Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for the opportunity to address the committee of the whole, this time with respect to Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Hamlets. As I mentioned earlier, with respect to Bill 3, these bills have had a very thorough review by the Standing Committee on Legislation.

All of the considerable time spent in explaining and discussing the bills with the public was very valuable and it allows for a consensus to be reached between Cabinet and the Standing Committee on Legislation concerning an amendment to Bills 3 and 4.

Mr. Chairman, Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Hamlets Act, is virtually identical to Bill 3 that we have just been discussing. The bill is proposed to amend legislation for Hamlets and this will help to facilitate the implementation of the Nunavut land claim. As well, in all those areas of the NWT where land claims have been settled, the bill will help to advance the government's priority of community self-government and prepare municipal governments for the eventual administration of municipal lands.

Devolution of the community land administration program to community governments is not possible until aboriginal rights to community lands are first resolved, through the land claims process. Now that some land claims in the NWT have been finalized, municipal legislation must be amended to facilitate the turnover of municipal lands in those communities where land claims are settled. Municipal lands are a valuable resource which must be managed well for present and future community residents.

It is in preparation for these changes that we are proposing amendments to the Hamlets Act to provide that, in those communities where municipal lands will be created, municipal corporations shall each adopt a land administration by-law to set out, for the information and benefit of the public, the procedures the council will use when it sells or leases land. The Minister would have the authority to review the master land administration by-law, prior to third reading by council, to ensure in consultation with the municipal council, that open and fair policies and procedures are proposed.

Mr. Chairman, again I want to assure you that this bill will not prejudice aboriginal rights or any outstanding aboriginal claims negotiations. The legislation only applies to municipal lands, that is lands owned by a municipal corporation. It has nothing to do with how land becomes municipal land, aboriginal land or other types of land. In those communities where land claims are not yet settled, the GNWT land lease-only policy continues to remain in effect.

Mr. Chairman, I will now be prepared to answer any detailed questions that you or Members may have on the proposed bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The standing committee has had the opportunity to review this bill on three separate occasions. First, when it was tabled in May of 1993, and again in November of the same year. The committee would like to thank the Minister and his officials from the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs for presenting this bill during the public hearing, as well as for responding to the questions of the Members and the public. The committee would also like to thank all the members of the public who made a presentation to this committee in response to this bill.

The committee found the responses to be thought-provoking and informative. Information provided during the presentation was taken into consideration during our deliberation. Bill 4, as amended in the standing committee, amends the Hamlet Act to clarify that hamlets have the power to lease and subdivide lands and to set out a land administration sham for the disposal of land by municipalities. Before being entitled to sell or lease their lands to others, hamlets will be required to pass a land administration by-law to provide guidelines for the disposition of land. This by-law must be given public notice and must receive the approval of the Minister.

This bill also specifies when a hamlet may dispose of personal property and clarifies that it may lease personal property. As well, hamlets would be allowed to carry out a business to provide a service that is not necessarily connected to the traditional municipal purpose, if the Minister agrees that it is in the public interest.

The standing committee held public hearings in Fort Providence, Fort Simpson and Yellowknife, on this bill. In Fort Providence, we invited people from Fort Providence, the Hay River Reserve and Kakisa. An invitation was also sent, at the committee's expense, for people from Fort Liard and Wrigley to come to Fort Simpson. During these hearings, the committee heard concerns that this bill may seem to provide additional authority to municipal corporations. It was stated, during this hearing, that this bill may, by further infringement of municipal authority, hinder further land claims and self-government negotiations.

In consideration of these concerns, the committee, in cooperation with the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, submitted motions to amend the bill. After considerable debate, the committee, with the concurrence of the Minister, voted to support the motions drafted by the department. The motion proposed the exemption of these municipal areas in the western Arctic that expressed concern connected with the bill. Strong opposition to the bill was voiced in areas where land claims have yet to be settled.

