Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 16 - Evidence - June 10, 2008
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues, invited guests, staff, support staff and members of the communications department.
This morning, we will have the benefit of a briefing from officials from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada on the subject of First Nations elections, specifically with regard to the tenure of office. Our presenters today are Brenda Kustra, Director General, Governance Branch, Lands and Trust Services; Nathalie Nepton, Director, Band Governance Directorate; and Marc Boivin, Manager, Governance Branch. We thank you all for coming this morning.
Section 78(1) of the Indian Act provides that "the chief and councillors of a band hold office for two years." Various groups and individuals have commented to us that terms are short, unworkable and prevent meaningful change from taking place. Witnesses, the committee would be interested in hearing your views on this subject, including your opinion on the optimum period that a chief and council should hold office.
Before beginning the testimony, I would like to introduce the members of the committee. On my left is Senator Lovelace Nicholas from the Province of New Brunswick. To my right is Senator Campbell from British Columbia. Next to him is Senator Peterson from Saskatchewan and beside him is Senator Gustafson, also from Saskatchewan.
Honourable senators, if you are ready, I will call on the witnesses to now proceed with their presentation, which will be followed by questions from the senators. Are you agreement with this, Ms. Kustra?
[Translation]
Brenda Kustra, Director General, Governance Branch, Lands and Trust Services, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Yes, Mr. Chair.
We are pleased to be here today to make a presentation on the topic of First Nations elections in Canada.
[English]
Before addressing the specific questions which the chair has raised, I would like to set the context for leadership selection by taking you through a brief presentation.
There are three ways in which First Nations communities select their leaders. Leaders can be selected pursuant to the provisions of self-government agreements, which are negotiated between the parties. Twenty-nine First Nations in Canada are subject to provisions of self-government agreements. Communities also elect their leaders through the provisions of the Indian Act. As of today, there are 252 First Nations that select their leaders in this fashion. The third way is through community custom. In this category are 334 First Nations. You see that the majority of First Nations select their leaders through a local or community custom.
Of the 29 First Nations that select their leaders through self-government agreements, 10 of those nations are included in the Cree Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, 11 in the Yukon self-government agreement, four in the Nisga'a agreement and four in the Tlicho agreement. In these situations, the Department of Indian Affairs is not in any way involved in the leadership selection process.
When a self-government agreement is being negotiated, there are two minimum requirements that a First Nation must meet. First, they must adopt a constitution which is compliant with the Charter. That constitution includes the provisions for selection of leaders. Second, the constitution must set out a clear and transparent process for leadership selection.
I will discuss elections under the Indian Act. Under section 74 of the Indian Act, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may declare by order that a First Nation hold elections under the Act and subject to the Indian Band Election Regulations.
The office of chief or councillor can become vacant under this system when a person who holds that office is convicted of an indictable offence, dies or resigns. In that case, by-elections are occasionally held in communities. In this situation, chief and council hold office for two year terms. The role of INAC in elections conducted under section 74 includes providing training and support to the electoral officers. Due to the fact that we are working on a two-year term, approximately 50 per cent of the 252 First Nations hold elections each year; that is roughly 126 per year.
Under the Indian Act election system, election appeals are received, reviewed and, if necessary, investigated and decided upon by the department and the minister. If it is determined that there has been a corrupt practice in connection with the election or a violation of any of the other provisions of the Indian Act or the Indian Band Election Regulations, the minister has a duty to report these infractions to the Governor-in-Council. Only the Governor-in- Council has the power to set aside an election.
Normally, an election process takes 79 days to allow for an adequate notice period for the nomination meeting, particularly as it relates to providing notice to off-reserve members, and to provide adequate time for completion and return of mail-in ballots. If, however, an election is set aside in its entirety, we move to an accelerated election process which is conducted in 3 days from start to finish.
The Indian Act election system also provides for election appeals. One-third of all elections are usually subject to election appeal. However, in the most recent four-year period, only four of these election appeals have resulted in a set- aside by the Governor-in-Council. All of the other election appeals were dismissed. This basically means that there were only sufficient grounds to ask the Governor-in-Council to set aside four elections in the last two-year period because of substantial infractions to the Indian Act and the regulations.
