Ottawa Recognizes Three Métis Governments

Summary#

This bill recognizes three Métis governments — in Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan — and sets a federal process to bring any self‑government treaties with them into force. It gives those treaties the force of law and makes them prevail over conflicting federal laws. It also updates federal privacy and access-to-information rules to work with these governments once a treaty is in effect. The bill does not itself set subject areas of Métis jurisdiction; those will be in future treaties.

• Recognizes the Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Nation of Ontario, and Métis Nation–Saskatchewan as Indigenous governing bodies for their listed collectivities (Recognition; Schedule).
• Sets a tabling and review process for treaties and supplementary agreements, followed by an order‑in‑council to bring them into force (Tabling of treaties; Order in council — coming into force).
• Declares treaties valid, with force of law, and prevailing over conflicting federal statutes and regulations to the extent of any conflict (Given effect; Treaties prevail).
• Confirms Métis governments can make and enforce laws within the jurisdiction set out in their treaties (Jurisdiction).
• Requires courts to take judicial notice of treaties and Métis laws and sets notice rules for legal challenges (Judicial notice; Notice).
• Amends the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act to allow information sharing with a Métis government that is party to a treaty (Access to Information Act amendment; Privacy Act amendment).

What it means for you#

• Households (Métis citizens of the listed governments)

  • Your government is formally recognized by Canada as an Indigenous governing body authorized to act for your collectivity (Recognition; Schedule).
  • When a treaty for your government is tabled and then brought into force, your government may make and enforce laws in agreed areas. You would need to follow those laws, similar to other public laws (Jurisdiction; Given effect).
  • Actions your government took before its treaty came into force are deemed valid if they would have been valid under the treaty (Transitional — Actions deemed valid).

• Households (general public)

  • Immediate day‑to‑day changes are limited until specific treaties are brought into force. The Schedule shows the governments now; the treaty entries and dates will be added later by order‑in‑council (Schedule; Order in council — coming into force).
  • Courts must recognize Métis government laws and treaties. If a case raises questions about these, parties must give 30 days’ notice to the Attorney General of Canada and the relevant Métis government before the issue is decided (Judicial notice; Notice).

• Workers and service users

  • Programs and services covered by a treaty may be delivered under Métis government laws and systems once a treaty is in force. Details will depend on each treaty (Jurisdiction; Given effect).
  • Federal privacy and access‑to‑information rules now allow specified disclosures to a Métis government that is party to a treaty, which can affect how your information is shared for program delivery (Access to Information Act amendment; Privacy Act amendment).

• Businesses and organizations

  • If you contract with or operate in areas governed by a Métis government, you may need to comply with Métis government laws in treaty jurisdictions once they are in force (Jurisdiction; Given effect).
  • Treaties prevail over conflicting federal laws to the extent of any conflict, which can affect compliance planning in federally regulated sectors (Treaties prevail).

• Provinces, municipalities, and other governments

  • The bill does not change provincial or municipal powers. However, once treaties are in force, they bind “all persons and bodies,” and courts must take judicial notice of them (Given effect; Judicial notice).
  • Federal law now expressly supports information sharing with a Métis government that is party to a treaty, which can facilitate intergovernmental coordination where permitted by law (Access to Information Act amendment; Privacy Act amendment).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit appropriations are in the bill text (Data unavailable).
• The bill creates a legal framework; costs, if any, would arise from future treaties and supplementary agreements that will be tabled and then brought into force by order‑in‑council (Tabling of treaties; Order in council — coming into force).
• Federal administrative costs to implement and oversee the framework are not stated in the bill (Data unavailable).
• Any tax treatment agreements have force of law during their term but contain no dollar amounts in the bill (Tax treatment agreements; Data unavailable).

Proponents' View#

• It recognizes the inherent right of self‑government for listed Métis collectivities and provides a clear, lawful path to implement it under section 35 of the Constitution (Preamble; Purposes; Recognition).
• It increases legal certainty by giving treaties force of law and setting that they prevail over conflicting federal laws, reducing future disputes about validity (Given effect; Treaties prevail).
• It respects other Indigenous rights by stating nothing in the Act abrogates or derogates from section 35 rights of other Indigenous peoples, and by clarifying it does not affect the self‑determination of Métis collectivities not represented by the listed governments (Rights of Indigenous peoples; Right to self‑determination).
• It improves transparency and accountability through required tabling of treaties and supplementary agreements, committee referral, and public registers of Métis laws recognized by courts (Tabling of treaties; Judicial notice of Métis government laws).
• It modernizes information‑sharing so programs can be delivered effectively by Métis governments that are party to treaties, within federal privacy and access‑to‑information rules (Access to Information Act amendment; Privacy Act amendment).

Opponents' View#

• The “treaties prevail” clause could create conflicts with federal statutes and regulations, leading to uncertainty for regulated entities until scopes are clarified in each treaty (Treaties prevail).
• The bill leaves key details to future treaties, including the exact jurisdictions and laws. Until those are public and in force, people and organizations cannot know precisely which rules will apply (Jurisdiction; Tabling of treaties).
• Some submissions to the Standing Committee raised concerns about how recognition interacts with the asserted rights or consultation practices of other Indigenous groups, despite the bill’s non‑derogation clause (INAN Committee Evidence, 2023–2024; Rights of Indigenous peoples).
• The notice requirement for court and tribunal proceedings could delay adjudication and add procedural steps for parties, increasing litigation costs (Notice).
• Métis government laws are not subject to the Statutory Instruments Act; opponents caution that relying on public registers set by treaties may pose accessibility or consistency risks for people trying to find applicable laws (Statutory Instruments Act; Judicial notice of Métis government laws).
• There is no fiscal estimate. Future treaties and tax treatment agreements may carry costs or revenue effects, but Parliament and the public cannot assess them now (Data unavailable; Tabling of treaties; Tax treatment agreements).