REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

The Manitoba Métis Federation October 25, 2022

CONTENTS

Introduction	1
Red River Métis (Manitoba Métis)	2
History and Identity	2
Manitoba Métis Federation	4
MMF Resolution No. 8	7
Red River Métis Rights, Claims, and Interests	8
Issues and Recommendations	12
Issues Related to Information Access and Application	12
Issues related to a Distinctions-based approach to Information Management	14
Issues related to Management and Disclosure of Personal and Census information	15
Conclusion and Requested Next Steps	17
Bibliography	18

INTRODUCTION
The Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) has reviewed the following documents in relation to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (Treasury)-led consultation process on changes to the federal Access to Information Act:
•	Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2022, ATI Review – Interim What We Heard Report, (full date 2022- 01-17)
•	Department of Justice Canada, Privacy Act Modernization: Report on Engagement with Indigenous Partners, What We Have Learned (so far) and Next Steps, Spring 2020 to Spring 2021
•	Access to Information Act, (R.S.C. (Revised Statutes of Canada), 1985, c. A-1)
•	Privacy Acy (R.S.C. (Revised Statutes of Canada), 1985, c. P-21
•	Department of Justice, 2018, Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with
Indigenous Peoples
•	Department of Finance Canada, Budget 2021, A Recovery Plan for Jobs, Growth, and Resilience, Supporting Métis Nation Priorities, 2022
The MMF plays a pivotal role co-ordinating Access to Information (ATI) requests from government of Canada departments and agencies and other entities for any project that impacts the rights, interests, and claims of the Red River Métis. For example, information for the following purposes:
•	Registration under the Indian Act.

•	Locate children in government care.

•	Locate and re-establish contact with those taken in the 60s scoop.

•	Redress the legacy of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations e.g., 18-24 pertains to health.

•	For the development of legislation. For example, distinctions-based Indigenous health legislation.

•	Facilitate advancement of collective claims.

•	To assess and monitor natural resource, mining, hydroelectric, and forestry developments contemplated in Manitoba that may affect Métis rights, interests and claims.
•	Facilitate collaborative initiatives with other organizations e.g., government of Canada, province, Territory, Indigenous peoples.

In June 2019, An Act to Amend the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act became law. In conjunction with Bill C-58, Treasury committed to consult with Indigenous peoples on addressing their unique issues and concerns with access to information. The sections that follow provide an overview of the challenges experienced by the MMF government and the citizens and community of the Red River Métis in trying to access, secure, and protect relevant and important information.

RED RIVER MÉTIS (MANITOBA MÉTIS)
HISTORY AND IDENTITY
The Red River Métis—as a distinct Indigenous people—evolved out of relations between European men and First Nations women who were brought together as a result of the early fur trade in the Northwest. In the eighteenth century, both the Hudson Bay Company and the Northwest Company created a series of trading posts that stretched across the upper Great Lakes, through the western plains, and into the northern boreal forest. These posts and fur trade activities brought European and Indigenous peoples into contact. Inevitably, unions between European men—explorers, fur traders, and pioneers—and Indigenous women were consummated. The children of these families developed their own collective identity and political community so that “[w]thin a few generations, the descendants of these unions developed a culture distinct from their European and Indian forebears” and the Métis Nation was born—a new people, indigenous to the western territories (Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v. Cunningham, [2011] 2 SCR 670 at para. 5; 2008 MBPC R. v. Goodon, 59 at para. 25; Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] 1 SCR 623 at para. 2).
The Métis led a mixed way of life. “In early times, the Métis were mostly nomadic. Later, they established permanent settlements centered on hunting, trading and agriculture” (Alberta v. Cunningham, at para. 5). The Métis were employed by both of the fur trades’ major players, the Hudson’s Bay and Northwest companies. By the early 19th century, they had become a major component of both firms’ workforces. At the same time, however, the Métis became extensively involved in the buffalo hunt. As a people, their economy was diverse, combining as it did, living off the land in the Aboriginal fashion with wage labor (MMF v. Canada, at para. 29).
It was in the Red River, in reaction to a new wave of European immigration, that the Red River Métis first came into its own. Since the early 1800s, the Red River Métis — as a part of the larger Métis Nation—has asserted itself as a distinct Indigenous collective with rights and interests in its Homeland. The Red River Métis share a language (Michif), national symbols (infinity flags), culture (i.e., music, dance, dress, crafts), as well as a special relationship with its territory that is centered in Manitoba and extends beyond the present-day provincial boundaries.
The Red River Métis has been confirmed by the courts as being a distinctive Indigenous community, with rights that are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In R. v.
Goodon, the Manitoba court held that:

The Métis community of Western Canada has its own distinctive identity […] the Métis created a large inter-related community that included numerous settlements located in present-day southwestern Manitoba, into Saskatchewan and including the northern Midwest United States. This area was one community […] The Métis community today in Manitoba is a well-organized and vibrant community (paras. 46-47; 52).

