Gabriel Ste-Marie
Joliette—Manawan, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has denounced the inhumane housing crisis that the Atikamekw nation of Manawan is experiencing. In Manawan, as many as 23 people may be crammed into housing that is often unsanitary. These conditions contribute to the spread of respiratory illnesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec's response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations.”
“Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has launched a campaign to denounce the glaring underfunding of housing in indigenous communities. The organization focused on the situation in the Atikamekw community of Manawan. Isolated and dependent on federal funding, Manawan is facing a severe housing crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Liberals improperly broadened the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards that are applicable to intimate partner offences? This raises serious concerns in our view.”
“Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-16 , as does the Barreau du Québec. However, in a statement, it indicated that while it feels the bill's objectives are laudable, it believes that “incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that will hinder the analysis, review and practical application of these prov…”
“Amnesty International and the community are calling for urgent action, and we are echoing their demands: invest heavily and sustainably, work in partnership with communities, adapt policies to guarantee dignified living conditions and put an end to discrimination. Chief Sipi Flamand took these requests directly to the Prime Minister .”
The complete record
Every one of 411 lines we hold for Gabriel Ste-Marie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“To my knowledge, the company had to cease operations because a technician intervened. Measurement Canada swapped out their technician during the assessment, and this technician failed to recognize an instrument that was, in fact, more accurate and certified by Measurement Canada. Using her discretion, she was able to drive a business into bankruptcy. That is unacceptable. Subsequently, my colleague, accompanied by company representatives, met with the team of the minister responsible, who informed them that an independent appeal process was an option. In the end, there was nothing independent about it. The case had to go to court, pitting a small business against an army of lawyers employed by Measurement Canada. In my view, a grave injustice has been done here.”
“I have just outlined the unfortunate situation in which a Montreal-based company was apparently the victim of an error by Measurement Canada, and where it did not appear possible to correct that error. This is a serious problem. Does Bill S-3 adequately address the changes needed to the laws to ensure that this situation does not happen again? That remains to be seen. It needs to be examined. This is very technical. Would it be helpful to establish a genuinely independent appeal process in the event of a dispute? We say yes, without a doubt. Should an ombudsman position be created for this purpose? That is also quite possible. This is worth pursuing and I urge the government to improve how appeals are handled in disputes and to improve the impartiality of the process when decisions that appear unfair are challenged. We will see.”
“Inspection, as suspensions fall under the minister's authority pursuant to the registration agreement. His first request to Minister Bains led to a meeting with the minister's director of parliamentary affairs and Diane Allan, president of Measurement Canada, during which it was agreed that Mr. Lamontagne could initiate an independent appeal process. Subsequently, during a meeting with the minister's parliamentary assistants, my colleague indicated that the company had merely been referred to Measurement Canada's supposedly independent appeals process. More recently, the former minister of industry, now Minister of Finance , was reluctant to intervene, noting that Measurement Canada is a quasi-judicial body.”
“Faced with an army of lawyers, he was forced to concede. In short, there is the appearance of serious misconduct and an abuse of power by Measurement Canada, which caused significant harm to C.E.L.L. Inspection and the calibration trolley manufacturer Jacques Lamontagne. Even trolleys with designation certificates were suspended by Measurement Canada, as they even cancelled the meeting for their certification. There does not seem to be a formal appeal process in place for the decisions of Measurement Canada, the agency responsible for certifying gas pumps at big oil companies' stations. My colleague and friend, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île wrote letters requesting meetings with the successive ministers responsible at various stages of the process involving Mr. Lamontagne and C.E.L.L.”
“Excluding the previous parties from the decision-making process may have seem justified since this was an independent appeal, but failing to review and use the information on the facts that led to the suspension and resulted in it being upheld during the previous appeals was unusual to say the least. Looking into the facts that led to the suspension was clearly no longer a priority. Instead, the president tried to get C.E.L.L. to take further steps to regain its certification by refusing to compensate the company. She then broadly reiterated the previous decisions. Ultimately, Mr. Lamontagne took legal action, but he did not have the same resources as the team of lawyers at Measurement Canada. As a result, he lost his first appeal on a technicality. For lack of resources, he could not pursue a long process in court to win.”
“Inspection filed a second appeal in January 2021, where Mr. Lamontagne was able to discuss his case via a conference call and email exchanges. The second review resulted in a brief two-page document that reiterated the suspension and indicated that, if his specific calibration setup required a unique operating sequence, then he should inform the regional volumetric specialist, even though his technology had already been approved and certified by Measurement Canada's chief engineer. It was just a formality when he was told that he needed to mention this. My fellow MP then attended Mr. Lamontagne's third appeal hearing. Initially, the president of Measurement Canada said that she wanted to exclude the parties involved in the first and second appeals along with their reports.”
“My colleague then held a conference call with Marc Gervais, director of parliamentary affairs for the Hon. Navdeep Bains, Measurement Canada president Diane Allan and Mr. Lamontagne. It was stated during the conference call that an independent appeal process could be undertaken. C.E.L.L. Inspection therefore filed an appeal. However, this procedure consisted solely of an internal review of the case, without a hearing at which Mr. Lamontagne and his attorney could have presented their case. The revised decision was communicated on December 6, 2019, in a letter from Nathalie Campeau, regional director of Measurement Canada. It stated that the suspension was upheld, still in general terms, without specifically addressing the arguments put forward by Mr. Lamontagne and his lawyer. (1720) C.E.L.L.”
