Bill C-21 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty Act
An Act to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Still before Parliament.
- IntroducedFeb. 12, 2026
- Debated in principleNot reached
- Studied by a committeeNot reached
- Passed its first chamberNot reached
- Passed the second chamberNot reached
- Became lawNot reached
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 12 February 2026, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations introduced 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 (Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty Act) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-21 gives effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
Only laws are compared, introduced against passed.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act uses defined terms drawn from the Treaty and clear hierarchy rules, but leaves wide scope for executive action. Broad regulation-making power and references to external documents create room for argument over scope.
Open to argument
“The Governor in Council may make any orders and regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for the purpose of carrying out any of the provisions of the Treaty, this Act, the tax treatment agreement or any other agreement related to the implementation of the Treaty.”
Subjective 'considers necessary' test plus open-ended reference to unnamed agreements grants broad discretion.
Clear-cut
“In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between the Treaty and this Act or any other federal law, the Treaty prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.”
Objective conflict rule with clear priority.“The tax treatment agreement does not form part of the Treaty, and it is not a treaty or a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”
Explicit exclusion using defined legal categories.
Discretion. Subsection 12(1) leaves the Governor in Council free to decide what orders or regulations are needed and to amend them at any time, with only a consultation requirement added in subsection (2).
Challenging the law itself. Broad regulation power could be attacked for vagueness or overbreadth under section 7 or section 35 of the Charter, though the Treaty-implementation purpose narrows the target.
Disputing a charge under it. Most obligations flow directly from the Treaty or federal law hierarchy, so disputes would centre on interpretation of the Treaty text rather than the Act itself.
Read by a language model from the as introduced text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
Only laws in force for two years or more are checked.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.