This proud independent Métis population constituted a historic rights-bearing community in present day Manitoba and beyond, which encompassed “all of the area within the present boundaries of

southern Manitoba from the present-day City of Winnipeg and extending south to the United States”
(para. 48).

The heart of the historic rights-bearing Métis community in southern Manitoba was the Red River Settlement; however, the Red River Métis also developed other settlements and relied on various locations along strategic fur trade routes. During the early part of the 19th century, these included various posts of varying size and scale spanning the Northwest Company and the Hudson Bay Company collection and distribution networks.
More specifically, in relation to the emergence of the Métis—as a distinct Indigenous Nation in Manitoba—the Supreme Court of Canada wrote the following in the MMF v. Canada case:
“[21] The story begins with the Aboriginal peoples who inhabited what is now the province of Manitoba—the Cree and other less populous nations. In the late 17th century, European adventurers and explorers passed through. The lands were claimed nominally by England which granted the Hudson’s Bay Company, a company of fur traders’ operation of out London, control over a vast territory called Rupert’s Land, which included modern Manitoba. Aboriginal peoples continued to occupy the territory. In addition to the original First Nations, a new Aboriginal group, the Métis, arose—people descended from early unions between European adventurers and traders, and Aboriginal women. In the early days, the descendants of English-speaking parents were referred to as half-breeds, while those with French roots were called Métis.

[22]	A large—by the standards of the time—settlement developed at the forks of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers on land granted to Lord Selkirk by the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1811. By 1869, the settlement consisted of 12,000 people, under the governance of Hudson’s Bay Company.
[23]	In 1869, the Red River Settlement was a vibrant community, with a free enterprise system and established judicial and civic institutions, centered on the retail stores, hotels, trading undertakings and saloons of what is now downtown Winnipeg. The Métis were the dominant demographic group in the Settlement, comprising around 85 percent of the population [approximately 10,000 Métis], and held leadership positions in business, church and government.”
The fur trade was vital to the ethnogenesis of the Red River Métis and was active in Manitoba from at least the late 1770s, and numerous posts and outposts were established along cart trails and waterways throughout the province. These trails and waterways were crucial transportation networks for the fur trade (Jones 2014; 2) and were the foundation of the Red River Métis’ extensive use of the lands and waters throughout the province. In the early 20th century, the Red River Métis continued to significantly participate in the commercial fisheries and in trapping activities, which is well documented in Provincial government records.

Figure 1: The Fur Trade Network: Routes and Posts prior to 1870.

MANITOBA MÉTIS FEDERATION
On July 6, 2021, Canada and the MMF signed the Manitoba Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement which is the first agreement to give immediate recognition to an existing Métis government, namely, the Manitoba Métis Federation, which is the existing democratically elected government of the Manitoba Métis – also known as the Red River Métis. This Agreement will be followed by a Treaty between the MMF and Canada and ensures that the MMF will continue to provide responsible and accountable self-government.

The MMF is the democratically elected government of the Red River Métis. The MMF is duly authorized by the Citizens of the Red River Métis for the purposes of dealing with their collective Métis rights, claims, and interests, including conducting consultations and negotiating accommodations (as per MMF Resolution No. 8). While the MMF was initially formed in 1967, its origins lie in the 18th century with the birth of the Red River Métis and in the legal and political structures that developed with it. Since the birth of the Métis people in the Red River Valley, the Red

River Métis asserted and exercised its inherent right of self-government. For the last 50 years, the MMF has represented the Red River Métis at the provincial and national levels.
During this same period, the MMF has built a sophisticated, democratic, and effective Métis governance structure that represents the Red River Métis internationally. The MMF was created to be the self-government representative of the Red River Métis—as reflected in the Preamble of the MMF’s Constitution (also known as the MMF Bylaws):
“WHEREAS, the Manitoba Métis Federation has been created to be the democratic and self-
governing representative body of the Manitoba Métis Community;”

In addition, the following is embedded within the MMF’s objectives, as set out in the MMF
Constitution as follows:

“1. To promote the history and culture of the Manitoba Métis, also known as the Red River Métis, and otherwise to promote the cultural pride of its Citizenship.
2.	To promote the education of its Citizens respecting their legal, political, social, and other rights.

