Evidence of meeting #2 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was system.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
John Paul Executive Director, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs
Yes, a very brief comment.
I haven't created any specific comments, but I know the work that we've done with the communities themselves and the leadership over the last six years in developing these recommendations that are reflected in the bill. I can tell you for a fact that as soon as this bill is adopted into law many of our communities will move to this process immediately.
I have been in discussions with all our communities in Atlantic Canada that are under both custom and the Indian Act system. All of them have told me this is a good thing. It will help us create our future prosperity and move towards economic sustainability of our communities and improve the lives of our people in the community.
It's funny because in the discussions that we did hold in the communities about the election process in all our communities—and we used SurveyMonkey to get surveys from everybody and anybody who wanted to comment on what we were doing—it was interesting that many people saw what we were trying to do not as something that was from the leadership, but something that they believed fundamentally had to change. They articulated that to us again and again and again, whether it was the electoral officer, whether it was the councils, whether it was the band managers, whether it was whomever. They articulated the need for this.
They also indicated how this would create fundamental change in the community. Really at the heart of the matter of this legislation is creating change, improving governance. We've all seen the type of governance that occurs in Toronto. We don't want that. We want a system of governance that works for us and addresses all the needs of all our people in the community and outside the communities, to support all our membership in their endeavours, so that we ensure in all of our communities that we get the best leaders for the job that needs to be done. There's a lot of work that has to be done from now on and it's going to continue to increase.
The better the process, the better the leaders, the better the results we'll get in terms of improving the election process in our community. With that, thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Paul.
We'll turn now to Chief Evans for your submission.
Chief Ron Evans Chief, Norway House Cree Nation
Mr. Chair, I want to acknowledge my colleagues who are here with me to present to the hon. members.
With all due respect to Mr. Bevington, I am the Chief of Norway House right now, although that says “Grand Chief”. I am no longer the Grand Chief, but I hope I can still garner his respect, as well as that of all the members, which is precisely why you should support this bill. That is the attitude out there when there is a change. That's not the position any longer.
I am very pleased to have been invited to testify to the House of Commons standing committee on aboriginal peoples to speak on this important bill before us, Bill C-9.
As the former Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the current Chief of Norway House Cree Nation, I am pleased to provide support for Bill C-9, the first nations elections act.
Although this bill does not directly affect my community of Norway House Cree Nation, as we have enacted a custom election code that already gives us four-year terms, this bill is important for those 37 first nations in Manitoba and the 240 first nations in total across Canada whose elections are governed by the Indian Act.
Years of hard work and commitment stand behind this bill. Bill C-9 will change the way first nations are governed, create stability, strengthen self-governance, and allow first nations to move forward.
I would like to thank the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for his position on it, and the departmental staff for their commitment to supporting this very important initiative, and hope that each of you, as our representatives in the House of Commons, sees the urgency and importance in supporting this bill.
I would also like to thank the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs for their partnership in undertaking the national engagement process in 2010. During my time in my former role as Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, we reached out, in collaboration, to first nations across Canada to discuss the groundbreaking work that both of our respective organizations had done to improve the electoral system for first nations whose elections are governed by the electoral provisions of the Indian Act.
The first nations elections act provides some constructive provisions that will strengthen the election process and governance of first nations, including a longer term of office, from two- to four-year terms; and a common election day where all first nations who opt in to the first nations elections act will eventually be elected on the same day. This type of general election adds a more robust and transparent nomination process for candidates, fair and sound penalties for offences, and most importantly, an independent process for the first nations elections act.
Let me just remind you of our history in Manitoba, when we had the framework agreement initiative, the FAI. Over $60 million to $100 million was spent over a 10-year period. At the end of 10 years, of those who had signed on, I believe there were only a handful of leaders when the FAI was concluded who had started out in the process, and therefore the new leadership was not aware of what the understanding and the direction was. As a result, the whole initiative failed, and that cost millions of dollars simply because of the high turnover of leadership.
The current Indian Act election system is not working. It is proven to be weak and creates instability for our communities and their economies. It has prevented first nations from moving forward on important projects and initiatives such as economic development, and on important infrastructure developments that are vital for communities, their well-being, and their quality of life.