Another interesting feature of elections held under the Indian Act is that residency provisions of the regulations are being struck down by the courts. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Corbière decision struck down a section of the Indian Act that required that voters must be resident on reserve in order to cast a ballot. Most recently, in August, 2007, in the Gull Bay or Esquega decision, the courts are moving to strike down the provisions of the Indian Act that indicate that, in order to run for office for an elected position such as a councillor, you must reside on reserve. We have had two provisions with respect to residency struck down in the past number of years. Elections under the Indian Act are also subject to fraud and abuse associated with the mail-in ballot system.
As was referenced by the chair of this committee this morning, we have heard from many leaders that the two-year term of office is too short, and leaders have insufficient time to learn their jobs, exercise their duties and implement development plans in their communities.
Throughout our years of managing the election system under the Indian Act, we have also identified a number of other provisions that are either weak or need to be addressed and brought into a modern government framework.
The Indian Act also has provisions for First Nations to be removed from the Indian Act and to begin to elect their leaders under what we call a "community custom" scenario. We do have a conversion to community custom election system policy, which requires that election codes that First Nations develop are compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are approved by a majority of the membership. If these two criteria are met, the minister may make a ministerial order to move the nation from underneath the provisions of the Indian Act into a separate election system called a community custom election. In a situation where a community moves to a custom code, there is no role for the department or the minister to review election appeals.
Communities operating in a community selection system or custom code have designed election systems to meet the needs of their communities. Many of these codes substantially mirror the terms and conditions of the Indian Act, with the exception of the term of office. Many of these codes have changed the term of office from the two years under the Indian Act to either a three- or four-year term.
There are also approximately 10 to 15 communities in Canada that select their leaders through a hereditary or clan system. This is usually a system which is an oral tradition in the community and has absolutely no involvement from the Department of Indian Affairs or the ministry. These communities are continuing to practise their leadership selection systems based on their hereditary traditions.
With respect to the appeal system for communities operating under community custom, it is normally an internal dispute resolution process or an appeal through the courts. Again, there is no role for the minister or the Department of Indian Affairs in the appeal process.
A number of issues come to mind when we think about the community leadership selection system. First and foremost, many of these election systems are not written or codified, particularly for those communities that have never been under the Indian Act. Some community election codes are in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the courts continue to make rulings, the existing community leadership selection codes will continue to potentially be in breach of those rulings.
Some of the codes lack effective dispute resolution mechanisms. There are also large procedural gaps in some of the systems. All of these things lead us to situations where there are governance disputes in communities. Whether they are in communities where leaders are elected under the Indian Act or under community custom or in communities under self-government, we end up in situations where we have a lack of governance in the community, and where we have disputing councils. Often when we have disputing councils, the business of a First Nation grinds to a halt. Occasionally, the department will be called upon to put in a third party manager, which is an external party, to manage the affairs of the community during an election dispute. There is often substantial court action that takes place between the different parties to the action. Occasionally, there is violence in the community.
Given the scenarios that I have just painted, we have a number of partners who have come forward and sought an opportunity to work collaboratively with us to look at changes to the leadership selection provisions of the Indian Act. We are currently working with the Assembly of First Nations to examine and develop sustainable solutions to some of the issues that I have spoken about on leadership selection. A discussion paper has been prepared. AFN is considering the best way to engage their people across the country, and we hope to continue that work.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has also expressed a specific interest in exploring two provisions of the leadership selection process. The first is the term of office; they want to look at changing it from two to three years. They have also expressed an interest in defining a common election day for all First Nations in Manitoba.
In Manitoba, we have a combination of nations that operate under the Indian Act as well as under community custom. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs would like to engage the chiefs and communities to determine the feasibility of identifying a common election day for all nations in the Manitoba region, as well as extending the term of office from two to three years.
We are also doing some work with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which has expressed an interest in looking at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act as they relate to custom community selection codes. They have indicated that a number of their constituents do not have access to leadership selection processes in their community, and they are doing some analysis and research to try to scope out that particular issue. We did some work with them last year on that and hope to continue further this year.
