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.