Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2023

[Jason Batise]

Powley recognized a small community near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, of distinct Métis people. That's what it decided. It's near Sault Ste. Marie in a small place. It's not near Matachewan, because if they were there, we would have known them. It's the same way as if they were on Inuit lands; you would know it.

My father, who is an elder, cannot describe distinct Métis people, and Chief Fiddler.... Our communities are very remote. They're extremely remote. They're in remote northern Ontario, where you have to fly in 200 kilometres on an airplane. The Métis Nation of Ontario claims that as its land. Just look at the map. It doesn't lie. You can't get there but for an airplane. How did they historically occupy that place? How did they get there? They couldn't. It's absurd.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Lastly, I want to draw your attention to this. The royal commission on indigenous peoples brought about Powley. The Ontario government has stated that it recognized the Métis nation as indigenous peoples after it did research for 10 years. Powley was mentioned in the Supreme Court. Under this statement, it is said that it recognizes Métis nations as being indigenous.

How do you understand Powley?

[Jason Batise]

I understand that Powley is a small community of Métis people living near Sault Ste. Marie.

That's how I understand Powley.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

You have 10 more seconds.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

That's good, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay.

We're at the end of our time for witnesses.

Grand Chief Merrick, I apologize that we weren't able to engage you in the discussions. If there is anything from the conversation, please feel free to write your responses and give them to us. We obviously wanted to hear from you. It was just the audio that was the issue. Please feel free to give us your thoughts in writing.

Mr. Batise, thank you for joining us in person today.

Colleagues, just before we adjourn, I do have two very quick items that I need committee direction on.

The first item is that through the agreement we have, each group is allowed two witnesses. The Manitoba Métis Federation is scheduled to appear on Tuesday. They have asked to bring a third witness in person with them. They said this person would share the five-minute opening statement.

Our routine motion provides for only two witnesses. This is in part because of the financial impacts. We already have to go to the subcommittee of the Liaison Committee for justification of our budget, which is over what we normally get for a study. This would further increase that budget. It would also be inconsistent with other organizations, where we've limited them to two. Just given the nature of this study, where lots of people and lots of organizations would like to put forward their opinion, it would be inconsistent with the message we've given to other witnesses.

I would like to know from the committee if we should consider the request for a third or hold them at two, as we have other organizations. Is there any direction you would like to give on that?

Go ahead, Jaime, and then Jamie.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

We heard from chiefs today that they would have liked to bring more people, their elders, if they could have. I just think that if we've made the rules and we've stuck to them thus far, we should stick with consistency throughout the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Go ahead, Jamie.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I respect the sensitivity of this. I defer to Jaime and Lori on it.

Is the remote option a possibility, if we wanted to get into that? I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole, but that's definitely—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I asked that question. The issue is that, even with that, we have held others to two.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Okay.

Then I would defer to Lori and Jaime on the sensitivity of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Lori, go ahead and weigh in, or Marilène.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, I agree with what Mr. Battiste said. We can't change the rules halfway through because of fairness issues. As Mr. Schmale said, I certainly understand that lots of people would have liked to be here, so I think it would be best to keep it to two witnesses out of respect for all the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Lori.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm of a different view from Jaime. If we had been given more witnesses that the first nations chiefs had submitted, I would have been okay to have them appear.

We're being asked formally. In each session, we're usually good with three witnesses. If, on that day, we only have two anyway, then we would have time for the third.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Just to clarify, we do have more than the Manitoba Métis Federation.

That actually gets into my next question. We would have two organizations on that panel, and then two or three on the next one, with one individual for each. It would add up to probably four witnesses for that panel. It would be the Manitoba Métis Federation with two witnesses, and then the third one.

That's the issue. It's not that there would only be one panel with just the one organization and three witnesses.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Do you know how sometimes when one witness appears, they also have support staff? Is that what they're asking, to have support staff to help them answer questions?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

No. They have asked specifically for an elder to also join them, so it would be a different kind of perspective they would be bringing. That's the challenge. They have decided on the other two members who would come. It does put us in a bit of an inconsistent position with what we've communicated to other witnesses.

Madame Gill, go ahead.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Carr wanted to speak.

Obviously, it's the committee's decision, but if there were a lot of requests regarding elders, it would have to be the same for everyone and we would have to hear from each group.

I always keep a door open. I'm sure we still have time to do the study, but I wanted to mention that too.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Mr. Carr, go ahead.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, if we're going to talk about this any further, it may be advisable to do it in camera. Discussions of this nature that aren't in camera kind of fall out of the scope of regular discussions about committee business. If we haven't yet reached a conclusion in a moment or so, I suggest we go in camera for this.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's a fair comment.

The issue is that we are past our resources. To go in camera, we would need to send out new links, and that takes some time.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I see. Okay, I missed that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

You're right. It is a sensitive discussion. The second point related to Tuesday is also a sensitive one that probably would be done more appropriately in camera.

I think I've heard enough, and I'll take this.

The second question was about the composition of the panels for Tuesday, given the sensitivity. I'll work with our analyst team to resolve that, and we will get the notice of meeting out to you. That is what we'll do.

I wish everybody a great weekend. We'll see you next week.

The meeting is adjourned.