The projects with the Assembly of First Nations and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs are in their early stages. We are not yet at the point of discussing substantive policy or legislative options. A number of items are being considered. The first is whether we can make changes to the Indian Act and use the policy of converting from the Indian Act to community custom to deal with some of these issues, or if we should be looking at legislative change.
Some of the things that we have been discussing in both of these forums are some of the specific challenges under the provisions of the Indian Act related to the term of office, as the chair has noted; the common election day, making it easier for people who live far and wide across the country to be aware of when their elections take place in their community; and looking at opportunities to strike a balance between on- and off-reserve electors and the composition of council, given the migration from the reserve into urban centres.
We are also looking at potential ways in which to remove the minister and the department from our very detailed role in the community selection process, the community appeals, the appointment of electoral officers and the whole process around the conduct of elections; and potentially removing the power of the Governor-in-Council to set aside elections and removing the power of the minister to remove elected officials, recognizing that there may be a different way to do business.
Some of these shortcomings or weaknesses that I have just referred to can be accomplished through changing the Indian Act, through comprehensive governance legislation or potentially looking at recognition legislation. These are all options that we are discussing with our partners. A great deal of work still has to go on in terms of exploring the risks and benefits, the pros and cons of these options, and certainly the support that would be garnered across the country in terms of moving forward.
Last but not least, we recognize that making changes in an area that is central to First Nations communities will require support and leadership from communities across the country and from the Aboriginal organizations with which we work. Therefore, our work over the next number of months and into the next period will be to continue working with partners to try to build a consensus on the best way to move forward on some of the short-term issues, such term of office and a common election day, which would appear to be quite easy to do. We will look at longer term, more all-inclusive solutions to some of the shortcomings of the Indian Act.
The Chair: Thank you. Is that the presentation from your delegation?
Ms. Kustra: Yes.
The Chair: Ms. Kustra, did you say that with the Gull Bay case, if one were to run for office, he or she must reside on reserve?
Ms. Kustra: That section of the Indian Act is being challenged in the Gull Bay case as a Charter violation.
The Chair: Has it been resolved through the courts?
Ms. Kustra: A court decision has been appealed, and we are awaiting the final decision.
The Chair: Is it before the Supreme Court of Canada?
Nathalie Nepton, Director, Band Governance Directorate, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: It is before the Federal Court of Appeal.
Senator Campbell: I am impressed that at last someone has come before us from your department to advise us that they are trying to get out of the business, and that you are working toward a solution. It is truly heartening to hear that you are moving forward.
My first question pertains to the two-year term of office. That seems archaic because the term is so short. How difficult is it to make it three years? Does the minister have authority to do that?
Ms. Kustra: Making that change would require a legislative change to the Indian Act. It is a simple drafting matter to change the words "two-year term" to "three-year term" of office. We would also require transition provisions to bring everyone into that three-year cycle — one of the easy changes.
Senator Campbell: I suppose the next issue would be whether it should be three years or four years, and this would be determined in consultation with First Nations. Is that right?
Ms. Kustra: Yes, that is correct. We are hoping that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who have already expressed a keen interest in changing that provision, would be our key partner in building consensus across the country to move ahead with that change.
Senator Campbell: Is the community election system related in any way to treaties? For example, I am thinking of the Nisga'a treaty. Would you be required to have a treaty to move into the community election system policy or can any First Nation move into that process?
Ms. Kustra: Any First Nation that currently operates under the Indian Act can move to a community election system through a ministerial order, although they have to meet minimum requirements first.
Senator Campbell: Once they have that, the department would be out of the picture. Is that right?
Ms. Kustra: Yes, we would be out.
Senator Campbell: How many First Nations are involved in that today?
Ms. Kustra: Currently, 334 First Nations in Canada operate under a community custom leadership selection code, or CCLSC.
Senator Campbell: What would be the total number of First Nations?
Ms. Kustra: There are 334 under CCLSC, 252 under the Indian Act, and 29 subject to the provisions of self- government agreements.
Senator Gustafson: What percentage of eligible voters exercise their vote?
Ms. Kustra: We do not have those statistics with us. The voter turnout varies greatly in communities across the country. In some communities it is high, while others traditionally have had low voter turnout rates. I do not have those statistics with me, unfortunately.
Senator Gustafson: Can you give us some idea? What do you mean by "low?