Therefore, the department, through a motion to amend in the committee, exempted the Hamlets of Fort Liard, Fort Providence, Rae-Edzo and Lac La Martre from the provision of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the concern that was raised was the fact that these two hamlets, which Mr. Zoe represents, are in an area where land claims have not been settled. So, the land lease-only policy, which exists right now, will still apply to these two communities. If the municipality wishes at this point, it would still be able to acquire land under the existing policy. The reason these two communities are included in this bill is because land claims have not yet been settled in the area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the Member is correct in his assessment of the bill and how it would apply to the two communities in his riding. The exclusion of these two municipalities is in response to the concerns raised by the residents of the Deh Cho area. The two communities are in an area where land claims have not yet been settled. I think that if the two communities were to acquire land, they would only acquire minimal amounts of land which would mean that they would not need a comprehensive system to administer the land.

In part of the remarks that Mr. Zoe has made, he is right in saying that if these two communities are included, they would be following the old system which is a land lease-only policy. When we made our visits in the Deh Cho area, they were concerned because their treaty had not been settled and they wanted to be excluded from this particular bill, which is what we have done. The two communities that are in here from Mr. Zoe's riding are also in an area in which land claims have not been settled. I don't know how I can better explain it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the area that these two communities are in will continue to be Commissioner's land. Thank you.

The question is being asked to me now. Have you redirected the question?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Zoe is quite correct. Under current legislation, hamlets can acquire, hold, develop and dispose of real and personal property. If the hamlet doesn't own any personal property, obviously the current legislation and the new legislation would have very little practical effect on the hamlet. There are other provisions, however, apart from the property provisions. There are the business provisions, as well, that allows a municipality to carry on a business that may not be for a municipal purpose. The two communities in Mr. Zoe's riding are also being exempted from those municipal business provisions.

I should note that as well as purchasing and selling real property, a municipality or a hamlet may also have the authority, or may also want to lease property. That's where it might acquire some significance for the hamlets. In Mr. Zoe's constituency, some of the hamlets may wish to not purchase property, but actually lease property, for example, to a municipal garage. In that situation there will be a question as to whether the hamlet will have that authority under the existing provisions, the old provisions of the legislation.

There are some case laws to suggest that the power to acquire and to dispose of property does not include the power to lease property. It's a decision from Ontario, I'm not sure that our courts up here would hold the same weight. It seems very unusual to have a very broad and very big power to purchase, and not have a smaller power to lease, which is normally a lesser power. However, that is the law as it stands in Ontario, I'm not sure if it would be up here.

Under the existing provisions of the Hamlets Act, there is a question as to the ability to lease real property. That is where it might have an impact on the two communities.

I should mention, just from being at the Standing Committee on Legislation meetings, there was tremendous opposition to these bills expressed by the people in the areas where land claims were not settled, we did receive almost unanimous opposition from band councils and from chiefs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is the intention, or one of the intentions. The Act to Amend the Hamlets Act as originally presented by the government was that the ability of a municipality to lease and subdivide property would be clearly set forth in legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, on Saturday we had a public meeting regarding these amendments. We also faxed these amendments to all the communities that are going to be affected by the amendments. In my statement, I referred to Lac La Martre, Fort Providence, Fort Liard and Rae-Edzo. Up to now, at least up until 1:00, we haven't received any kind of negative response to those amendments. So, presumably, those communities are in favour of it.

I haven't asked this before nor have I heard any of the Members ask this question. I would like to ask the Minister whether we are going to be...The purpose of the bill, I recognize, is because of the Nunavut Act, and because all municipalities will become municipal lands. It also says in there that all municipalities will be able to make land administration by-laws. I ask the question, in Nunavut there are 25 communities. Are we looking at individual by-laws from all those different communities to administer their lands? Or, do you have a draft by-law which probably all the municipalities could use as a way to make those by-laws, instead of having whatever communities there are making these by-laws, that we have a common by-law which could be used by all municipalities.