With the current two-year term of office, our research and experience has shown that newly elected chiefs and their council members have little time to learn their responsibilities, build the necessary relationships, and develop or complete the necessary projects and initiatives before it's time for another election. In any given month, leadership in one or more of the band councils in each province is changing due to an election. Constant changes to band councils cause major disruption to the important plans and projects being worked on in the community, as I just finished describing. This political instability makes first nations very unattractive to long-term investment and economic development by both internal and external entities.
It is important to note that the vision of a four-year term of office, a central component of this initiative formerly known as the common election day initiative, is not a new concept.
This vision was first articulated by the leadership of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood in 1971, in Wahbung: Our Tomorrows, a document that has inspired our leadership ever since it was written because it strikes at the very heart of our sustainability and self-governance.
Wahbung is a visionary document that was created by the Indian tribes of Manitoba expressing the position and policies to achieve honourable and mutually satisfactory relationships between Canada and the Indian people of Manitoba. Wahbung is referenced by the leadership of today to guide us in the work we do and to respect the work of the past leadership.
In reference to governance it is stated in Wahbung that the method of elections must be left at the discretion of each community. It is recommended that the terms of office of elected chief and council be extended to four years. That's going back to 1971.
The ultimate goal of all first nations is to be self-sustaining and self-governing. Creating an electoral system that is accountable, transparent, and driven by first nations is essential in creating stability and credibility within first nations governments and will strengthen first nations governance in Canada. These changes will benefit all first nations, will improve and strengthen first nations governance, and will allow first nations to move forward in a positive and progressive manner.
In 2009, The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, as mandated by chiefs in assembly via resolution, researched and discussed changes to first nations' election systems with first nations leadership, technicians, and first nations people across Manitoba. I personally went and met with these communities, with the grassroots people themselves in those communities. This initiative was coined “the common election day initiative of electoral reform”. As part of this initiative, engagement sessions were held within the leadership and with community members of the 37 Manitoba first nations that hold their elections under the section 74 electoral provisions of the Indian Act.
The engagement sessions held were extremely significant, informative, important, and valuable as we gathered thoughts, comments, and recommendations on how to improve the election system for first nations governments. The input received from the community engagement sessions was carefully considered in crafting recommendations to then-Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, now Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, to develop an improved system for first nations elections.
The feedback we received from the communities supported the call for a common election day for first nations to opt in to the new legislation and a four-year term of office, along with an appeal and recall process.
This however, would not be mandatory. It would be the prerogative of each individual first nation to decide whether they want to opt in to the first nations elections act. With the support of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, departmental staff, and in partnership with the Atlantic Policy Congress, we were able to undertake a national engagement process in 2011, while I was in my former role as grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. This allowed us the opportunity to discuss with first nations in other regions across Canada the groundbreaking work that our organizations had done in collaboration to improve the electoral system for first nations currently under the Indian Act.
As part of this national engagement process I had the privilege of meeting with the first nations leadership across Canada, engaging them in discussions on how we could make this a reality together. We extended the opportunity for the leadership and the members who participated in the engagement sessions to provide their recommendations and feedback with respect to improving the electoral system for first nations.
Both the first nations leadership and members also shared with us their challenges stemming from the inefficiencies of section 74 provisions that have detrimental impacts on first nations people and communities.
The engagement sessions proved to be successful as we received positive and supportive feedback from the leadership in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario. The Atlantic Policy Congress engaged the eastern provinces and received the same positive feedback with consistent recommendations. We also used social media, urban forums, and our respective organizations' websites to ensure that individuals across the country had the opportunity to engage and provide feedback and recommendations no matter where they lived.
After this information was gathered and reported to the department, the next step was to work together with the department to craft the proposed legislation before you, which is Bill C-9.
This important, groundbreaking, and historic initiative has been many years in the making. A concept born in the 1970s is finally closer to reality thanks to the hard work and determination of the Manitoba first nations leadership, the Atlantic Policy Congress, and through the hands of now four ministers of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
I want to acknowledge and thank those former ministers, the Hon. Jim Prentice, the Hon. Chuck Strahl, and the Hon. John Duncan, and now the Hon. Bernard Valcourt, as well as the respective staff, each of whom deserve ample credit and thanks for their ongoing support and commitment and for their every effort in ensuring this initiative would one day become a reality and legislation.