3.	To promote the participation of its Citizens in community, municipal, provincial, federal, Aboriginal, and other organizations.
4.	To promote the political, social, and economic interests of its Citizens.

5.	To provide responsible and accountable governance on behalf of the Manitoba Métis, also known
as the Red River Métis, using the constitutional authorities delegated by its Citizens.”

The MMF is organized and operated based on centralized democratic principles, some key aspects of which are described below.

President: The President is the leader and spokesperson of the MMF. The President is elected in a national Election every four years and is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the MMF.
Cabinet: The MMF Cabinet leads, manages, and guides the policies, objectives, and strategic direction of the MMF and its subsidiaries. All 23 Cabinet Members are democratically elected by Red River Métis Citizens.

Regions: The MMF is organized into seven regional associations or "Regions" throughout the province (Figure 3): The Southeast Region, the Winnipeg Region, the Southwest Region, the Interlake Region, the Northwest Region, the Pas Region, and the Thompson Region. Each Region is administered by a Vice-President and two Regional Executive Officers, all of whom sit on the MMF Cabinet. Each Region has an office which delivers programs and services to their specific geographic area.

Locals: Within each Region are various area-specific "Locals" which are administered by a chairperson, a vice-chairperson, a secretary, and a treasurer (or a secretary-treasurer, as the case may be). Locals must have at least nine Citizens and meet at least four times a year to remain active. There are approximately 140 MMF Locals across Manitoba.

The MMF has created an effective governance structure to represent the Red River Métis. It is important to bear in mind that there is only one large, geographically dispersed, Red River Métis. Red River Métis Citizens live, work, and exercise their section 35 rights throughout and beyond the province of Manitoba.

Figure 2: Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) Regions.

MMF RESOLUTION NO. 8
Among its many responsibilities, the MMF is authorized to protect the Aboriginal rights, claims, and interests of the Red River Métis, including those related to harvesting, traditional culture, and economic development, among others.
In 2007, the MMF Annual General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution No. 8 that sets out the framework for engagement, consultation, and accommodation to be followed by Federal and Provincial governments, industry, and others when making decisions and developing plans and projects that may impact the Red River Métis. Under MMF Resolution No. 8, direction has been

provided by the Red River Métis for the MMF Home Office to take the lead and be the main contact on all consultation undertaken with the Red River Métis. Resolution No. 8 reads, in part that:
…this assembly continue[s] to give the direction to the Provincial Home Office to take the lead and be the main contact on all consultations affecting the Métis community and to work closely with the Regions and Locals to ensure governments and industry abide by environmental and constitutional obligations to the Métis…
The MMF Home Office works closely with the Regions and Locals to ensure the rights, interests, and perspective of the Red River Métis are effectively represented in matters related to consultation and accommodation.
Resolution No. 8 has five phases:

Phase 1: Notice and Response Phase 2: Funding and Capacity
Phase 3: Engagement or Consultation Phase 4: Partnership and Accommodation Phase 5: Implementation
Each phase is an integral part of the Resolution No. 8 framework and proceeds logically through the stages of consultation.

RED RIVER MÉTIS RIGHTS, CLAIMS, AND INTERESTS
The Red River Métis possess Aboriginal rights, including pre-existing Aboriginal collective rights and interests in lands recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, throughout Manitoba. The Manitoba court recognized these pre-existing, collectively held Métis rights in R. v.
Goodon (at paras. 58; 72):

I conclude that there remains a contemporary community in southwest Manitoba that continues many of the traditional practices and customs of the Métis people. I have determined that the rights- bearing community is an area of southwestern Manitoba that includes the City of Winnipeg south to the U.S. border and west to the Saskatchewan border.
As affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, such rights are “recognize[d] as part of the special aboriginal relationship to the land” (R. v. Powley, 2003 SCC 43, at para. 50) and are grounded on a “communal Aboriginal interest in the land that is integral to the nature of the Métis distinctive community and their relationship to the land” (MMF v. Canada, at para. 5). Importantly, courts have also recognized that Métis harvesting rights may not be limited to Unoccupied Crown Lands (R. v. Kelley, 2007 ABQB 41, para. 65).

Figure 3: MMF-Manitoba Harvesting Agreement Recognized Manitoba Métis Harvesting Zones.