Marc Boivin, Manager, Governance Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: The statistics we have are specific to Indian Act First Nations only because of the reporting requirements. They can range from 80 per cent voter participation rate to as low as 40 per cent. That is the range for the Indian Act First Nations participation process.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I agree that the term should be four years. However, under this system there should be provisions to protect the process. There have been problems with mail-in ballots and absentee ballots, which are fraudulent. People have told me that the chief goes to the absentee ballot person and tells them to sign it and not show up for the election. They get money for doing that — as much as $300 for one absentee ballot. That is a lot of money. These people are prone to doing this because many are on welfare and need the money.
The monitor of these elections should be a separate entity because these people usually have contacts with the chiefs who are running for office. There is a lot more to it, but the chiefs can act fraudulently by filling in the papers themselves. Therefore, there should be some kind of mechanism to protect people who are being accused of doing the same thing when they are not doing it.
Do you agree that the term should be four years, like other governments? Should there be provisions to protect the system?
Ms. Kustra: With respect to the term of office, I agree that two years is too short to achieve anything in a community. Where we have a completely new chief and council, it takes them a while to learn the job and become familiar with the many processes, reporting requirements and the relationship with all federal and provincial departments and agencies with which First Nations do business. The communities will advise us of their preference on a term of three years or four years.
With respect to your comments on corrupt practices, allegations of vote buying or corrupt practices come forward in election appeals that must be submitted to the department within 45 days of the end of an election. We conduct investigations and if corrupt practice is found to be substantiated, then appropriate action is taken pursuant to the Indian Act. I agree that a system should be in place not only to protect the process but also the people involved in the process.
The appointment of electoral officers, as you have indicated, senator, is such that currently the decision rests with the community, which appoints an electoral officer through a resolution of the band. We receive a number of appeals with respect to that particular individual because of some of reasons that you shared with us this morning.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: The reason why that happens is that once an appeal is made, these people are afraid to go up to the person and say anything. The chiefs are dominating the people. The people are afraid to come forward after a complaint is made. That is why I think there should be some kind of mechanism to protect these people.
Senator Peterson: You said that you have been having consultations with First Nations. Would you say the majority of them are in favour of this type of change as it relates to the term of office?
Ms. Kustra: The Department of Indian Affairs has not undertaken specific consultations with First Nations at this point. We are working with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and their technicians as well as the Assembly of First Nations in a technical working group to discuss these issues. We have not started an engagement or consultation process, per se, with respect to the possibility of these specific changes.
Senator Peterson: If the Manitoba group wanted to do that, can you do that alone? Can you simply deal with them individually and determine to make these changes?
Ms. Kustra: That would require changes to the Indian Act. I believe it is possible to put in place electoral provisions that would apply within provincial boundaries. It is not something we have now. We have one national system in place for everyone. That is certainly an option we would look at if other communities across the country were not willing to support the proposed change.
Senator Peterson: Part of this is trying to get to a new standard of governance, I believe, within the First Nations. One of the problems is the large number of very small bands that have few people to draw on to provide leadership. That is why you find this third party management.
Has there been any discussion between the department and the First Nations on the possibility of amalgamating these smaller groups together into a larger group that could possibly work more effectively?
Ms. Kustra: We have not entertained any of those discussions with respect to leadership selection reform. From time to time, there are discussions that First Nations lead on the possibilities of amalgamation and delegating the powers of small communities to other entities. The relationship now between the Department of Indian Affairs and the Government of Canada is with each individual First Nation. It is not with amalgamated entities other than those that amalgamate either under a treaty or a self-government negotiation. Those are the only opportunities we have now.
Senator Peterson: In your presentation, you talked about corrupt practices in relation to elections. Are there any discussions to expand that beyond only election issues?
Ms. Kustra: We have currently a Complaints and Allegations Unit in the Department of Indian Affairs that receives allegations of corrupt practice with respect to the delivery of programs and services and other practices in a community. That is a separate unit from that dealing with elections, per se. It currently exists, and it has a process and investigative guidelines to explore allegations made.
