.” It is already Government of Canada policy to only make rights and title agreements that protect the private property of Canadians. I can assure this House, and all Canadians, that we will not, nor would we ever, entertain or even consider an agreement where Canadians lose their private property. In fact, we have been signing modern agreements with first nations since the 1970s.”
“Given the impact our words here today could have on this active litigation, it is important that all members of this House, including myself, are judicious and responsible with their words. Let us get to the motion. Our government agrees with some of the principles in the motion and already takes many of them into negotiations. However, we will not allow the Conservatives a platform to continue to spread disinformation with a special committee. We will not allow this Parliament to be used to relitigate an active court case with partisan rhetoric, which could potentially jeopardize the ongoing litigation. Respect for the judicial process is essential. Canadians do not need the Conservatives' political chaos and poorly informed commentary layered on top of the complex legal questions at play in this case.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by speaking directly to Canadians who may be watching this debate today and feeling anxious or uncertain. As the Prime Minister has made clear, “private property rights are fundamental...[and our government] will always defend them.” Federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property. Before I begin, I want to remind members of this House that the Cowichan case is subject to active litigation and appeal. As it stands right now, the trial order has not yet been entered and will not be entered until the Montrose application to reopen the trial, which I will discuss later, is resolved.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite gave a number of histories of aboriginal title. However, he missed the Haida aboriginal title, which includes private property and Crown land. I am just wondering why he omitted to discuss that. It has been in legislation for the past two years. I am wondering if it just does not support the argument the Conservatives are trying to make.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that everybody remembers that the recently signed Musqueam agreements do not affect private property. The agreements recognize the Musqueam's constitutionally protected aboriginal rights in the specific areas of fisheries, stewardship and marine emergency management, while establishing a clear framework for collaboration between the first nation and Canada. These agreements respect the rights of indigenous peoples and establish how Canada and the first nation should engage so we get our issues out of the courts and increase certainty for indigenous communities, businesses and all Canadians. I encourage the member opposite to read the agreements.”
“Mr. Speaker, preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of the utmost importance. That is why we advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling and that is why we appealed it back in September. We are fully committed to ensuring stability, certainty and confidence for Canadians who own property while we advance reconciliation. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs: in the courts and not on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, the calls to action and the calls for justice are not with respect to just one project, but a life we need to continue to live. Violence against indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people must be brought to an end. Our government is taking action at every stage. We have funded more than 90 indigenous women's and 2SLGBTQQIA+ organizations. We just announced today that we will be funding $300,000 for the red dress alert program with the Province of Manitoba. There are more things, but I see that my time is up.”
“Mr. Speaker, ending the crisis is of utmost importance. We are strengthening protections through legislation to crack down on human trafficking and gender-based violence, and through critical investments in shelters, supportive housing and healing centres like the Deh Gáh Got’îê First Nation's shelter in the Northwest Territories or the Aqqusariaq recovery centre in Iqaluit, which is set to open soon. We will continue to work in partnership with survivors, families and communities to address the root causes of this violence and build a safer country for all.”
“Mr. Speaker, preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance. That is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling. That is why we appealed it back in September. We are fully committed to ensuring stability, certainty and confidence for Canadians who own property while advancing reconciliation. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs, in the courts, not on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, private property rights are fundamental and our government will always defend them. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling in the Cowichan case, and we appealed it back in September. Any agreement on aboriginal title at the federal level has always and will always protect private property. The federal government has been signing agreements with first nations since the 1970s. No agreement between the federal government and first nations has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land. Our government will continue to advance reconciliation and protect the private property rights of Canadians.”
“moved that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Weights and Measures Act, the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the Weights and Measures Regulations and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Regulations , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill S-3. Second reading”
“Bill C-30. Introduction and first reading moved that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026 , be read the first time and printed. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Motion for concurrence moved that a ways and means motion to introduce a bill entitled An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026 be concurred in.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 .”
“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.”
“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.”
“Canada is a nation founded on many treaties. These are lasting commitments that shape relationships, empower communities and create opportunities for generations to come. [ English ] 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.”
“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.”
“This is what the Louis Riel-led provisional government of Assiniboia sought in 1869. (1620) [ Translation ] 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.”
“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.”
“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 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 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.”