Thank you. General comments. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the three acts. Since the bill was introduced, we have been having some discussions with band councils. They have a concern with regard to empowering the local municipalities to administer lands and real property, even prior to resolving the issue of who owns the land. I think that's the problem that some of the communities have, with regard to these amendments to the act.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that we had public meetings in major communities, but we haven't really gone to smaller communities where they have band councils and hamlet councils. Although big cities like Yellowknife support this, it's because it reassures them that their land is secure, that it's not going to go to anybody else. In the municipalities, once you empower the municipalities to do that, then it takes away the power of the land through the band councils. Anything they do in giving property to other people, it becomes real property. The act itself, assures people that nobody else will get that land, even though we might be looking at disputed lands whether it's under claims or non-claimant areas. It's really giving one group of people the authority to disperse and to give.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

It's my understanding -- I've only had this

I don't see a conflict, myself, with the situation you laid out with respect to claims. I see that as a different issue. This is within the municipal boundaries. But, again, I do have some legal people I would like to bring forward, just in case I'm asked some legal questions. So, I would ask for the committee's indulgence to bring forward the legal counsel with us and the director of policy.

Thank you. Is this committee agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Todd. Sergeant-at-Arms. Thank you. For the record, Mr. Minister, would you introduce your witnesses at this time?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my immediate left is Mr. Gary Vanderhaden, who is the director of policy for MACA and on my immediate right, is Mr. Shawn Flynn, who is the legal counsel for the Department of Justice.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you. Perhaps I could ask our legal person what this all means. The way I read it, it is empowering the hamlet council to administer all lands within municipal boundaries, to give or to sell them, and also get rid of them. What happens to the band councils, in this case, that administer lands reserved for Indians? Are we taking away lands reserved for Indians and, in place, empowering hamlet councils to start administering, and for that matter, undermining band councils, in order to achieve their own control over lands?

Legal advisor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These amendments do two things with land. The first thing that these amendments do is they clarify that a municipal corporation can lease land and subdivide land. The second thing these amendments do is they make it mandatory for a municipal corporation to pass a land administration by-law before they can sell or lease lands to others.

I think it is on this second point that people have some concern. Municipal corporations can currently purchase or sell land under all three acts we're dealing with tonight. What these amendments do is provide a framework within which a municipal corporation can sell or lease land. They stipulate that, before municipal corporations can dispose of land, they have to have in place a land administration by-law which would set out the process of how a municipal corporation can sell or lease land. These amendments don't give land to the municipal corporations, nor do they affect the status of land currently held in communities.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand these new bills that are before us are amendments to the Charter Communities Act, the Cities, Towns and Villages Act, and the Hamlets Act. I have a problem with them, because of the area I come from. Earlier today I was on a telephone conference call with a number of chiefs in my area. I gave them the information and the reply was that they totally disagree with this bill, basically because they haven't been consulted.

You see, in my particular area of the Northwest Territories, we are still in dispute with the Government of Canada, which this governments gets delegated authority from. In regard to land, even though it is municipal land, the band sees those lands as theirs as well. Our legal advisor here says we are more or less clarifying the municipal government's powers. In fact, I see it more or less strengthening their powers over lands in the municipal area, although there is still a dispute in these communities in my area.

I understand what it does for the Nunavut area, this is part of the claim. Within three years after initialling, you have to have these powers in place. I understand that, but on the other hand, people from the Nunavut area have to understand that we are still in dispute.

This consultation took place in the major centres, like Yellowknife, but there are hamlets and villages in the other areas that this is going to affect, in my constituency. I find, at this point at time, that this is quite unfair. There is no protection for the majority of people I represent in this new bill. Perhaps there is in the charter communities one, clause two says that nothing in this act shall be interpreted so as to affect aboriginal rights. That is in the Charter Communities Act. There is some protection there, but there is nothing there for the Cities, Towns and Villages Act as well as the Hamlets Act.