The Chair: If tenure is to be increased, is the power of recall being considered in the process? It goes to the subject that Senator Lovelace Nicholas and Senator Peterson have raised. Is a recall by the people being considered in holding a new election in the event of corruption or a fraudulent election, or are you thinking only the minister or your department would have the ability to order a new election as a result of various alleged infractions that may take place?
Ms. Kustra: The subject of the power of recall is one that the Assembly of First Nations has raised with us. We do not have an answer to that question at this point. However, it is one of the subjects open for discussion in revision of the leadership selection provisions of the Indian Act or other opportunities.
Regarding your comment on the power of the minister, the Assembly of First Nations has also put forward the idea of having an independent body. It would be available to conduct the elections in communities, appoint the electoral officers, conduct the whole process, set the framework within which appeals would be decided and determine who ultimately would have the power to set aside elections. It is a subject matter that we are considering. It will be discussed in the coming months with partners as we move forward.
The Chair: It is our understanding that the Corbière decision, which granted voting rights for off-reserve members, did not directly apply to custom bands. Do custom bands generally provide voting privileges to off-reserve members, and are you aware of any custom bands that do?
Ms. Kustra: The Corbière decision only applied to communities that elect their leaders under the Indian Act. It now applies to the 252 nations.
For communities that want to move out of the Indian Act into community custom, their code must be Corbière- compliant. That means that the code they submit to the department and the minister for consideration must provide for off-reserve voting.
However, once the community has moved out of the Indian Act into a community selection process, they can change that code with no interference, recommendation or approval from the Department of Indian Affairs. At any time, with the community approval, they could change that code to prohibit off-reserve members from voting. This is why the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples wanted to work with us to explore the extent to which community codes do not provide for off-reserve voting.
We have two court decisions, both in B.C., where the residency provisions of a community selection code have been challenged and have been overturned. Basically, that means the code was found to be not Charter-compliant. It prohibited off-reserve members from voting. Therefore, we have two cases where the court has determined that a custom code is not Corbière-compliant.
I think your other question, senator, was with respect to communities that are Corbière-compliant. Is that correct?
The Chair: I was mainly concerned with whether the Corbière case applied to custom bands. My next question relates to the same issue. It is the recent jurisprudence that neither chief nor council need to be resident on reserves. What is there to prevent an off-reserve majority totally abandoning the reserve and leaving the reserve residents to fend for themselves?
There is a certain amount of protest right now over the Tsawwassen agreements where the majority of the voters live in Los Angeles, Toronto, Florida and other areas. Those living off reserve are basically controlling the destiny of on- reserve people.
Ms. Kustra: Under the current Indian Act, there is no way to balance the rights of on- and off-reserve members. In a situation such as you have referenced, it is the will of the voters which, through a democratic process, carries the day.
Again, the Assembly of First Nations and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have raised this issue. They see a future where we will have a chief and council living off reserve and having no real connection to the community itself.
We think this is another area of the Indian Act which requires renovation and should be modernized with respect to today's reality, in terms of the location of voters; this on- and off-reserve balance is an issue which we would like to address. Also, the nations have already signalled that it is important to them.
The Chair: Though it may not be fair to ask you, what was the rationalization in the Corbière case? Theoretically speaking, this does not make sense to me. It makes little sense that, if I live in my home, other people living away from the home have control of all the decision making and can control what I am doing. Senator Campbell says it is a nation, but it is only a nation if everyone is treated equally. If off-reserve people can control the destiny of those on reserve, they have full control of the governance. Was this decision driven by the Charter?
Ms. Kustra: Yes, it was driven by the equality provisions of the Charter, in that all members of the community should have a right to vote, no matter where they live; that they have an interest in the affairs of the community.
The Chair: Do you feel that it makes sense, based on your experience, that people living in Los Angeles or Toronto should control the destiny of people living in Manitoba?
Senator Campbell: You will end up in front of Madam Justice McLachlin if you persist.
The Chair: That is okay. They are all just human. I will pass on that question, Ms. Kustra.
Ms. Kustra: Thank you.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: You made a comment that you are consulting chiefs. However, I think my suggestion would be to consult the people themselves. If the chief is being complained of, these people are afraid to lose their jobs by acting against their chief.
The people should be consulted because the chief does not speak for everyone. I know that for a fact because I live in a First Nations community. The chief there now does not speak for me.
