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.