Once again I would like to express my absolute support for Bill C-9. I hope that in this session of Parliament you as our representatives in the House of Commons as well as our representatives in the Senate understand the importance of this bill, and that you provide your support to ensure that first nations governance can be strengthened, and that you be part of making the positive and necessary legislative change that is supported by many first nations in this country.
Thank you, once again, for the invitation to participate in today's standing committee proceedings.
Ekosani.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Chief.
Chief Fontaine, we'll turn to you now for your opening statement.
Chief Donovan Fontaine Sagkeeng First Nation
Good afternoon, honourable members and colleague chiefs. Good afternoon everybody.
I'm here on short notice, so excuse my tardiness. I don't have a presentation that's formal, but I could submit one when I get back home.
I want to thank my colleague chief for having me as part of this, going back to 2009, and being here today. So thank you, Chief Evans.
I don't know where to begin because, as I said, this was a last-minute thing last night. So I'm going to speak off the cuff, and that's fine that it's on record.
Where do I begin? Our community had a referendum in 2009 on whether we should have an election code and whether it should be every four years. It was unanimous. Our community endorsed it and supported it. Over 80%, I do believe, supported a change to our two-year term. I also supported the resolutions at the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs level, which Chief Evans just spoke about, so there was a good consensus and a good group there.
That group is not there today, but the resolution is still there, and the mandate that the current grand chief has must respect those past resolutions. To say whether or not he's in favour of this is a moot point. He has to be driven by those resolutions.
Obviously we're here for Bill C-9. We're here because of the election system that we didn't create. I don't want to call it a mess, but I didn't create the system; I was elected into it. Our community signed a treaty in 1871. It was a hereditary chief, and then his son took over for another 27 years, so I don't know when the amendments were made. You have to excuse my chronology of events here, but there were amendments to the Indian Act, and then we had elections in the community. That's the system we have been under since.
I support this for the very reasons you heard my colleague talk about: stability and continuity in community, so you can advance community comprehensive planning and you can advance economic development. That's the primary reason I support that.
But the catch here—and I think it's a catch-22—is that if I support this, and if leadership supports and drives these initiatives, it's pretty quickly turned around by people saying we're self-serving, we're looking after ourselves, we want a four-year term, we want to be in office longer, and we want power longer. So we turn it and we give it back to the grassroots. We give it back to the people and say, “You develop the code; you develop the process”. More often than not, these things sit on the shelf. We had about three or four election codes, and they sat on a shelf for years. We got funding from the government to develop these, produce them, and take them to our community. They weren't perfect by any means. Neither is this bill. There is some good and there is some bad in here, but at least it's taken us out of the two-year system.
Can you imagine the U.S. government—Canada even—being in constant election mode every second year? I've watched the American channels. It's crazy. They are already talking about elections, the year right after the election. It's just crazy. In our communities where there are families, close ties, and factions in groups, I would say it's even more confrontational. There's bitterness. It's not healthy for communities to be in constant election mode every second year.
You want to talk about austerity budgets. You want to talk about tightening the belt. Every second year in our community is election year. What do you think our leadership's going to do? Will they say no to every request? They become more laissez-faire and more lax, and they say yes to requests. Otherwise they're out the door, right? That's not to take away from the good leadership that does say no and just drives the community economic development plan and gets elected based on its track record of success.
But there are some out there who can't do it, so they spend, and keep putting the community back to square one again the next year. It's just a vicious cycle. Here we are trying to administer poverty...administer social programs. For me to keep track of all these bills, I can't do it. I can't go to my community and consult on every bill. I was inundated with all these bills coming through from the government in the last three or four years. I can't take every bill to the community—the omnibus bill, this, that, the water bill, everything else. My hands are tied with administering the crumbs, so to speak.
I can't consult on every line here, and I can't read between the lines on everything, but I do know there are some good things in here. I like the recall mechanism. I think we do need a recall mechanism.