Mr. Chairman, the Member is quite right. There will be a by-law for each community, and there is a model by-law which is being prepared by the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs which may be used by any of the 25 communities, which will require a land administration by-law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At these meetings, there was a tremendous amount of opposition. When I had first looked at the bills, they seemed very straightforward to me. They didn't seem to be dangerous bills or bills that would cause anybody any discomfort. But, if the main job of the Legislative Assembly is, in fact, to pass good laws for the people it serves, then you have to convince the people who elect you that those are good laws. The work of the standing committee took us into places where we weren't able to leave with the feeling that the people were comfortable with what was being done. Therefore, like any good committee of any good government, they decided to respond to those concerns that people had, even though I am still not convinced it is a big issue. But, if you can't convince the people, then you have to do something to make people feel good about what we are doing in this Assembly. Although, as I said, they seem to be like housekeeping arrangements or changes to make it clearer and to provide for better government, I feel good even though I can't see the problem myself. We have, in fact, been a responsive committee. We have made changes in the way we had to make people feel that the government they have is listening to what they have to say. I would urge Members, even though they have difficulty understanding people's concerns, they are real and we should respond to them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. With regard to Bill 4 and with that amendment, when the bills, along with this bill, Bill 3 and 2 came up previously in the last session, I raised concern. My concern was the ramifications of these bills and how it would affect the future of land administration in the communities in the west. Based on that, I raised concern. My concern was that some of the communities in the west were not consulted. Upon my informing them of the bills, there were many concerns expressed. I brought that forward to this House. As a result, there was another review of this bill, and the Standing Committee on Legislation did travel to some of the communities and heard for themselves what the people in these communities were saying to them. Based on that, these amendments were put forward here.

The bill enhances the power of municipal corporations to acquire, use and dispose of property, real and personal. It also requires municipalities to pass land administration by-laws and also clarifies the power of the municipality to carry on a business. These are some of the powers that I understand is given to it. This is as a result of the Nunavut land claims agreement. It is a condition of this agreement, and it is clearly in the best interests of the eastern Arctic communities to establish the ownership of such land.

These bills are necessary for Nunavut. It was negotiated and agreed upon by the Nunavut negotiators. This was done without input from western communities where land claims or land entitlement do not exist and where the full effects are very uncertain at this time. Based on these concerns, the band councils expressed that they would like to see some changes to this amendment. I am glad that the Standing Committee on Legislation has seen fit to make some amendments to it. Even the previous bill that went through the committee of the whole, Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Cities, Towns and Villages Act, has Fort Simpson in there. I did hear the village and the chiefs talk about it. They all understand that they do support this bill if it is part of the Nunavut land claims agreement, to go ahead with this type of amendment to these three bills.

In the meantime, somehow or another, there could be protection for some of these communities in the west. I think the Standing Committee on Legislation has allowed for that. I don't know what the ramifications of this amendment are going to be, but if it is the best way for them to deal with it. I take it this is the best way for them to deal with the concerns that they have heard. I haven't heard if there was an alternative of how they would have dealt with it. I would like to ask the Minister what other alternatives could have been used to make these amendments, rather than naming specific communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what other alternatives there may have been, but perhaps the legal counsel would be able to respond. Mr. Flynn.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The concern expressed in the communities when SCOL visited was that, because land claims were unsettled, they didn't want the existing municipal property provisions to change in respect of them. So, this required an exclusion approach. It was a question of whether it would be by community or by geographic area. It was decided that it would be simpler to list the communities. That was the reason it was done. Thank you.