The Crown, as represented by the Manitoba government, has recognized some aspects of the Red River Métis’ harvesting rights through a negotiated agreement: The MMF-Manitoba Points of Agreement on Métis Harvesting (2012) (the MMF-Manitoba Harvesting Agreement). This Agreement was signed at the MMF’s 44th Annual General Assembly and “recognizes that collectively-held Métis Harvesting Rights, within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982, exist within the [Recognized Métis Harvesting Zone], and that these rights may be exercised by Red River Métis Rights Holders consistent with Métis customs, practices and traditions…” (MMF- Manitoba Harvesting Agreement, section 1). In particular, the MMF-Manitoba Harvesting Agreement recognizes that Métis rights include “hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering for food and domestic use, including for social and ceremonial purposes and for greater certainty, Métis

harvesting includes the harvest of timber for domestic purposes” throughout an area spanning approximately 169,584 km² (the “Métis Recognized Harvesting Area”) (MMF-Manitoba Harvesting Agreement, section 2; Figure 4). The MMF further asserts rights and interests exist beyond this area, which require consultation and accommodation as well.
Beyond those rights already established through litigation and recognized by agreements, the Red River Métis claims commercial and trade-related rights. Courts have noted that Métis claims to commercial rights remain outstanding (R. v. Kelley at para. 65). These claims are strong and well- founded in the historical record and the customs, practices, and traditions of the Red River Métis, and it is incumbent on the Crown and Proponents to take them seriously.

As noted above, the Red River Métis has its roots in the western fur trade (R. v. Blais, 2003 SCC 44 at para. 9 [Blais]; R. v. Goodon at para. 25). The Red River Métis are descendants of early unions between Aboriginal women and European traders (MMF v. Canada at para. 21). As a distinct Métis culture developed, the Métis took up trade as a key aspect of their way of life (R. v. Powley at para.
10). Many Métis became independent traders, acting as middlemen between First Nations and Europeans (R. v. Goodon at para. 30). Others ensured their subsistence and prosperity by trading resources they themselves hunted and gathered (R. v. Goodon at para. 31, 33, & 71). By the mid-19th century, the Red River Métis had developed the collective feeling that “the soil, the trade and the Government of the country [were] their birth rights.” (R. v. Goodon at para. 69(f)). Commerce and trade are, and always have been, integral to the distinctive culture of the Red River Métis. Today, the Red River Métis have an Aboriginal, constitutionally protected right to continue this trading tradition in modern ways to ensure that their distinct community will not only survive, but also flourish.
Unlike First Nations in Manitoba, whose commercial rights were converted and modified by treaties and the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (NRTA) (R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 SCR 901), the Métis’ pre-existing customs, practices, and traditions—including as they relate to commerce and trade—were not affected by the NRTA (R. v. Blais) and continue to exist and be protected as Aboriginal rights. First Nations’ treaty rights in Manitoba are, for example, inherently limited by the Crown’s power to take up lands (Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3 SCR 388 at para 56). Métis rights, in contrast, are not tempered by the “taking up” clauses found in historic treaties with First Nations. Métis rights must be respected as they are, distinct from First Nations’ rights and unmodified by legislation or agreements.
In addition to the abovementioned rights to land use that preserve the Métis culture and way of life, the Red River Métis have other outstanding land related claims and interests with respect to lands. These include claims related to the federal Crown’s constitutional promise to all Aboriginal peoples, including the Red River Métis, as set out in the Order of Her Majesty in Council Admitting Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory into the Union (the “1870 Order”) which provides that, upon the transference of the territories in question to the Canadian Government, the claims of the Indian tribes to compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement will be considered and settled in conformity with the equitable principles which have uniformly governed the British Crown in its dealings with the aborigines.

The manner in which the federal Crown implemented this constitutional promise owing to the Red River Métis—through the Dominion Lands Act and the resulting Métis scrip system—effectively

defeated the purpose of the commitment. Accordingly, the MMF claims these federal Crown actions constituted a breach of the honor of the Crown, which demand negotiations and just settlement outside of the ‘old postage stamp province’ within Manitoba as well.
The MMF also claims that the Dominion Lands Act and the resulting Métis scrip system were incapable of extinguishing collectively held Métis title in specific locations where the Red River Métis are able to meet the legal test for Aboriginal title as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. These areas in the province, which the Red River Métis exclusively occupied—as an Indigenous people— prior to the assertion of sovereignty, establish a pre-existing Métis ownership interest in these
lands.