How do we handle this? For example, if you have a community of 300 people, 60% of them are one family. You're probably going to have that person from that family elected all the time, but that's no different from the government system. You've got your corporate people, that's a family; you've got your middle-class taxpayers, that's a family; and you've got your lower-end poor people, that's a family too. They're elected based on certain things, so you can't say the big families. There are corporate families in Canada and they drive the political agenda.
I don't know what the appeal mechanism would be, what the answer is, but I do know if there is room in here for communities to fine-tune it themselves, have a recall mechanism, perhaps have a review after two years, saying, “Here's the plan you were elected on, here's the community vision you said you were going to deliver”. Two years later we'll have a look at it and if they didn't deliver, sorry, they're out the door.
There has to be some kind of mechanism because the community can be handcuffed for four years with incompetent leadership. That's the danger I see. It puts the onus back on the electorate. You have to put good people in there. But then if you have big families putting the people in, you could say it's their own choice. They're living in the community.
So it fixes itself, in other words. We don't have to worry about how these people are elected as long as it's fair, it's democratic, and they respect Corbiere and Gull Bay. I'm okay with it.
Chief Evans talked about custom. That system is good as well. As I said, we had our hereditary chief. It's not to say that those systems weren't democratic in our communities. We had patriarchal, matriarchal societies throughout this land and those were really good democratic models. Women took a lead role in leadership. There were ways to whip your leadership into line, so to speak. I don't think it's any different from what we're proposing here.
To give a little historical context. I talked about imposition on all these amendments, where we had no say, or at least involvement, in drafting them. it goes back right to day one when we signed our treaties. We had trading posts in our community: Hudson's Bay, the North West, these people had a very strong influence on our community. Our people couldn't leave the reserve to make a living. You were bound and at the mercy of the trading companies. Fort Maurepas, Fort Alexander, Port at Morris, about four or five forts in our community controlled everything. On top of that we had the church: Anglican, Catholic, and again, controlling families, based on family names, and there were competitions. They also played roles in our leadership. They drove the agenda. If you weren't a churchgoing, devout Catholic they were going to support somebody else behind the scenes.
So there is always that outside influence in our community. This, again, I see as an imposition. However, is it better than what we have now? I would say so, based on having four years' stability, putting the onus back on the community to put good people in there.
So thank you all.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Chief.
We appreciate all the testimony we heard today. Obviously, your perspective is important to the committee.
We'll turn now to Ms. Duncan for the first five-minute round.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's nice to see everybody here again. Thank you very much for your testimony.
First of all, I would really like to thank the members, particularly of the APC, for the hard work you've done on behalf of all the first nations in Canada. When I was briefly aboriginal affairs critic, we heard from AFN about the hard work you're doing, and you're to be commended—especially for bending over backwards in your consultation, which doesn't always happen.
I heard you clearly: there seems to be strong support for being able to move to four-year elections. I think I'm understanding correctly from Chief Fontaine—he could correct me if I'm wrong—that the referendum was actually on switching from two to four. I don't know if there were other things in the referendum.
I'm going to throw out a couple of issues that have been raised to us with regard to the bill. I'd ask you what your comments might be and whether you have any concerns with those provisions.
I heard you very loud and clear on the desire to be in control of your own elections, with clear rules, not under the yoke of the Indian Act, and also that first nations would be able to opt in. Unfortunately, that's not what the legislation says. The legislation says that everybody is in unless the minister decides they're out. The discretion is still 100% in the power of the minister to decide if anybody can opt out and go and retain customary elections. That seems to be at odds with the UNDRIP, which of course provides that first nations should have the right to self-governance. I'd be curious to know whether you....
I know that Chief Fontaine was clear that he appreciates the switch to the four years, but he might have some issues with the way the legislation is refrained. Any feedback that you can give here potentially could be amendments to strengthen the bill in the direction that you want to go in.
Another issue that has been raised, certainly by the Lubicon First Nation in Alberta, is that there is a divide, of course, in that community. Some have said that they prefer the Indian Act—or at least the government has said go to the Indian Act—and others prefer the customary.
I am simply raising them as examples, because they aren't under treaty yet and they also don't have a first nation final agreement. There may be some first nations that are falling through the cracks. They don't come under the definition of a first nation in the Indian Act, and yet there's no allowance in here for an exemption.
