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.