The Red River Métis also have an outstanding legal claim within what was the ‘old postage stamp province’ of Manitoba relating to the 1.4 million acres of land promised to the children of the Métis living in the Red River Valley, as enshrined in section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 (MMF v. Canada at para 154).
This land promised was a nation-building, constitutional compact that was meant to secure a “lasting place in the new province [of Manitoba]” for future generations of the Métis people (MMF v. Canada at para 5). This “lasting place” was to have been achieved by providing the Red River Métis a “head start” in securing lands in the heart of the new province (MMF v. Canada at paras 5-6).
Instead, the federal Crown was not diligent in its implementation of section 31, which effectively defeated the purpose of the constitutional compact.
In March 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the federal Crown failed to diligently and purposefully implement the Métis land grand provision set out in section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 (MMF v. Canada at para 154). This constituted a breach of the honor of the Crown. In arriving at this legal conclusion, the Court wrote:
“What is at issue is a constitutional grievance going back almost a century and a half. So long as the issue remains outstanding, the goal of reconciliation and constitutional harmony, recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and underlying section 31 of the Manitoba Act, remains unachieved. The ongoing rift in the national fabric that section 31 was adopted to cure remains unremedied. The unfinished business of reconciliation of the Métis people with Canadian sovereignty is a matter of national and constitutional import (MMF v. Canada at para 140).”
This constitutional breach is an outstanding Métis claim flowing from a judicially recognized common law obligation which burdens the federal Crown (MMF v. Canada at paras 156; 212). It can only be resolved through good faith negotiations and a just settlement with the MMF (see for example: R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075 at paras 51–53; R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507 at paras 229, 253; Haida at para 20; Carrier Sekani at para 32). Lands both within the ‘old postage stamp province’ as well as in other parts of Manitoba—since little Crown lands remain within the ‘old postage stamp province’—may need to be considered as part of any future negotiations and settlement in fulfillment of the promise of 1.4 million acres, together with appropriate compensation.

On November 15, 2016, the MMF and Canada concluded a Framework Agreement for Advancing Reconciliation (the “Framework Agreement”). The Framework Agreement established a negotiation process aimed, among other things, at finding a shared solution regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in MMF v. Canada and advancing the process of reconciliation between the Crown and the Red River Métis. It provides for negotiations on various topics including, but not limited to, the “quantum, selection and management of potential settlement lands.” Negotiations under the Framework Agreement are active and ongoing.
On July 6, 2021, the Manitoba Métis Federation and Canada signed the Manitoba Métis Self Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement. The Agreement signed by Minister Carolyn Bennett and Manitoba Métis Federation President David Chartrand is Canada’s first Métis self- government agreement that gives immediate recognition to an existing Métis government. In doing so, the agreement recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the national government of the Red River Métis and the only federally recognized Métis government.

ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ISSUES RELATED TO INFORMATION ACCESS AND APPLICATION
3.1.1	SUMMARY
MMF information requests face a broad array of Government of Canada (GOC) departmental practices that delay access to information or block it, often in error. These practices undermine the economy of MMF by delaying or preventing natural resource and social services projects from being undertaken, and critically important legal issues, such as land claims, from being resolved. As MMF migrates towards definition and ratification of a Treaty, failing to address these issues will accentuate these debilitating impacts on MMF Citizens, villages and settlements, and the environment.

3.1.2	DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES
On virtually every initiative to collect information, MMF personnel have been confronted with barriers to access that delay applying the information for the intended purpose. At the outset the process is very demanding because of the number of government departments and agencies holding the information and a lack of transparency of the contents of the holdings. Delays are often encountered because of delivery date extensions, interdepartmental consultations, exemptions, or exclusions. Once received, the information is frequently in an unusable state: information/data has been removed, and/or heavily redacted. In some cases, organizations do not provide the digital record, including the databases in their original machine-readable and searchable format. In other cases, the information received is incorrect or applies to First Nations or Inuit initiatives not Red River Métis ones. These factors individually, or in conjunction, undermine the use of the information received, or make it exceedingly difficult to do so.

