Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek unanimous consent to go back to Schedule F.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it is under Schedule F, amendments to the Land Titles Act. I don't have a clear understanding of this amendment. I have a number of issues dealing with land ownership, taxation to land ownership, et cetera, that my constituents have. I would just like to get a clarification from the clerk on the meaning of this amendment. Thank you.

I am not sure, Mr. Chairman. I haven't gone that far ahead. I don't think it's clause 27, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to explain to me what these amendments mean to communities that have not settled land claims, that have issues with property taxes with this government, ownership issues of land with this government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendments relating to plans filed to better define natural boundaries doesn't have any impact on unsettled claims. Natural boundaries are essentially boundaries that aren't fully surveyed. Typically those are water boundaries, any lot that abutted onto the Mackenzie River, for example, or any body of water. The boundary that is defined by the ordinary high water mark would be the best example of a natural boundary. The amendments simply allow plans to be filed in land titles and be recognized that the boundary moves and changes when the natural boundaries change, which they do over extended periods of time, in the case of water boundaries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see this amendment also permits the registrar to produce a descriptive plan in cancelling or replacing existing certificates of title or in reference to a new plan. How would that be done for the people who have ownership of property that may not be recognized by this government be included in this act or those that are disputing the government's position on property lines and the certification of ownership of those properties? Would they be affected by this act? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This act applies only to land that's already within the land title system, land that is privately owned where there aren't boundary issues to begin with. The amendments that provide that the registrar may produce a plan to replace an existing legal description is intended to deal with those situations where the description on an existing title is described in words, often referred to as meets and bounds descriptions. The plan that would be produced isn't intended, in any way, to amend the boundary. It's simply to produce a pictorial representation of the words that currently describe the boundary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, how does this address the concerns and issues that individuals have when they have a dispute on who holds what land? For example, a constituent wants to claim ownership to a property where public roads have been built on without the permission of the property owner. What I am afraid of is the amendment to this act might just take away his rights to deal effectively to force a resolution of this understanding between the government and the constituent. Other people in the Northwest Territories may have a similar problem. I'm not sure how this amendment to this act would affect a person who is in that position. That you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These amendments have no effect on instances where ownership is in dispute in any way. The plans filed relating to natural boundaries are only filed on the consent of all of the parties involved, including anybody with any adjacent interest, and the plans that are replaced meet balanced descriptions that are prepared by the registrar, describe only and may only describe the boundaries that actually exist at the present time. So there are no amendments relating to issues that may be in dispute between parties.

Agreed.

Agreed.

---Agreed