Thank you. I take it that the reason the amendments were done the way they were was to respond to the concerns of the communities that made presentations at the SCOL hearings. I thought there might have been another

way of doing it, rather than specifically naming certain communities. That was what I was getting at. Could it have been done other ways rather than specifically naming communities in the amendment? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The answer is yes. It could have been done by geographic description of the ridings in question or the unsettled land claims area in question. The result is the same with the bill that we have as it is now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On this bill, land within community boundaries within the Nunavut settlement area and areas of the western NWT is managed by the Government of the Northwest Territories under the land lease policy. With the passage of these bills, would this eliminate the policy as the land would be turned over to the communities? Would this land lease policy be eliminated? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, no, it doesn't. The policy would stay in effect. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make a point that there are two communities in my constituency that are specifically named in Bill 3 and Bill 4, and there is discussion about reaching some sort of land claims in the future. The problem is, the solution here would be to clearly define ownership in the area where no land claim agreements or land entitlements exist today. That should be the way of dealing with the problem in this area. If it does happen, these bills would have to be amended again to allow these communities, if they so choose, to go in the direction that everybody else is going. I guess the question here is, would we have to amend the bill again for these two communities to be included in the act with everybody else? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, if the communities so choose, we would have to come back to this Assembly and amend the two bills. The Member is correct. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this amendment very much because it will not just accommodate the Inuvialuit region, but also Nunavut and other communities that desire to start building an economic base using land development for the purposes of residential and commercial use. I come from a small community and in a small community there are always very clear, influential citizens. Some of the them become mayors and business people. I skimmed through this and tried to find something that prevents the municipality from amending their own by-laws to accommodate potential applicants or buyers of the land, if you know what I mean.

Mr. Chairman. Once this bill has passed the municipalities will then own the municipal lands, and the people will be able to hold a referendum in their communities to decide whether they will continue with the land lease-only policy or whether they will be able to sell the lands that they own. I hope I answered the Member's question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not quite. Maybe I didn't phrase my question properly. Say a municipality, through a referendum, decides they want to start selling plots of land and they decide that an area will be sold for commercial use and another area would be sold for residential use, et cetera. However, when after a new election a new mayor gets in and says he would like to propose an amendment to the by-law by opening a particular area for commercial or residential use to accommodate himself or someone else that is connected to him. I want a provision that once the municipality holds a referendum and creates a plot of land for sale, there will not be further authorization through amendments of the by-law opening up until the next referendum, whether it is six months or a year from now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the area the Member is raising is part of the land claim agreement. I would like to ask Mr. Ashton to respond.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is useful to take a look at the claims legislation that are set out in the Nunavut final agreement. In the legislation, as the Minister was outlining, all the land within the municipal boundary which is not occupied by government buildings, is turned over to the

municipality and becomes municipal land. The Department of Municipal and Community Affairs is required to carry out the paper work necessary to turn over all the land by 1996.

In the meantime, we're working with the municipalities through training and changing this legislation to get them ready by the time all the land is turned over. One of the conditions contained in the claim is that each community must decide on its own whether or not they want to lease or sell the land. Up to this point, it has always been done by lease. Each community would have a referendum. The tentative date for the referendum would be December of this year because it has to happen between the first and second anniversary of the legislation, which went through in July 1993. And, if the community votes by referendum to maintain the lease-only policy in their community, that is locked in for another 20 years. There cannot be another referendum for 20 years. Perhaps that's the protection that the Member was asking about, with respect to the fact that councils do change every few years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Not even close, Mr. Chairman. In this act or under a regulation of MACA, would there be something stating that once you have a referendum approving that plots of municipal land will be assigned for sale, how often these municipal land maps or town maps could be amended, changed, extended or expanded for the purpose of continuing the spirit of the referendum? I guess I will ask that first.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I am leery that there are elections for hamlet councils every year and every two years for a mayor, depending on their own by-laws some of them can go as far as three years. I am trying to protect the community interest by not having the new influential town councillor who also happens to be a multi-million dollar man in a very small community -- I believe I'm exaggerating here, I'm not trying to pick on anybody -- to influence the council to create new plots of land for sale for his own, or to accommodate somebody else. After the referendum, after the lands have been selected, the town plan has been developed for the purpose of sale, then after two years you need to make new lands for the purpose of development for sale. Is there a provision somewhere that there will be a referendum every year, or will it be up to the council to expand those plots of lands?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask Mr. Ashton, once again, to respond.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the first part of the question, the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs has a mapping group within the department that provides all of the land ownership maps to the communities. Where there are changes in the community land ownership, these are reflected on the maps. We regularly provide an update to the communities, at least twice a year, so I would think that the community would always have an updated system of records with regard to land ownership.