The medley of delays generates negative community, individual, social, and economic impacts. Natural resource and energy projects are delayed which may hold economic and other benefits for the Red River Métis; establishment and expansion of social and health services is handicapped; land claims and the re-establishment of cultural roots are delayed and, in some cases, denied. The Access to Information business model and processes are not designed to efficiently respond to the multi-faceted nature of projects and their implementation hurdles. Perhaps more concerning, the model fails to consider how best to coordinate efforts with Indigenous governments such as the Manitoba Métis Federation in order to share information applicable to both governments.
This became apparent following the release of Budget 2021. “Supporting Métis Nation Priorities” “The signing of the Canada-Métis Nation Accord in April 2017 effectively reset the relationship between Canada and the Métis Nation. Budget 2021 was intended to continue this progress by proposing investments in key Métis Nation priorities”. The Budget goes on to identify 15 areas for support: the Indigenous Community Infrastructure Fund, clean energy projects, disaster mitigation and adaptation initiatives, distinction-based mental health projects and other areas. The funding for most of these areas is limited to two to five years and in practice, while intended to address Métis Nation priorities, is actually limited to on-reserve populations and “Indigenous communities”. Those projects that are dependent on securing information via Access to Information may be at risk of losing access to funding because of delays in receiving information and missing cut-off dates for funding approvals. In other words, the Access to Information shortcomings, if not corrected, will undermine our capacity building goals identified in Budget 2021.
In the Manitoba Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement (2021) with Canada, the
“Access to information and privacy” section states:
“36. The parties may enter into agreements to address the collection, protection, retention, use,
disclosure, and confidentiality of personal, general, or other information.”
We believe this section requires Canada to develop specific measures and provide specific delegations of authority and enabling capacity to the MMF to address the ATI issues raised above.

3.1.3	RECOMMENDATIONS
To reduce the barriers to information access, the MMF proposes the following actions:
•	In relation to section 36 of the Manitoba Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement with Canada, the MMF seeks collaboration with Canada on addressing, mitigating, and resolving the Access to Information issues identified through a formal agreement-making process. We also seek a delegation of authority through such agreements to the MMF about access to any information that relates to the Red River Métis, and a comprehensive transfer of information Canada holds about the Red River Métis to the MMF in order that we may deliver on our responsibilities related to self-government and a future treaty with Canada.
Furthermore, to increase access to information efficiencies and economies, it is recommended that:
•	Canada develops government-wide standards and procedures to view information requests in a wholistic “project-based” way that is sensitive to individual, community, and governance realities and context of the Red River Métis, rather than in the current fragmented and disjointed way.

•	Canada provides funding to the MMF for human resource and information management/information technology for undertaking access to information initiatives.
•	Relax or abolish exclusions and exemptions that are not relevant to the MMF as a government; reduce consultation processes and enforce internal (i.e., within Canada’s government agencies) delivery timelines.
•	Create a process by which federal departments seeking same or similar information coordinate efforts to obtain the information. Similarly, that Canada creates a “one-window” process for the MMF to do so without being required to approach multiple departments and agencies for the same information.

ISSUES RELATED TO A DISTINCTIONS-BASED APPROACH TO INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
3.2.1	SUMMARY
Interactions with GOC ATI personnel have raised concerns about the training and educating of ATI personnel and their handling of some requests. This relates to incorrect recognition of the legal authorities of the MMF vs First Nations and Inuit governments and the effectiveness of controls to prevent the release of incorrect information and sending this information to the wrong government or private sector entities. As part of the ATI review, Canada needs to reassess its ATI staffing, training and information technology/ management capacities to address these issues and those identified in 3.1.

3.2.2	DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES
Often, proponents and the Crown use the term "Indigenous" as a blanket statement when referring to project engagement and/or consultation activities involving Métis and First Nations organizations. This is not acceptable as the Red River Métis hold the same Constitution Act 1982 Section 35 Aboriginal rights as First Nations and Inuit peoples and should be recognized as a distinct people and not in a pan-indigenous manner. For this reason, the MMF advocates for a distinctions-based approach to every project or legislation which impacts our rights, interests, and claims. A distinctions-based approach requires that the Red River Métis be equally and appropriately represented in Access to Information requests and during project engagement and consultations, project implementation and operation. Such an approach is entirely consistent with Canada’s Principles Respecting the Government of Canada's Relationship with Indigenous Peoples.

