Mr. Speaker, as far as I know there are no provisions specifically for recall in any of the aboriginal organizations. They do have terms for removal of executives and there are procedures under local customs in each community for the removal of chiefs; these vary in different communities up and down the valley. As far as I know, there is no duly-elected government of the First Nation, yet as such. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the politics of aboriginal communities, each chief is elected for a certain term. Each president of a Metis local, for instance, is elected for a certain term; those are the ones that I am most familiar with. Each community has different understandings about what is the custom for removal of chiefs. For instance, in some communities it was understood that if a sufficient number of people showed up at a public meeting called to discuss the issue, and if a motion was passed at such a meeting, that was the end of the term of the chief.

The Metis locals run more by their rules. There are rules for the removal of officials. The regional and territorial organizations also have specific procedures under their by-laws and constitution for removal of officials. But the one that the Member may be most interested in is the custom of the Dene for removal of chiefs, where it is almost by local custom that it is done. It has become, I would say, not so widely practised any more. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in the past...I know that in the 1970s and early 1980s, for instance, there were some chiefs who were removed because of local disgruntlement with the perception of how they may have dissatisfied their people.

In the last 10 years, I would say, as more and more of the chief and councils have got into business and into more of an operational mode where they have extensive responsibilities, there has also come into place very clear mandates and procedural requirements for the way they conduct their business. Because of that, I believe the accountability has become much more technical and clearly defined in many of the communities.

So the business of removing chiefs has become, for many of the people, I think, a greater concern. It shouldn't be trivialized or just left to an undefined "local custom." People have started to recognize that a very effective speaker can get up at a public meeting and sway people to back a call to remove a chief, even without substance of any significance. And so, I think people, in order to protect themselves, have seen that what you need are strong procedures for the protection of those people who are elected, as well as the themselves. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there are no specific provisions that I know of offhand that would lend to it. In many, many cases, people are starting to see that long-term planning, long-term stability is essential for the well-being of the businesses that are charged to the care of the chief, the councils and other elected officials. That political instability also leads to instability of business and economic interests.

So, while people still look at it in the sense that people at the community level have the ultimate power to put you into office and to take you out. That understanding alone is often enough to make people very careful about the things that they ask people to do, the way in which those people carry out their jobs, and how they account for themselves. It seems to me, my impression is that the more business we conduct ourselves, the more self-governing we become, the less need there is for that sort of undefined method of removing elected people. Thank you.