My final question to you is whether you think it would be beneficial to have a provision in the statute that provides for the petitions. The only way under the law right now to contest an election is to go to court. The government has a discretion that they may enact regulations that would allow for petitions, but unless those regulations are enacted, you can't use the petitions.
I guess I'm also asking—it sounds like you're favourable to that kind of an option—if you think it might be useful to move that actually into the statute to set up that system for petitions, or maybe give each first nation the power to set up a system for petitions.
Those are the questions I would put to you. Again, I want to commend you for your hard work on behalf of your first nations and on this topic.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Ms. Duncan has set up an impossible task. She's asked more questions than there is time to answer.
I don't know how you want to respond.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Why don't you start, Mr. Paul, and then we'll have to move on to other questions. We have very tight timeframes here.
Executive Director, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs
I guess with the customary election, one of the things we learned when we talked to our communities is that the customary provision has been there for 15 years, since the last amendment of the Indian Act. We asked communities why they didn't do that. Many have attempted, like Chief Evans talked about, but for whatever reason the communities never got to the stage of actually implementing it in a lot of cases.
I don't know whether it was easier to do the fighting under the Indian Act system, because the Indian Act election process is very ruthless. It is not a nice process. It is not pretty, and it's very vicious in terms of how it gets played out in a community. It negatively impacts a lot of people in the community.
On the petition issue, one of the things that I thought was part of this is the whole idea that we talked about putting forward a recall mechanism. The recall mechanism would be at the two-year point. It would set aside a very specific process that would have to be done within a very specific time. Basically, if somebody were going totally off the rails, there would be a mechanism to get them out. You see chiefs go for 20 or 30 years as chiefs, and the ones that have gone through the two-year election cycle 10 or 20 times know exactly what they have to do all the time. They can't wait for two years to come up with a new vision. They have to stick with the original one they had and adapt as they go along with changes and growth in the community, because 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years ago community priorities and needs were different.
The enterprises of the communities are multi-million dollar operations now. They need critical expertise and a stable process to achieve their vision and their goals in the community.
I will leave it at that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you very much. I'll turn now to Mr. Hillyer for the next five minutes.
Conservative
Jim Hillyer Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome. I live near the Blood reserve, the largest reserve in Canada. I was recently adopted into the Blood reserve and part of the Blackfoot nation as an honorary member, so I'd like to say Oki-Napi on behalf of those people.
Before I get into my questions, since we don't have a lot of time and my colleague, Rob Clarke, has some burning questions, I'd like to defer to him. If there's any time after that, I'll ask some follow-up questions.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I'll only take a minute, Mr. Chair, to clarify a couple of things.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I'm just reading it here. I don't know what Ms. Duncan was talking about, but maybe I'm too naive. I'm reading here about the opt-in. It says:ADDING TO THE SCHEDULE 3. (1) The Minister may, by order, add the name of a First Nation to the schedule if (a) that First Nation’s council has provided to the Minister a resolution requesting that the First Nation be added to the schedule;
That's a band council resolution. That's a band requesting to opt in. If I'm ignorant about it, please forgive me. This is a first nations council request to come under the first nations election act by adopting a band council resolution. That's what it says. I don't like misrepresentations being made here.
The question I have, chiefs, if you can help me, is how many of you, as elected leaders, have observed corrupt elections? I've seen a lot of it myself, where chiefs and families are going around paying $50 to $100 to the family members to haul them all in and vote, or go out and get them liquored up to come in and vote. I've seen that dozens of times.
The one thing I also want to know—and this is the key point I'd like to maybe get some clarification on— is how do you find electoral officers? Do you think family members should be appointed by the candidates, or do you think it should be a separate autonomy?
Executive Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs
I'll respond to some of that. I'm 41 years old. I grew up in my community, and I've seen everything that you've just said. I'm the first chief in my community who has been elected and who does not own a store that sells beer and cigarettes. I'm the first chief who has been elected who is not in debt to anyone, nor is anyone in debt to me.
I've been an educator for 10 years. I've served my entire community in different occupations for my entire life. I believe that's the reason why I am sitting in this position, because I've earned it.
I ran a campaign that did not throw any alcohol parties. I've proved that can be done for the first time in my community. I've also proven that I can take on former chiefs who served multiple terms and not put them down. I ran a campaign on integrity. I sit here before you because of that, so I can definitely relate to what you're saying. This is the exact reason why I'm here.
I agree that it's not perfect legislation, but I think with the effort that everyone around this table and the leadership have put into it we can fix some of the inaccuracies, or anything that you may determine that we all can pick apart. It is fixable and doable.
It's long overdue. In 1971 I wasn't even on this planet yet. That's rather discouraging, but yet encouraging in the sense that we're finally here and I'm part of this to get it done.
Sagkeeng First Nation
Thank you for that. I don't know if that was a comment or a question, but I haven't in my short life observed any corruption in my community in any elections.
Recently we had an appeal in our community. If I could, I'd like to speak to the reasons for the appeal. One lady appealed based on the fact there were too many people in the room—scrutineers, people observing, the electoral officer. She said there were too many people and she wasn't comfortable.
Another lady appealed because there weren't enough people in the room. Where are the scrutineers? There aren't enough people there. These are very frivolous reasons.
I don't know about the general public, but I'm sure Canadians cast their ballots under the influence of alcohol. It's not just our communities.
Thank you.
Executive Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs
I have a final note, Mr. Chair.
With regard to the electoral officers that have been put in place—and I want to say this diplomatically—we've had other chiefs who have put in a family member or that sort of thing. In Listuguj, we have the electoral officer who conducts the municipal election in our neighbouring community of Pointe-à-la-Croix, a non-native community. This man comes in here and runs the election, and that's way more accountable. He has been at it 40 years.
Conservative
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I thank each one of you for what you've done to move this important issue forward. We know that things have to change. We know that what you've put forward is based on what you've heard from the grassroots, and that our job is to respond to that good piece of work.
Our job here is to take a good initiative and try to move it forward. We want to find out if there are a couple of things that could make it even better—that's what Parliament does.
Because there have been some concerns about the ministerial powers, I need to know if you would support a bill or an amendment that would take out the power of clauses 3(1)(b) and (c). Would you support it if that was amended to come out?
Second, as to your colleagues across the country, you've done a fantastic piece of work in Atlantic Canada and Manitoba, but I understand from the papers that the Library of Parliament has shared with us that the response from Ontario and Quebec was patchy or not really there.
Could you provide the committee with the kind of response you had and how many first nations actually responded? Our job is to do the due diligence for the people that you don't represent and haven't been in touch with. As we do our piece of work and try to get you the bill you want, we want to know if there's something Parliament can do to make it a little bit better.
Executive Director, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs
For the discussion, we split up the country, in terms of how we would carry it out. As Ron said, they did Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, and B.C. and presented it at the chiefs' assemblies, in a lot of cases, and other meetings with chiefs. They basically presented the proposal and asked for any feedback at the session or in writing. That included all the chiefs.
From my perspective, I did Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and Ontario. In the case of Quebec, we didn't actually present. We had somebody from Quebec present our material at the meeting. Then we communicated with all of them, asking if they supported the bill or if they had issues. We followed that up with phone calls to pretty well everybody in Quebec who got back to us. In Ontario, I myself presented at an all-chiefs forum in Toronto. I presented it to all the chiefs of Ontario.
I asked for questions and concerns and all those things. I'm sure it is recorded that I tabled the presentation in some meeting that occurred in Toronto. I asked for two things from them. First I asked if they would support us in this endeavour. Second I said, if they had any issues or concerns about the legislation, they should contact us; contact me directly or our leadership through the AFN.
We also used the AFN in this process, presenting at an AFN meeting as well. We actually presented at a forum that was conducted by the AFN in Montreal where both I and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs presented to the AFN assembly. We presented this exact same thing, in terms of, "Here is what we're doing; we're looking for your support, but if you have any issues or concerns about our work, tell us".
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Did what you presented include these extra powers to the minister?
Executive Director, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs
At that time it didn't; it was just based on our proposal.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Would you be able to support the bill without those extra powers to the minister?