Media.Knet.Ca

Native leaders across the country are calling for a new way to select the head of the Assembly of First Nations as they dissect this summer's dramatic all-night leadership convention in Calgary.

Questions are focused on two points: whether it's fair that chiefs from tiny reserves have the same powerful vote as chiefs from much larger communities. And secondly, whether the AFN's chief-based voting system disenfranchises urban aboriginals and puts the organization's long-term future at risk.

The Globe and Mail has obtained a ranking of Canada's reserves by population from Indian Affairs – something not available on any government website – that highlights the issues.

It reveals that of the 631 listed reserves, 164 of them have fewer than 400 registered Indians. Further, 13 of the 20 smallest reserves in Canada are in B.C.

“ I don't think that the AFN truly represents all first nation people across Canada. ”— Ontario's John Beaucage

The latter fact is a particularly sensitive point for newly elected national chief Shawn Atleo, whose home province of British Columbia is over-represented in AFN elections given the province's native population at large. That's because B.C. is home to many tiny reserves.

Those small reserves proved to have big influence in Calgary, leading to calls for a second look at the rules.

“It's not a sour grapes thing, it's just something that needs to be addressed and it's coming from our leadership,” said Chief Lawrence Joseph, chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.

“When a chief that, for instance in Saskatchewan, has 8,000 members and one vote and a chief who has barely 100 members has one vote, somehow that doesn't sound like it's a very representative or equitable or fair vote.”

The second issue flows from the fact that chiefs again rejected a call to surrender their voting power so that all natives could vote directly for national chief. The AFN risks losing influence to rival aboriginal organizations unless it can prove it represents all natives, said the candidate who finished third.

Ontario's John Beaucage says his call for a universal vote hurt his campaign and is a main reason he received 15 per cent on the first ballot.

He dropped out immediately and threw his support behind Saskatchewan's Perry Bellegarde, who finished second, based on an earlier hand-shake deal.

“It lost me a fair number of votes,” said Mr. Beaucage, who said his call for a universal vote earned standing ovations among urban natives during the campaign, but was a non-starter with chiefs. “The thing of it is, I still believe we have to do that. I don't think that the AFN truly represents all first nation people across Canada.”

It wasn't the first time chiefs rejected a universal vote. The AFN itself, in a 2005 report by a “renewal commission,” recommended the chiefs consider a universal vote or a delegate system that might better represent Canada's native population. Some chiefs objected on the grounds that the national chief is simply a spokesman for the communities and that a universal vote would turn the AFN into a quasi-government. In the end, the suggestion went nowhere. They also said a universal vote would be too expensive for the perpetually cash-strapped organization.

Mike Mitchell, who ran unsuccessfully for AFN national chief in 1991 and 1994, says his calls for a universal vote cost him in those years as well.

“Votes should be coming directly from the first nations people themselves,” said Mr. Mitchell, who is now grand chief of Akwesasne, one of Canada's largest reserves. “I think [the chiefs] are scared.”

Though Mr. Atleo could not be reached, B.C. Chief Doug Kelly, who co-chaired the Atleo campaign, said the new national chief will take his cue from the chiefs. But Mr. Kelly bristled at suggestions that there are problems with the status quo. He said urban aboriginals can and do come home to vote in band elections and he said the AFN chiefs represent and are accountable to their people.

“The national Assembly of First Nations is a chiefs organization,” he said, adding that Mr. Atleo drew support from across the country. “For the most part, chiefs are elected by their citizens.”

Mr. Kelly said the AFN system is not unlike federal politics, where Canadians do not have a direct vote for prime minister.

As with most issues related to native policy, there are no easy answers. Some say elections should no longer be based around reserves, which are largely a creation of the 1876 Indian Act, but rather on treaty or tribal models such as the Ojibway or Cree nations.

But ignoring the problem only creates a vacuum for other organizations, such as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, to say they speak for off-reserve aboriginals, said Mr. Beaucage. He said the AFN must address the fact that its reserve-based voting system does not reward national chiefs who focus on urban aboriginals.

“There's no upside to it,” he said. “If he goes out and he looks after things on 15 first nations where there's 20,000 people, he's going to get 15 votes. Whereas if you go into Toronto or Vancouver or Winnipeg and look after issues for 100,000 people, you don't get any votes out of it.”