“The company responded to both violations, completed three corrective action plans and attended a meeting at which the company still did not receive a detailed report. Instead, it received its own corrective action report, which was amended with certain passages withdrawn and a few notes from the inspector. C.E.L.L. Inspection then received an email from Mathieu Parent, a senior program officer at Measurement Canada, notifying it of its suspension. At that point, there were still two other certified technicians who could have continued to do tests for the company. As member of Parliament for La Pointe-de-l'Île , my friend and colleague became aware of the issue and contacted the office of the then minister of innovation, science and industry, Navdeep Bains.”
“Inspection company technicians, although she refused to consider the methods used for the vapour retention volumetric standard by the manufacturer, Jacques Lamontagne, even though these methods were approved by Measurement Canada. The Measurement Canada inspector abruptly ended the inspections after telling one technician that she had failed, but without offering a clear explanation or discussing the matter, meaning that she did not provide the usual guidance. C.E.L.L. Inspection repeatedly requested the results and detailed reports on the tests from Measurement Canada, including through its lawyers in April 2018. Measurement Canada responded more than three months later with two notices of violation.”
“Lamontagne, who also manufactured patented volumetric standards approved and certified by Measurement Canada. The use of these volumetric standards is what led to the problem. According to Mr. Lamontagne, these vapour retention volumetric standards were more accurate than the major brand-name volumetric standards recommended by Measurement Canada. In some respects, this may have worked to the advantage of the big oil companies. They were therefore using a more accurate technology that was recognized by Measurement Canada, and that would end up causing a problem. Here is a brief review of the facts. In February 2018, a new inspector came to evaluate two C.E.L.L.”
“Inspection Inc., which was incorporated at the time these events took place. The company inspected commercial gasoline dispensers for accuracy and compliance. It was suspended by Measurement Canada in 2018 through a procedure that appears unusual and less than transparent. Here is some background information. Between 2006 and 2018, Mr. Lamontagne was president of C.E.L.L. Inspection, which became an authorized service provider employing a number of technicians accredited by Measurement Canada. The company issued over 450 certificates, some of which relied on a method that Measurement Canada had approved. That method eventually led to the company's suspension. C.E.L.L. Inspection worked with various types of volumetric standards, including some leased from Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to being by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of modernizing the Weights and Measures Act. We have a lot of questions, and there will be a lot of work to do in committee in order to hear from a number of experts on the matter, given that this is a highly technical and specialized issue. Before discussing the substance of the bill itself, I would like to share a story about a business that ran afoul of Measurement Canada. It demonstrates that the current appeals process and the lack of an ombudsman pose a major problem. This took place in the constituency of my colleague and friend, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île . I want to share the sad story of an entrepreneur from his constituency who ran afoul of Measurement Canada. This is the story of Mr. Lamontagne, president of a company called C.E.L.L.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a very interesting speech. I have two questions for him. First, in my colleague's constituency of La Pointe-de-l'Île , there is a company that has had problems with Measurement Canada. The appeal processes proved to be truly ineffective, inefficient and flawed, and justice was not done. I wonder if my hon. colleague would be in favour of creating an appeal process for Measurement Canada decisions that is more accessible so that businesses can defend their right to have their say and to have decisions reconsidered. Would an ombudsman be an option? Second, Bill S-3 appears to grant greater powers to the minister . Is giving the minister more powers in this area a good thing for us, as parliamentarians?”
“We, as MPs, can no longer ask the government questions about it. It is managed independently, but as my colleague said, perhaps not so as independently as all that. What does my colleague think about that? I would obviously ask the other members to keep their voices down so that I can hear my colleague's answer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my colleague and friend from Mirabel on his excellent speech. With regard to the $25-billion fund to build Canada strong, when we look at the revenues and expenditures set out in this update, we do not see that $25 billion figure. One has to go to page 129, under non-budgetary transactions, where there is a line that refers to enterprise Crown corporations. The amount is not broken down. We were told that the fund could be found there. This is not very transparent. Had this fund been included in the budgetary operations, then we would not be talking about a reduced deficit but an increased deficit. Once the money is in the Crown corporation, as is the case with Build Canada Homes or any other Crown corporation that is set up, there is no longer any accountability to the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, the update fails to take into account the U.S. President's April 2 order, which slapped a 25% tariff on most of the goods exported to the United States from Quebec and even Ontario. What good is an update that is not up to date? When we asked the Prime Minister questions about this, he said the answer would be in this update. What good is yesterday's weather forecast?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is not even quorum in the House, and yet we cannot hear ourselves speak because the Liberals are laughing amongst themselves about this new supermajority. I would ask for a quorum call.”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just referred to parliamentary tradition. It is a parliamentary tradition that we proceed by consensus when it comes to establishing the composition of committees. Up until now, the Liberals have said in their speeches that they would ask for input and collaborate. However, on the first day that the Liberals won a majority, they chose to act unilaterally to change the rules by introducing a closure motion without consulting the opposition members, including anyone in my political party. What does my hon. colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, jobs must be saved. It is time for Ottawa to recognize how serious the situation is with the new tariff calculation. South Shore Furniture announced this morning that it is closing. This means 126 jobs will be lost in Sainte‑Croix and Coaticook. Cyrell AMP in Beloeil has had to raise its prices by 50% because of the tariffs. In Joliette, the small business Liard Industries has to pay five times more in excessive tariffs than before. Everyone in every region is struggling, including ADF in Terrebonne and Max Atlas in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Will Ottawa announce a wage subsidy tomorrow to prevent layoffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, a friend pointed out to me that there is no provision in Bill C-21 to safeguard the constitutional rights of other peoples that may be compromised. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on this?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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”.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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. (1650) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1645) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 treaty will replace the recognition agreement signed in 2021, and it represents a major milestone toward reconciliation with this indigenous people. (1640) 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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”