Ms. Kustra: Senator, just to be absolutely clear, at this point in time we are not consulting the chiefs. As I am sure people are aware, the word "consultation" has a specific meaning to the Government of Canada and to First Nations.
At this point, we are working with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. We are not actually in a consultation phase. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, in the next couple of months, will be considering how best for them to consult the communities and the chiefs in the region in terms of bringing forward a solution.
Right now, INAC is not in a consultation process with the chiefs or the community. We are working with an organization that has come forward to explore possibilities.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I wanted to ensure that the people know that this chief will go over here and represent them. As I said before, they are not all represented by the same chief.
Senator Peterson: What constitutes an "eligible voter" in terms of membership in the band in terms of elections?
Ms. Nepton: An eligible voter under the Indian Act is someone who is 18 years of age on the date of the election and is a band member.
Senator Peterson: What is a band member? Is one a band member forever?
Ms. Nepton: In some instances, status and membership are the same. However, in other instances, some First Nations have control over their membership and can determine who their members are. It will not affect their status under the Indian Act but it could possibly affect membership in the band.
Senator Peterson: It could affect who can vote in the elections.
Ms. Nepton: For those bands, yes.
Senator Peterson: One aspect of good governance is financial accountability. Under the present requirements, does the band have to prepare a budget and present it to all the band members?
Ms. Kustra: The roles and responsibilities of the chief and council, with respect to planning, budgeting and presentation of their budgets, are really a matter for the community. They do not have to publicly present a budget. However, they must make their audited financial statements available to members of the band.
Many communities across the country have very open, transparent processes. They engage their communities in the development of plans and priorities for the coming year, and the chief and council ultimately allocate the resources available to them to meet those priorities.
Senator Peterson: Are these audited financial statements done at the end of each year?
Ms. Kustra: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Peterson: They are available to the members. However, do the members need to go to the band office and ask for them?
Ms. Kustra: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Peterson: Therefore, they are not sent out and provided.
Ms. Kustra: However, many communities do have public meetings where the council presents the financial information as well as the actual performance results from the work they have done in the past year.
The Chair: I have one more question. Does section 25 of the Charter shield the traditional community in collective rights vis-à-vis the Corbière decision rights?
Ms. Kustra: Not being a lawyer, I feel outside of my league in terms of answering that.
The Chair: That is alright.
Ms. Kustra: Ms. Nepton is a lawyer, but not with the Department of Justice.
Ms. Nepton: I do not have a clear answer, and I cannot answer on behalf of the Department of Justice. The courts have not decided on that issue. It has not been challenged before the courts at this time. We are unable to provide an answer with respect to any interpretation.
The Chair: My last question is about the hereditary process. The Gitxsan have the house system which is similar to the Navajo in the U.S., who have the chapters and the central legislative process. What does this come under? Is this "custom," as such? Does DIAND have any control over this method of governance?
Ms. Kustra: The form of governance in these communities would be considered a custom, in which case there is no control by the Government of Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs over the process used in the community.
The Chair: I ask this because, in the comprehensive land claims negotiations going on, there are no provisions to deal with this issue effectively, according to people in northern British Columbia. I happen to be from B.C., and they have approached me on numerous occasions in relation to this matter. They feel that this is why the BC Treaty Commission has not been as successful as it should have been.
Ms. Kustra: In the self-government and negotiation process, the community would be required to have in place a constitution. That constitution must have, as a component, leadership selection, however the community wishes to describe it.
The Chair: I thank all three of you for appearing before the committee. On behalf of all senators, we thank you for your candid, straightforward answers. We will study this issue and, it is hoped, shed some light and assistance on a very complex situation. It leads not only to elections but it ties in with accountability and various other factors. I am sure that, over time, we will find the right method to proceed. Thank you again.
Any other business, senators?
Senator Peterson: I was wondering about tomorrow.
The Chair: We have no meeting tomorrow. I think there will be some important announcements made tomorrow. At this time we have not called witnesses on this matter due to the fact that we are close to recessing the entire process. We are trying to gauge things to keep us working but not run into a situation where we call witnesses and are not be able to hear from them.
Honourable senators, this meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned.