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.