05/18/2026
Who Is Canada Really Helping Us Make Treaty With?
Canada has a duty to act honourably when it deals with Indigenous peoples.
That means treaty discussions should not be shaped by convenience, control, or whoever Ottawa finds easiest to work with. They should be shaped by the people. By citizens. By communities. By land users. By harvesters. By Elders. By the elected bodies that are supposed to carry the will of the Nation.
But when we look at what has happened with MN–S, citizens are allowed to ask whether Canada is helping us exercise self-government — or quietly shaping the conditions under which our self-government is allowed to exist.
Richard Quintal did not arrive at MN–S in an ordinary way. Public MN–S records show that during a period of serious financial and governance instability, Ernst & Young was involved, INAC was involved, and Richard Quintal, then connected to the Government of Canada, was brought into MN–S on an interchange arrangement as an interim in-office lead. What was temporary did not stay temporary. He remained for years, eventually becoming CEO and Clerk — one office sitting very close to administration, legislative process, records, staff, meetings, communications, and power.
That history matters.
Because if Canada was involved in the restructuring of MN–S at a moment when our Nation was vulnerable, then citizens have the right to ask what kind of structure was built — and whose interests it ultimately served.
Now we are told Richard Quintal is “transitioning.”
Not being publicly held accountable. Not being clearly removed for cause. Not being openly reviewed through the same standard applied to elected women and citizens. Transitioning.
That word does a lot of work.
It softens the moment. It protects the narrative. It tells citizens not to worry because treaty talks, projects, programs, and services will continue. It gives the appearance of stability while avoiding the harder question: what exactly is being stabilized?
The people?
The Constitution?
The Nation?
Or the system that protected itself?
Citizens have heard concerns about a monetary settlement involving the CEO. They have heard questions about whether just cause was ever seriously considered. They have heard allegations about conduct that, if done by others, would likely have triggered serious consequences. Elected women were restricted. Citizens were banned. Critics were threatened with legal letters. Yet the CEO was given kind words, a managed exit, and the language of transition.
That is where people start making connections.
Not because they are being told what to think.
Because the pieces are sitting in front of them.
And now Matt Vermette, who was COO, is Acting CEO. At the same time, he is listed by the Government of Canada as a member of the Major Projects Office Indigenous Advisory Council — a federal table tied to pipelines, mining, critical minerals, energy, infrastructure, and Canada’s fast-moving development agenda. Canada says that council will help guide major projects and create opportunities through Indigenous participation.
Again, citizens are allowed to ask:
Who gave the mandate?
Was the MNLA asked to set the position? Were locals and regions asked what they wanted said at that table? Were harvesters asked what must be protected? Were First Nations partners included so Canada does not divide us into separate consultation boxes? Were citizens told how conflicts would be disclosed and managed?
This is not a small issue.
Canada wants major projects approved. Industry wants access. MN–S citizens need protection. Those are not always the same interests.
And when citizens are already asking questions about Northern Research Group, SMEDCO, invoices, contracts, board roles, compensation, and possible conflicts of interest, then Vermette’s connection to federally driven project work becomes even more serious. Public records confirm that SMEDCO partnered with Northern Research Group in 2020, and that Matt Vermette was identified as CEO of Northern Research Group before becoming MN–S COO in 2021.
If everything is clean, disclose it.
If there are no conflicts, show the declarations.
If there are no continuing financial interests, say so clearly.
If contracts, invoices, company transfers, board roles, or benefits exist, explain them.
A Nation cannot enter treaty talks, resource discussions, or federal major-project tables while citizens are left guessing who speaks for them, who benefits, and what mandate is being carried.
That is dangerous.
Not because one person sits at a table.
Because the people may not know what is being said there — or by whom — until after the path has already been chosen.
Canada has always preferred Indigenous representatives it can work with.
The real question is whether those representatives are carrying the will of the people, or whether the people are being asked to trust a process they did not shape.
Treaty should never be something Canada helps manage around us.
Treaty must be something the people direct.
Representation without disclosure is not trust.
And a seat at Canada’s table means very little if the people were never asked what should be said, who should say it, and what mandate they carry.
