I just wanted to make sure that when we're talking about why we've consistently gone with the Assembly of First Nations, MNC, and ITK, there's a reason for that. It's because they have constitutional status and we know their definitions.
With the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, there is no real definition for whom they represent. We don't know who we're giving a seat to. In terms of the witness testimony that we heard, they said they represented non-status Indians in Canada. That could be just about anyone. Without further definition as to whom they represent, I feel that giving them a seat with the other constitutionally recognized groups is inconsistent.
I only brought up the gender balance and NWAC to explain why we supported the Native Women's Association of Canada's seat, but not the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, just because there are too many questions as to who they could represent. With that in mind, that's why we're opposing.