The second question, as I understand it, is relating to the councils and how often there would be a referendum. I think the answer to that question is that by virtue of this legislation that we are proposing in the House, a community would be required to pass a land administration by-law that sets out all the rules and procedures that would be followed in that community. The by-law must come in for the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs to approve it.

If there are going to be any changes to the by-law, the legislation also talks about the fact that the council must hold public hearings. There's a process of public notice to hear everyone affected by any changes to the by-law. This is, again, a new provision that's being put in to protect the public from anyone trying to use the by-law or manipulate the by-law. It must be done openly in the public with due notice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, that comment was a little closer by having to have a public hearing in order to create new parcels of land. This is the present practice right now, anyway, for the leased lands. If a new municipal development is held in the public meeting in the community hall every year once the land is being assigned, there is no change whatsoever. There is no danger either because the leases can be cancelled by violation of the lease or by other means. But, sale is different. Is there any protection for the community to slow down, at least not to have land manipulation by the rich people in the community for the protection of the community's interest?

For example, there is a land lease or land for sale beside the Explorer Hotel. I know it has been there for quite a while, at least since this Legislative Assembly building has been up. However, Mr. Brown or Mr. Chang haven't bought it yet. This is good because Yellowknife has developed it for anyone. What I'm trying to say is that from the small community point of view, the story is different. If you have only 500 people in the community, and somebody comes in and lives there for two years, he has a bank account in Toronto of I don't know how much, he could very easily manipulate the small population of the community. Is there any prevention somewhere so that the community has a say as to what areas of land can be developed for what before they are declared for sale?

Mr. Chairman, in situations that the Member is raising, I think the municipalities would be able to create their own by-laws which would require procedures that the residents of that municipality would have to follow. It would be up to the community to decide whether the procedure that they have set will ensure protection against land

speculation. Also to say that the by-law would not be able to be changed without the approval of the Minister. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my last question is not related to that one. There is a section or provision in the final agreement of the land claims. I don't have my copy with me right now so I cannot pinpoint the exact clause it's under, but I know there is a provision for the community to extend their boundary beyond the present hamlet boundary or municipal boundary. This amendment to the Hamlets Act will not prevent that to continue to accommodate the community needs.

Mr. Chairman, if there is anything within our legislation that contradicts the Nunavut land claim agreement, the legislation in the territories would have no effect because the land claim agreement is under the Constitution. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no problem with this bill because, according to my understanding, this bill deals with only the land that belongs to a municipal corporation. The municipal corporation can only purchase, lease or otherwise acquire new property only for the municipal purpose. That is my understanding, so, therefore, I have no problem. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, when we travelled to the western Arctic communities, their concern was that the treaty between the band councils and the federal government would have two different opinions, one being the written version of the federal government and the other being the verbal version of the Dene band council. That can be quite accurate, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, some of the band councils requested to be excluded from this bill because of the outstanding issues between the federal government and the band councils. Therefore, the territorial government is not recognized as being the prime central body by some of the Dene communities. I respect them for that. I have no problem with the bill but what I have said. Thank you.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Gargan.

Again, while we are on this issue, in my introduction to the bills, I did mention that we did have other options for amending the bills. One of the options was that the act would only apply to the Nunavut territory and that those communities in the western Arctic where the local municipality says yes and the band council says yes, that was the one other option we had. The reason we went with the government's amendments is because it is less complicated. I think we talk about democracy. I don't know why one group should have veto over another group and all of these different little problems start surfacing. As a way to address that, we thought that by virtue of deleting these communities, then we don't create a situation where we could have a municipal council and band council fighting over each other. That was the best solution. I thought it was good. Although, originally, we thought perhaps our amendment was quite good, we decided that this was the best way of dealing with the circumstances that existed at that time. I think it is good. Mr. Chairman, I request we go clause by clause.