So, the instructions I got today from community leaders is that they don't want to see this bill put forward until they are consulted and have their views on it. They weren't given that opportunity, that is the reason why I have some problems with this bill, at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

I think what I'd like to do is ask legal council to walk us through this, because I don't think people should be afraid of this bill. It is not making any significant change. It is just clarifying the rules in the way land is leased and sold. My understanding is that the Dene area and the Deh Cho area only apply to leased land, anyway. If I may, I will ask Mr. Flynn to try to give it a go and explain.

Mr. Flynn.

My understanding is the concern that these bills will infringe on aboriginal or treaty rights. I don't think there should be concern in that respect, for two reasons, essentially. As was explained earlier, the intent is to take an existing

situation, there is a provision in each of these acts now which provides for a procedural by-law to be made by the community to govern its dealings in land. We are just taking that existing provision and adding one, essential, key change, we're making the passage of that existing master by-law subject to ministerial approval.

You've already got a situation in place where, if there was going to be an infringement of aboriginal or treaty rights, it is likely we would have had a problem already. Aboriginal and treaty rights are constitutionally protected. Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 gives them guaranteed status. We cannot pass a bill that would impair them. So, even if I'm wrong, we can't infringe on those rights.

Secondly, I think that this bill is only dealing with land that is held by a municipal corporation. It is not dealing with land that is held by private interests, or held under a lands claim agreement or treaty. So, it is just land that the city has an interest in, that is within the local boundaries of the community. It is their property. We're just saying, this is how you can deal with it. You can sell it or acquire it, according to these rules. This is already going on now. The key change is that it will be subject to ministerial approval, because it is anticipated that large blocs of land will be transferred to the communities in the near future.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Antoine.

Mr. Chairman, the legal counsel said it is according to his understanding, and he told me not to be concerned. But, being an aboriginal person, coming from a small community, I go by my own understanding and my own experience, and I am concerned. It may be according to the books, what is written down, and it may be put down on paper and you follow it. In the communities where I come from, there are municipal boundaries and governments. However, the aboriginal people, who lived there before these municipal councils came into place, have a claim to the municipal area, as well as the land outside.

It is not only the land outside the municipal boundaries that people in communities are interested in, it is also land within the municipal boundaries. What this authority is going to do is alienate the municipal lands within the communities. In some of the communities, there are large tracts of municipal land that the municipal government has taken over in block land transfers. So, we're looking at a substantial amount of land within these communities. That's my understanding of it.

The concerns I heard today from the chiefs is that it is the first time some of them heard about it and they're not too clear what this bill is all about. We are here in this Legislative Assembly to represent the people in the communities. There are legitimate concerns out there that these chiefs have given me. They have their own legal advice, and their own positions. They weren't given a chance to review this and have their views heard on these bills. That's one of my main concerns.

We are going to go ahead and pass it without listening to the voices of the people. That's what it said in the motion we passed yesterday, in the conduct for Members, that we are going to listen to the voices of the people. And, there is a substantial section of peoples' voices that haven't been heard. That's the point I want to make. We have to let these people have their say on this bill, as well.

Mr. Minister.

Mr. Antoine may have a point. I'd have to look at it. I'm not going to dispute the fact that perhaps the chiefs, as he has suggested, weren't consulted. It was my understanding, from the notes here, that in 1989 there was a public discussion paper on this whole thing tabled in the House, translated and sent to all municipal governments. I understand his concern. I don't know how we would reassure him. It is my understanding that we are not taking anything away, I see it as adding to municipal governments. I don't know what more to add than that.

Thank you. Mr. Antoine. Well, perhaps a lot of Members that don't understand the situation in the Dene communities where there are treaties. There is a lot of dispute in a lot of the communities with regard to who actually owns the land, even though there are designated community boundaries. At first look, the feeling I get from the communities is they're saying that the Government Leader and the Minister for Aboriginal Rights are making general comments about respecting aboriginal people and trying to work with them to develop self-government.

In the meantime, on the day to day level, bills like this are being put into the House to more or less deteriorate and erode the position of the chiefs in the communities. It really has a negative effect on the position of the government, in terms of constitutional development and a full opportunity for the chiefs to participate in this bill for a full understanding. I think it's only fair that these bills be deferred until there's full consultation with the people in the communities who are very concerned about this bill at this time.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.