From a privacy perspective, it is important that personnel handling Access to Information requests are well trained in access standards, and experienced in distinguishing between Métis, First Nation, and Inuit organizations, groups and governments. MMF personnel have encountered situations where requested information has gone to a First Nations box or elsewhere. This places personal and proprietary information at risk.
It is also important that ATI personnel stay current on the legislative authorities and the reason for the request(s) of their clients as this influences what information requests can be accepted and rejected. MMF

personnel have had situations where requests have been rejected because the AIT personnel were unaware of MMF’s legal status. On the planning and early development of the Lynn Lake Gold mine – Alamos Gold project, the MMF requests for information were ignored because of the perception that the Métis population in the area was small and would not be significantly impacted by the project. The reviewers failed to recognize the historic Harvester component -- farming, fishing, hunting and related livelihoods --) of the Métis population in the Region over the past centuries, and how they would be impacted by the project, and the decentralized nature of the affected Red River Métis community who may live in one place but legitimately exercise their harvesting rights in another.
For illustrative purposes, on July 6, 2021, MMF signed the Manitoba Métis-Self Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement with Canada. This agreement provided immediate recognition of the MMF as the democratically elected Métis Government. The purpose of this Agreement is to recognize, support, and advance the exercise of the Manitoba Métis’ right to self-determination, and its inherent right to self- government. ATI personnel should be informed of this status change as soon as possible.
This achievement is a first step toward the drafting of a Treaty and the introduction of Implementation Legislation. This legislation is expected to include a clause stating that the MMF is an "aboriginal government" within the meaning of paragraph 13(1)(e) and subsection 13(3) of the Access to Information Act, RSC 1985, c. A- 1, and paragraph 8(2)(k) and subsection 8(7) of the Privacy Act, R.S.

3.2.3	RECOMMENDATIONS
•	It is recommended that GOC ATI personnel receive training on i) distinctions-based approaches for handling information requests from Métis, First Nations, and Inuit governments; ii) determining the legal status and rights of those making such requests, and how this effects GOC’s response to them.
•	It is recommended that GOC investigate and develop effective information management methodologies and information risk management approaches specific to the Red River Métis, in consultation and collaboration with the MMF.

ISSUES RELATED TO MANAGEMENT AND DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL AND CENSUS INFORMATION
3.3.1	SUMMARY
Accurate personal information plays a pivotal role in addressing areas such as: registration under the Indian Act; locating children in government care; locating and re-establishing contact with those taken in the 60s Scoop or who have survived the legacy of residential schools; addressing Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations; collective claims; and protecting Red River Métis rights and interests in relation to infrastructure developments. Clauses in Section 8 of the Privacy Act, while well intended, have been interpreted as allowing the disclosure of this information to organizations outside of the MMF without MMF or Citizen approval. This places the identity of Citizens at risk of being stolen, manipulated or misused.

3.3.2	DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES
The GOC compiles the personal information of Canadian citizens from a variety of sources for the delivery of numerous ongoing social programs and special relief programming for example COVID 19. Section 8 of
the Privacy Act sets out the circumstances in which a federal institution is authorized to disclose personal information without the individual’s consent, where there is no other Act of Parliament that provides otherwise. Some provisions of section 8 authorize a federal institution to disclose personal information to particular Indigenous bodies in certain circumstances. Allowing government institutions to disclose Red River Métis citizen and community related personal information to other Indigenous groups is not acceptable to the MMF. We have significant concerns that if non-Red River Métis individuals access personal, community and historical information, that the authentic Red River Métis/MMF story will be distorted and compromised as others who are not as well-informed or legitimate sources are empowered to distort or omit aspects of it through illegitimate access to our information.
We wish to elaborate further on the mechanisms within the Act that allow and perpetuate this situation. Subsection 8(2) of the Act allows personal information to be disclosed pursuant to an authority set out in another federal Act or regulation. This could allow, for example, the government to establish a specific framework governing the disclosure of personal information to Indigenous populations and groups. When Parliament adopted the Act, it recognized that Indigenous governments and groups would likely need access to personal information in order to advance historical claims and grievances. To this end, it adopted paragraph 8(2)(k), which authorizes government institutions to disclose personal information to any “aboriginal government, association of aboriginal people, Indian band, government institution or part thereof, or to any person acting on behalf of such government, association, band, institution or part thereof, for the purpose of researching or validating the claims, disputes or grievances of any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada”.
Disclosures under 8(2)(k) are not subject to other requirements, such as ensuring that the recipient is able to protect the personal information upon receipt. To support paragraph 8(2)(k), subparagraphs 8(6), 8(7) and 8(8) were included to provide definitions for the terms “Indian bands”, “aboriginal government” and “the council of the Westbank First Nation”.