Thank you, Mr. Gargan. Mr. Antoine.

I want to ask some questions to the Minister. We are dealing with land here. If municipalities have the authority to acquire, hold and sell real and personal property, as the question of ownership is of prime concern in the western NWT, where would these tracks of land be made available from? Where would this land come from? Under what authority would ownership of such land be transferred for municipal use of holding, selling and acquiring real and personal property? How does this come about? Where does the land come from? Who has the authority to say, use this land? Where do you get the authority from? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Mr. Ashton to answer the question.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ashton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The situation is quite clear in the Nunavut communities that, because of the Nunavut final agreement and the legislation to implement the Nunavut final agreement, the land is being turned over as municipal lands to these communities. In the western Arctic, the lands are still administered by government, mostly by the territorial government, as Commissioner's lands. If there was going to be any lands turned over to municipalities as municipal lands, the normal way for the communities to own these lands would be that they would buy them from the GNWT, usually for a nominal amount. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ashton. Mr. Antoine.

We are talking about municipalities having authority to acquire, hold and sell real and personal property. We are talking about land here. The answer I received is assuming that the government already has the authority over these lands. How did that authority come about? How did you acquire these lands so that you are able to release them to municipalities? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister, where is the legislative authority?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would like to ask Mr. Ashton to respond.

Mr. Ashton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The answer to that is, I guess, tied up in the whole question of what is Commissioner's land. The territorial government, per se, does not own any land. What happens is that the federal government transfers the administration and control over certain parcels of land to the Commissioner. By administration, I mean that the Commissioner's land staff would administer the land instead of the land staff of the Minister of DIAND. By control, I mean that the territorial legislation would apply instead of the federal legislation. As we know, there is a dispute going back to the treaties and so on as to who actually owns the land. The federal government claims they have an interest in the land for various historical reasons and certainly the aboriginal people claim they have an interest in the land. In those areas of the NWT where land claims are not settled, this is an issue that needs to be resolved between the parties. But, where the claims are settled and there is some certainty, the federal government has created the legislative authority for the Commissioner to act on behalf of the Minister of DIAND and any lands that would be sold to a municipal corporation would be sold under the signature of the Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He answered my question and he also answered the second question I was going to ask. My concern here is that in areas where land claims have not been settled, where the federal government gets authority to transfer land when it's in dispute. There are disputes with the Treaty 8 groups and the Treaty 11 groups over land. According to the treaties land was not given up, but the federal government is assuming it owns the land and therefore transfers it to Commissioner's land and this is property you are talking about transferring over to the municipalities. It's in dispute. That's the problem I see here.

I said earlier that the solution would be to clearly define ownership within the remaining regions where no land claim agreements or land entitlements exist today. I would just like to make that point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. We seem to be moving slightly away from Bill 4, however I will let the Minister respond to Mr. Antoine. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Ashton to respond again. Thank you.

Mr. Ashton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just make a quick comment in response to the Member's remarks and that is to say that the federal government has passed legislation, the Territorial Lands Act, which concerns land within the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. That is their legislative basis to deal with land in the Northwest Territories and to turn over any land to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. However, I would just point out, as was mentioned earlier, that the territorial government follows a land lease-only policy and, in those areas where land claims are not settled, the policy ensures there are no sales of land to municipalities or to others where claims are not settled.

Thank you. General comments. Shall we go clause by clause?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause By Clause

Thank you. Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Hamlets Act. Clause 1.

Agreed.

---Agreed

I'll go slowly in order to accommodate anyone who has any concerns with any of the clauses within Bill 4. Clause 2. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. There is a request from the floor that we take a five minute break. Do we have the concurrence of the committee?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you, very much. We'll take a five minute break.

---SHORT RECESS

Question.

Agreed.

---Agreed