It is the position of MMF that the historic and ongoing distribution of our personal information under Section 8 places our citizens at considerable risk. This includes identity theft and the ensuing impacts on individuals and potentially on MMF, provincial and GOC programs. In addition, these actions place the accuracy of Métis history and cultural evolution at risk through the potential erroneous or adverse revision of this information by individuals with competing interests. For example, this could negatively impact MMF collective claims and cause MMF oversight to be overlooked or ignored in the protection of our harvesting areas, development of natural resource and energy projects within our national homeland, and social programs.

Furthermore, Canada collects official census data about Métis people. The basis for identifying as Métis in the census includes an option for self-identification. Canada then makes this data available to the public and other levels of government and federal government departments who base a range of decisions and plans on the information including such matters as whether consultation with us is required, what programs and services we qualify for, or what levels of funding we receive. For example:
•	Funding allocations based on census data, such as social transfer payments to Manitoba for programs such a health programming or education often include the Métis when federally funded but exclude the Métis when provincially implemented.
•	During the COVID-19 pandemic, Canada prioritized vaccines for Indigenous people but Manitoba only recognized the First Nations and the Inuit as being priority and based the eligibility on census data. This is due to the policies of the federal/provincial First Nations Inuit Health Branch.

This is unacceptable- the MMF has rigorous standards by which Métis identity is determined and verified, and Canada and those receiving federal funding must abide by these standards across all programs and services, including those related to ATI and the collection of data on and about the Red River Métis.

3.3.3	RECOMMENDATIONS
In alignment with the Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples, in particular Principle 1 relating to self-determination and the right of self-government, it is recommended that:

•	The Department of Justice Canada and Treasury Board reassess personal information management and distribution in the light of the risks presented above by Section 8 and other legislation that may override distribution controls identified in amendments to the Privacy Act and ATI Act.
•	That serious consideration be given to responding to self-government enactment by allocating authority to MMF to oversee the management and distribution of Red River Métis citizen personal information.
•	That Canada fund and otherwise support an MMF-led program for Red River Métis citizens to access personal and other relevant information held by Canada.
•	To improve the quality of personal information in the Census, a review be undertaken to identify better ways of giving personal information context to better inform its use in collective claims and infrastructure projects.
•	To remove self-identification in federal census survey instruments, reporting, and records, as a means for individuals to identify as Métis. Individuals identifying as Red River Métis must be registered as such and be able to verify their identity by means established by the MMF.
•	That Canada enables and empower the MMF to undertake regular census of Red River Métis citizens, and hold and protect access to such information, in cooperation with Canada where applicable.

CONCLUSION AND REQUESTED NEXT STEPS
We have provided relevant background to Treasury about the MMF and the Red River Métis governance, history, identity, protocols and procedures, and rights, claims and interests in this report. Through our preliminary review of the Access to Information (ATI) Act and related documents developed by Treasury in its modernization of the Act initiative, we have identified three overarching issues related to shortcomings of the current Act and its implementation:
•	Issues Related to Information Access and Application

•	Issues related to a Distinctions-based approach to Information Management

•	Issues related to Management and Disclosure of Personal and Census information

As part of review of these issues, we have identified a range of actions we require of Canada to improve the ATI Act, many of which are clearly tied to our recent self-government agreement with Canada and the related modern treaty Canada is currently negotiating with the MMF. It is incumbent on Canada and Treasury as the

lead agency to address these shortcomings. As a defined next step, we call upon senior Treasury representatives to meet with us to discuss these issues and the means by which they may be remedied, and the means by which consistency on these matters will be maintained between our self-government agreement, future treaty, and Canada’s commitments with respect to the Red River Métis as one of its distinct indigenous peoples.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2022, ATI Review – Interim What We Heard Report, (full date 2022-01-17)
Department of Justice Canada, Privacy Act Modernization: Report on Engagement with Indigenous Partners, What We Have Learned (so far) and Next Steps, Spring 2020 to Spring 2021
Access to Information Act, (R.S.C. (Revised Statutes of Canada), 1985, c. A-1) Privacy Acy (R.S.C. (Revised Statutes of Canada), 1985, c. P-21
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Manitoba Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement, July 6, 2021
Department of Justice, 2018, Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous
Peoples
Department of Finance Canada, Budget 2021, A Recovery Plan for Jobs, Growth, and Resilience, Supporting Métis Nation Priorities, 2021
Manitoba Métis Federation web site, Engagement and Consultation, Resolution No. 8 Framework
First Nations Information Governance Centre, Discussion Paper, Exploration of the Impacts of Canada’s Information
Management Regime on First Nations Data Sovereignty, 2022,